Breaking Down the Four Preconditions Model
How the offender goes through stages from internal motivation to committing the assault
Here we are, back at it.
We are moving on to breaking down Dr. David Finkelhor’s “Four Preconditions Model.” (See Finkelhor’s bio and publications at the UNH website here and at his Google Scholar page.)
The Four Preconditions Model (D. Finkelhor, 1984) is meant to demonstrate/ explain the sequential stages that someone will go through before they sexually abuse a child. From the last post, here are the pillars of the model:
(#1) emotional congruence — the adult starts with an emotional need/ desire to relate to a child. This is the the initial driving factor, the adult feels a psychological/ emotional closeness with children as a first step.
(#2) sexual arousal — why/ how the adult could becomes sexually aroused by a child. During this stage the adult overcomes ‘internal inhibitors’— they quiet their conscience and disregard/ manipulate messages from society that children are not suitable subjects of sexual desire.
(#3) blockage — alternative sources of sexual and emotional gratification are not available to the adult. This stage is now described as ‘overcoming external inhibitors.’ This is the stage where the person starts to find avenues to connect with children; they create opportunities to be near and/ or alone with children.
(#4) disinhibition — at this stage, the adult is not deterred from such an interest by normal prohibitions, neither their internal conscience/ reasoning or external barriers. This stage is now referred to as “overcoming child resistance.” In this stage, the adult works to gain/ force compliance from the child (referred to as “grooming”) and prevent the child from disclosing.
Here is a graphic from The Lucy Faithfull Foundation, described as a “child protection charity.” (They have an interesting child abuse prevention toolkit that I’d like to explore later.)
“The Four Preconditions Model” (D. Finkelhor), graphic courtesy of The Lucy Faithfull Foundation
This graphic is helpful, albeit imperfect. For the initial motivation stage, illustrated at the far left, the person would not already be imagining “sex with a child”— at least according to the Finkelhor model. Rather, the offender will experience an emotional/ mental closeness with children. The sequence starts rolling with an over-identification with children— not necessarily a sexualization of children. That step seems to comes later. Therefore, the thought bubble could read instead, “I relate to children,” or “I prefer being with children over adults.”
Alright — let’s take these one by one. What is “emotional congruence” anyway?
For two things to be congruent, it means they are in agreement, in harmony; they are compatible. Emotional congruence is when we experience the feeling of ‘being on the same page’ as another person. We believe/ feel we can relate to them.
“Emotional congruence with children” (ECWC) is a term from psychology that describes an ‘above average’ emotional and cognitive connection with childhood/ children. Finkelhor described ECWC as the display of “exaggerated cognitive and emotional affiliation with childhood.”
I’m using the term “above average” because I’d fear calling anything “exaggerated” or “extreme” could blind people from recognizing problematic behavior. Whereas if the bar is lower, we might have greater sensitivity to something. This could help us to notice something problematic.
Other researchers/ scientists refer to ECWC as an “over-identification with childhood.” This plain-speak language is easier to understand, which is important when we are dealing with something that is counterintuitive/ confusing. It is also useful to note that the offender can feel/ exhibit an attraction to/ affiliation with childhood. This helps us because it widens what we might want to be aware of. Perhaps the offender conceals their fondness for children, knowing that it could put some people off. But if it is socially acceptable for them to have an affiliation with childhood— which, all of us have had a childhood— then this may be what the offender reveals more easily and what we will perceive.
This trait (ECWC) has been identified in people who’ve sexually abused children through semi-structured interviews and through the use of the “Child Identification Scale” survey.
A detour here— the goal of any education, any new knowledge is to do/ make something better. Right? So, if the goal of Protect the Parents is to share knowledge that can help protective parents + the general public to know more about the protective parent experience and incumbent issues— like child sexual abuse— we should look for ways to do things better. [A shorthand for “protective parents” would be useful…any ideas?]
In researching this four preconditions model, it’s been illuminating to learn about the stages that a person goes through in order to reach the event. I’ve been thinking about the child abuse case I researched for my master’s thesis, and specific details that could correlate with the model.
As a protective parent— could you cite Finkelhor’s model to a judge in trying to prove sexual abuse? For example, that the offender exhibited behavior or made statements that align with the “Child Identification Scale” survey— demonstrating that he has ECWC, which is a psychological precursor to sexual abuse? Perhaps he demonstrated ECWC via statements he has made via text, or groups he has joined on FaceBook, or hobbies he has?
Please message me or leave a comment below on how that might fly, or if you have tried anything like that. I’d love to focus on practical tips of how to navigate court cases better, which protective parents face continually.
In terms of knowledge and tools, it’s helpful to have the original research in addition to something operational (“ready for use”). Like how Finkelhor’s model involves ECWC, which is (in part) evaluated by a simple checklist.
For example, initially I couldn’t think of anyone I know who might feel emotional congruence with children. Even when thinking about someone having “an affinity with childhood,” nothing comes to mind. But the checklist helps to distill the ideas. With the checklist I can think of some people who have exhibited behavior that suggests they may harbor those feelings.
I’m not suggesting that anyone is a pedophile for having feelings that can correlate to the Child Identification Scale. I’m suggesting that having a checklist can empower us to sift through things that are counterintuitive/ confusing. And a checklist can give us an entry point to questioning and identifying indicators. From there, the brain can make a mental note. If, going forward, that person exhibits other questionable behavior, we have already begun that line of inquiry.
Some questions/ concepts in the survey:
— Adult responsibilities are just too stressful
— I often wish I could start my life over again
— I wish I had fewer responsibilities
— You never outgrow amusement parks
Stay aware, keep questioning, take care.