Cited by 98Child Abuse and TraumaSexual Assault and Victimization StudiesCybercrime and Law Enforcement Studies

Victims’ Voices: The Impact of Online Grooming and Sexual Abuse

Open access
C. Whittle, Helen, Hamilton-Giachritsis, Catherine, R. Beech, Anthony·2013·Universal Journal of Psychology

Abstract

This paper reports one of the first studies to identify the impact on the victim of online grooming leading to online and/or offline sexual abuse. Eight young people (six females and two males) who had been victimised through online grooming and subsequently experienced sexual abuse online and/or offline were interviewed. Thematic Analysis was used to analyse the data. The impact of sexual abuse on the young person appears to be correlated with their level of vulnerability prior to the onset of grooming and also their experience with professionals following abuse. Most notably, those experiencing multiple long-term risk factors suffered greater negative impact after the grooming and abuse on an individual level (e.g., self-harm, depression), compared to those who had more protection. However, these individuals were also more likely to experience unsupportive and negative responses from their families. Therefore future research is required to further investigate this relationship. There is no evidence in this study to suggest that young people who are abused via the Internet suffer less harm than those who are abused offline. Based on the victim’s direct experience of the services, recommendations are given for police, ABE (Achieving Best Evidence) interviewers, educationalists, and parents and carers.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.13189/ujp.2013.010206

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • No included study examined self-harm or problems with friends as potential outcomes.

    “For example, no included study examined loneliness or family difficulties as potential risk factors (Webster et al., 2012; Whittle et al., 2014), self-harm or problems with friends as potential outcomes (Whittle et al., 2013b).”

    From Cybergrooming Victimization Among Young People: A Systematic Review of Prevalence Rates, Risk Factors, and Outcomes (2025) · cites this paper as Whittle et al., 2013b

    Section 3.1 reports self-harm after the abuse in two cases. Section 3.3 examines consequences for friendships, including difficulty with friends and peer bullying. The cited study therefore addresses both outcomes the claim says no included study examined. (LLM, conf=0.92)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Whittle et al. [12] studied the impact of online grooming on victims by interviewing eight young victims who were abused through online grooming.

    “Whittle et al. [12] studied the impact of online grooming on victims by interviewing eight young victims who were abused through online grooming.”
  • As the child's level of vulnerability increases, online grooming affects the victim more adversely.

    “It was shown that as the child's level of vulnerability increases, online grooming would affect the victim more adversely.”
  • Interviews with victims of cybergrooming that has led to sexual abuse demonstrated that distal outcomes are conceivable in terms of mental health, physical health, social functioning, and behavioral problems.

    “Interviews with victims of cybergrooming that has led to sexual abuse demonstrated that distal outcomes are conceivable in terms of mental health (e.g., inability to forget the abuse), physical health (e.g., self-harm), social functioning (e.g., difficulties in relationships), and behavioral problems (e.g., aggression) (Whittle et al., 2013b).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Farmer, E. (2010). NSPCC Inform Briefing: What do we know about child sexual abuse? A Review of the Literature. Unpublished Manuscript.
  2. Ministry of Justice. (2011). Achieving best evidence in criminal proceedings: Guidance on interviewing victims and witnesses, and guidance on using special measures. Crown Copyright

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
C. Whittle, H., Hamilton-Giachritsis, C., & R. Beech, A.
Affiliations
University of Birmingham (GB)
Venue
Universal Journal of Psychology
Published
2013-08
Volume
1
Issue
2
Pages
59-71
ISSN
  • 2332-3477 (ISSN-L)
  • 2332-3485
OpenAlex
W2110387386
Cited by
98
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 1 · 2014: 4
FWCI
1.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
Universal Journal of Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
University of Birmingham
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child Abuse and Trauma
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Sexual Assault and Victimization Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Cybercrime and Law Enforcement Studies
Keywords
online grooming, child sexual abuse, online sexual abuse, victim impact, youth, vulnerability, self-harm, depression, family support, police interviews, child protection

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