Does the mandate make a difference? reporting decisions in emotional abuse

Abstract

Mandated (N = 57) and non-mandated (N = 94) reporters were questioned as to their perceptions of the seriousness of 20 vignettes related to child emotional abuse, as well as their willingness to report the actions contained in the vignettes to child protective services. No difference was observed between mandated and non-mandated reporters on the mean number of vignettes considered reportable. In addition, several psychosocial variables, including perceptions of teasing, political viewpoint, tendencies towards diffuse responsibility, perceptions of child protective services (CPS) and attitude towards helping others, were measured. Separate regression equations for mandated and non-mandated reporters showed two different models in predicting reporting tendencies. Mandated reporters were most affected by the seriousness of the situation and their willingness to engage in prosocial behaviour, whereas non-mandated reporters were most motivated by judgements of the seriousness of the abusive situation and their faith in child protective services. Being a male was also observed to be more predictive of reporting for non-mandated reporters.

The Repercussions of Emotional Abuse and Parenting Styles on Self-Esteem, Subjective Well-Being: A Retrospective Study with University Students in Brazil

“…Binggeli, Hart, and Brassard (2002) estimated that EA might have been a significant presence in the childhood histories of more than one third of the general adult population of the United States with an estimate that 10% to 15% of all people have experienced more severe and chronic forms of this abuse. The phenomenon of child abuse in general is not limited to the United States, and research on the subject is needed from and largely applicable to all peoples of the world (Carleton, 2006).…”

Correlates of Substantiated Emotional Maltreatment in the Second Canadian Incidence Study

“…However, when a report involved two or more forms of maltreatment, the likelihood of there being at least one PMT was greater (2.73 versus 1.58 children per 1,000). As in other studies, these data suggest that cases of PMT are detected nearly twice as often in conjunction with situations of neglect and physical or sexual abuse (Carleton 2006;Chamberland et al 2005;Glaser and Prior 1997;Higgins and McCabe 2001;Sheehan 2006).…”

“…Other studies noted, in fact, that PMT reports reveal more chronic victimization situations that are associated with greater emotional impact, but not with physical harm (Carleton 2006;Gibbons, 1995, as cited in Wilding andThoburn 1997;Glaser and Prior 1997;Hamarman and Bernet 2000;Sheehan 2006). It should be noted, however, that there may be a tautological effect related to the very definition of PMT proposed to the protection workers in that study.…”

“…These cases are more chronic, associated with emotional impact, but not with physical harm, and are more often observed when other forms of maltreatment are also present (Carleton 2006;Gibbons, 1995, as cited in Wilding andThoburn 1997;Glaser and Prior 1997;Hamarman and Bernet 2000;Sheehan 2006). It appears that these cases are not viewed as isolated incidents but have persisted for a certain period; these children are already known to social workers, and are the subjects of prior reports (Chamberland et al 2005;Glaser and Prior 1997;Wilding and Thoburn 1997).…”

“…Some studies have addressed the influence of the reporter in affecting PMT rates even before the process begins, particularly looking at whether it matters whether the reporter is a child protection worker, a social worker not assigned to child protection, or a member of the public (Carleton 2006;Giovannoni and Becerra 1979). Other studies have focused on the criteria associated with reasons for reporting and with report assessments: the life situation of the parent (e.g., substance abuse, domestic violence, and mental health), the abusive behaviour of the parent (e.g., a significant proportion of which involves inappropriate behaviour in relation to the developmental level of the child), and the harmful impact on the child, especially on emotional, behavioural, and cognitive levels.…”