Laypeople’s decision-making in reporting child maltreatment: Child and family characteristics as a source of bias.

Abstract

Objectives: The process of reporting child maltreatment may be vulnerable to judgment bias, which may, in turn, affect the various stages of the child protection system continuum. In this study, we examine the role of child (gender, race/ethnicity, and age) and family characteristics (family structure and socioeconomic status) in laypeople’s severity assessment and probability of referral of child maltreatment (abuse or neglect). Method: Participants responded to a questionnaire presenting vignettes of abuse or neglect (based on Portuguese legal standards) that varied in the characteristics of the child and the family and assessed either the severity of abuse or severity of neglect, and the probability of referral of each situation. Results: Results indicated pervasive bias. Despite acknowledging the severity of both abuse and neglect situations, the likelihood of reporting maltreatment was higher (a) for female, younger, White, and Black children compared with male, older children and children of Roma ethnicity; and (b) for families with economic difficulties, divorced, single parent, and stepfamilies compared with nuclear families. Conclusions: These results emphasize the importance of studying the referral process of child maltreatment at a community level. We suggest that public awareness may facilitate the referral of maltreatment, minimizing the overreporting and underreporting of cases and encouraging early and preventive intervention.

Potential Reporters of Suspected Child Maltreatment are Sensitive to the Amount of Evidence and the Potential Consequences of Reporting

“…Adults who suspect a child may be maltreated often elect not to make a formal report of their suspicion. Though we are beginning to gain a better understanding of how professionals who have regular contact with children (e.g., teachers, physicians) make formal reporting decisions (e.g., Alvarez et al, 2004 ; Beck et al, 1994 ; Talsma et al, 2015 ; Tufford & Lee, 2019 ), we know little about how adults who may not have specific training in formal reporting policies respond (but see Calheiros et al., 2020 ). Further, research on professionals’ decision-making has established that concern about consequences and confidence in ability to detect abuse are both primary barriers to formal reporting.…”

“…There are some hints in the extant literature that can help guide hypotheses about factors influencing an informal recipient’s decision to make a formal report. Recent evidence suggests that some biases can increase the likelihood of maltreatment reports, including when the victim appears more vulnerable (e.g., young and female vs. older and male) and the likelihood of abuse is judged to be higher (e.g., families with economic difficulties; Calheiros et al, 2020 ). Further, Beck and colleagues (1994) found that 40% of Canadian teachers who did not report suspected child abuse or neglect failed to do so because of concerns related to potential consequences faced by the child or the family (see also Hansen et al, 1997 ).…”

“…Researchers have investigated the frequency with which children disclose to various parties ( Pipe et al, 2007 ), but we know little about how informal receivers decide to proceed from informal disclosures or suspicion of maltreatment to formal reports. Though there have been several studies on barriers to reporting suspected abuse in particular groups of professionals (e.g., teachers, emergency room personnel, physicians; e.g., Alvarez et al, 2004 ; Beck et al, 1994 ; Talsma et al, 2015 ; Tiyyagura et al, 2015 ), exploration of factors contributing to the decision-making processes of those who are not in a professional role when receiving disclosures is lacking (but see Calheiros et al, 2020 ; Dickerson et al, 2017 ).…”

Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) are increasing in indigenous populations in Canada: Now what?

“…This table is meant to be an estimate of national trends for both Indigenous-specific and general population trends in Canadian samples, as accurate prevalence estimates of ACEs within national populations are challenging to provide. Reporting can be influenced by individual disclosure or reporting bias (Calheiros et al, 2020; Enosh et al, 2021), the presence and structure of health and child welfare agencies, policies, and providers (Cooley & Jackson, 2020; Livingston et al, 2021), type of maltreatment (Livingston et al, 2021), and seasonality (Shields et al, 2021), in addition to the ability to collect and document reports in a consistent manner within a regionally specific database (Fallon et al, 2010; Leeb & Fluke, 2015; Smith et al, 2017). Although this table is not directly comparable to the method used by Finkelhor (2020), it does describe national data related to family violence and mental health difficulties for Indigenous people in Canada.…”

Specific early maladaptive schemas differentially mediate the relations of emotional and sexual maltreatment to recent life events in youth with depression

“…Evidence has documented that the contextual CECA and LEDS have strong validity even in the context of state depression (Brown et al, 2007a(Brown et al, , 2007bHarkness & Monroe, 2016). Further, such measures are preferable to objective reports of maltreatment (e.g., court records) for addressing the current research question, as the sample of individuals who report abuse is not representative of the population of individuals who are victims of maltreatment (Calheiros et al, 2020). Nevertheless, converging evidence from prospective research in children with documented maltreatment would definitively rule out reporting bias.…”