CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 35Cybercrime and Law Enforcement StudiesLegal and Social Justice StudiesSexual Assault and Victimization Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 16 of the 17 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Online child sexual grooming: Empirical findings on victimisation and perspectives on legal requirements

Villacampa, Carolina, Gómez, Mª Jesus·2017·International Review of Victimology
DOI 10.1177/0269758016682585
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This work presents the results of quantitative research into online child grooming carried out with a sample of 489 secondary school students in Catalonia (Spain). Besides determining the rate of victimisation of children by this behaviour, it establishes the profile of the victims and the offenders. In addition, it analyses the dynamics of these processes, victim–offender interaction, the level of effect that this behaviour has on the victims and the way in which an end was put to the situation. The results obtained in this empirical research do not permit confirmation of the common opinion that the widespread use of information and communication technology has led to an exponential increase in the victimisation of minors through online child grooming behaviour by unknown adults offline, because of which we need to react through the criminalisation of this behaviour.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0269758016682585

Cites

16 of 16 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

  • Cybergrooming research revealed that approximately two-thirds of victims disclose to someone, with peers being the main confidants.

    “Consistent with this, cybergrooming research revealed that approximately two-thirds of victims disclose to someone, with peers being the main confidants (Juusola et al., 2021; Villacampa & Gómez, 2017).”

    From Why They Speak Up (or Don’t): Reasons For and Against Cybergrooming Disclosure Among Adolescent Victims (2025) · cites this paper as Villacampa & Gómez, 2017

  • The disclosure rate was higher than in previous studies, especially concerning disclosure to adults.

    “Concerning the first objective, the findings showed that, in total, 86% of victims disclosed to someone, indicating a higher disclosure rate than in previous studies, especially concerning disclosure to adults (Juusola et al., 2021; Villacampa & Gómez, 2017).”

    From Why They Speak Up (or Don’t): Reasons For and Against Cybergrooming Disclosure Among Adolescent Victims (2025) · cites this paper as Villacampa & Gómez, 2017

  • Initial studies revealed reasons against cybergrooming disclosure include not perceiving the situation as serious, insufficient courage, lack of anticipated interest or help, and feelings of shame and guilt.

    “Initial studies revealed that many victims did not perceive the situation as serious, other reasons against disclosure were insufficient courage to tell, a lack of anticipated interest of others or help through disclosure, and feelings of shame and guilt (Juusola et al., 2021; Villacampa & Gómez, 2017).”

    From Why They Speak Up (or Don’t): Reasons For and Against Cybergrooming Disclosure Among Adolescent Victims (2025) · cites this paper as Villacampa & Gómez, 2017

  • One study indicated that children are more at risk than adolescents.

    “only one study indicated that children are more at risk than adolescents (Villacampa & Gómez, 2017).”

    From Cybergrooming Victimization Among Young People: A Systematic Review of Prevalence Rates, Risk Factors, and Outcomes (2025) · cites this paper as Villacampa & Gómez, 2017

  • In the case of peer grooming, more victims commonly used social networks than chat platforms, while in the case of adult grooming, victims used both equally.

    “Furthermore, in the case of peer grooming, more victims commonly used social networks than chat platforms, while in the case of adult grooming, victims used both equally (Villacampa & Gómez, 2017).”

    From Cybergrooming Victimization Among Young People: A Systematic Review of Prevalence Rates, Risk Factors, and Outcomes (2025) · cites this paper as Villacampa & Gómez, 2017

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 17 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 13

  1. Carrasco JL, 1993, Estadística multivariante en las ciencias de la vida
  2. Duncan SH, 2007, Kentucky Law Journal, 96, 527
  3. Groppe JS, 2007, CommLaw Conspectus: Journal of Communications Law and Technology Policy, 16, 215
  4. Hamilton M, 2011, Cardozo Law Review, 33, 1679
  5. Haubenreich S, 2008, Hastings Communications and Entertainment Law Journal, 31, 223
  6. Hughes DM, 2002, Hastings Women’s Law Journal, 13, 127
  7. Miró F, 2011, Revista Electrónica de Ciencia Penal y Criminología, 13, 1
  8. Pereda N, 2013, Delito, Pena, Política Criminal y Tecnologías de la Información y la Comunicación en las Modernas Ciencias Penales, 91
  9. Pérez C, 2005, Métodos Estadísticos Avanzados con SPPS
  10. Stedman EP, 2007, Villanova Sports & Entertainment Law Journal, 14, 363
  11. Taylor J, 2011, Internet Child Abuse. Current Research and Policy, 126
  12. Van der Heide S, 2008, Hastings Communications and Entertainment Law Journal, 31, 173
  13. Whitaker JL, 2009, Washington & Lee Law Review, 66, 1053

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Villacampa, C., & Gómez, M. J.
Affiliations
University of Lleida, Spain
Venue
International Review of Victimology
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2016-12-20
Volume
23
Issue
2
Pages
105-121
ISSN
  • 0269-7580 (ISSN-L)
  • 2047-9433
DOI
10.1177/0269758016682585
OpenAlex
W2603172380
Cited by
35
References
17
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2
FWCI
2.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
  • International Review of Victimology (publishedVersion)
  • LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) (acceptedVersion)
  • Repositori ObertUDL (University of Lleida) (acceptedVersion)
Funders
Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Law › Cybercrime and Law Enforcement Studies
  • Social Sciences › Law › Legal and Social Justice Studies
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Sexual Assault and Victimization Studies
Keywords
child victimization, high school students, victim-offender interaction, victim profile, criminal profiling, criminalization, information and communication technologies, Catalonia

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