CITATION: Mandel, D. R., Lehman, D. R., & Yuille, J. C. (1995). Reasoning about the removal of a child from home: A comparison of police officers and social workers. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 906-921. TO CONTACT THE FIRST AUTHOR: [email protected] Last updated July 15, 2007

Reasoning about the Removal of a Child From Home 2

Reasoning About the Removal of a Child From Home: A Comparison of Police Officers and Social Workers

David R. Mandel, Darrin R. Lehman, and John C. Yuille University of British Columbia

Reasoning about the Removal of a Child From Home 3 Abstract Compared how police officers and social workers reasoned about the premature removal of a child from home (REMOVE) in a hypothetical child abuse and neglect case. Two case characteristics were manipulated: the child's age (6-7 years vs. 11-12 years) and the predominant race and socioeconomic status of the family's neighborhood (Black, poor vs. White, upper-middle class). After reading the vignette, respondents indicated their level of agreement with REMOVE and provided reasons for their decision. Compared with police officers, social workers exhibited more skeptical reasoning (agreeing significantly less with REMOVE and providing significantly fewer reasons for agreeing with REMOVE). Across both groups, respondents agreed with REMOVE significantly less when the child was described as both older and residing in a poor, Black neighborhood than in any other condition. The results suggest that case characteristics are interpreted configurally in terms of a script.

Reasoning about the Removal of a Child From Home 4 Reasoning About the Removal of a Child From Home: A Comparison of Police Officers and Social Workers Ever since Kempe and his colleagues (Kempe, Silverman, Steele, Droegemueller, & Silver, 1962) first described the "battered child syndrome," increasing attention has been directed toward the problem of child abuse and neglect (CAN). Greater public awareness has led to higher numbers of reported CAN cases (National Center on Child Abuse Prevention Research, 1992). For example, the number of U.S. children reported for child maltreatment increased 40% over 6 years, from approximately 1,924,000 reported cases in 1985 to approximately 2,694,000 reported cases in 1991. These increasing numbers have placed more demand on social workers in children's protective services agencies and police officers, both of whom are responsible for conducting forensic investigations in reported CAN cases. The present study focuses on one aspect of decision making involved in investigating reported CAN cases: the decision of whether or not to remove a child from home. Obviously, the consequences of not removing a child from home when threat exists may be severe, and in some cases children clearly should be removed at least temporarily from home. The premature removal of a child from home, however, can also pose serious problems. Child removals can be traumatic for both the child and family (MacFarlane & Bulkley, 1982). As well, unnecessary removals further strain financially overburdened and understaffed children's protective services agencies (National Center on Child Abuse Prevention Research, 1992), limiting resources available for cases truly requiring assistance (Meddin, 1984). Because the consequences of leaving a child in a dangerous situation or of removing a child from home unnecessarily both are gravely serious, the

Reasoning about the Removal of a Child From Home 5 basis for deciding whether or not to remove a child from home should rest on the facts obtained in a forensic investigation. Such investigations, designed to ascertain the truth regarding the nature of a specific case, are intended to be unbiased, systematic inquiries into allegations of wrongdoing, and as such they require the rigor of a scientific approach (Ceci, Leichtman, & White, in press). Thus, like scientists, CAN investigators should attempt to generate and evaluate as many plausible, alternative hypotheses concerning a particular case, and they should seek out as much uncontaminated information about that case, as is feasible. Recently, we (Mandel, Lehman, & Yuille, in press) examined whether the numbers of CAN professionals' hypotheses, information requests, and unwarranted assumptions (e.g., overconfidence in an assertion) predicted their level of agreement with a premature decision to remove a child from home in a CAN vignette. Supporting the notion that a scientific approach and a skeptical attitude benefit the investigative process, we found that the more professionals generated hypotheses and requested information, and the less they made unwarranted assumptions, the more they disagreed with the premature intervention. Building upon this earlier work, the present study examines the specific types of reasons that police officers and social workers provide for either agreeing or disagreeing with a premature removal of a child from home (REMOVE) made in a hypothetical CAN case. We designed four vignettes such that, although salient pieces of information that might prime respondents to believe that abuse and/or neglect were occurring emerge, no evidence that substantiates the allegations is included. Moreover, given the deliberate ambiguity of case evidence in the vignettes, multiple

Reasoning about the Removal of a Child From Home 6 interpretations of the significance of facts presented in the case could easily be offered. For example, the anonymity of the caller reporting the case in the vignette should raise suspicions about his motives for making the report. The description of the child as "dirty" is highly ambiguous. Is the child filthy, or does the child's pants have some grass stains from playing outside? Similar arguments can be made about ambiguous statements that the house "seemed quite messy," or that there was "little food in the refrigerator" (it is more important to know whether the child was receiving adequate nutrition). The scrape on the child's elbow and bruises on the child's knee are similarly highly ambiguous. If anything may be inferred about these injuries, however, it is that their locations are more consistent with normal play injuries than with locations where one would strike a child (Faller, Bowden, Jones, & Hildebrant, 1981). In short, given the information provided, the case is indeterminate (i.e., the allegations cannot be legitimately defined as either credible or noncredible due to a lack of diagnostic information on which to base such a judgment). The proper step given the inconclusive information provided is to pursue further the forensic investigation in an attempt to clarify the true nature of the child's situation. One goal of this study is to compare police officers with social workers. The sample of respondents in our earlier study consisted primarily of social workers, thus precluding such comparisons. This comparison is important, however, because both groups are involved in the investigatory process, yet each receives different training and operates under a different agency mandate. Police officers are mandated to gather information regarding potential criminal charges, and social workers are responsible for initial risk assessments (Hunter, Yuille, & Harvey, 1990). In both cases, seeking

Reasoning about the Removal of a Child From Home 7 uncontaminated information in a scientific manner is essential to the integrity of the investigative process. Some researchers (e.g., Yuille, 1988) have suggested that because social workers place emphasis on child advocacy and child protection, they are likely to be more concerned than police about reducing the possibility that a child is harmed by an alleged perpetrator. Though plausible, such a suggestion has not been systematically examined. A second goal of this study is to examine the effects of two case characteristics (child's age and predominant race/socioeconomic status (SES) of the neighborhood in which the case occurred) on respondents' judgments and reasoning. The literature offers mixed results of the effect of a child's age on CAN decisions. In New York State, for example, child's age was directly related to likelihood of substantiation of child sexual abuse cases, inversely related to likelihood of substantiation of child neglect cases, and unrelated to likelihood of substantiation of physical abuse (Eckenrode, Powers, Doris, Munsch, & Bolger, 1988). In South Australia, child's age was directly related to likelihood of substantiation of child maltreatment cases in general (Winefield & Bradley, 1992). Child's age, however, was unrelated to both severity of social workers' risk assessments and the Australian court's decision to formally remove a child from home in child abuse cases (Dalgleish & Drew, 1989). We suspect that child's age can influence investigative decision making in two potentially opposing ways. On the one hand, because older children are generally more verbally expressive to CAN investigators than are younger children (Winefield & Bradley, 1992), they can provide more information than younger children (Yuille, 1988). On the other hand, CAN investigators may

Reasoning about the Removal of a Child From Home 8 judge younger children to be more vulnerable than older children or adolescents. This may be especially likely in scenario research where there is no information exchange between the child and investigator. In support of this assertion, Zellman (1992) found that mandated reporters generally were more likely to "report" younger children than older children in hypothetical CAN cases (Zellman, 1992). In line with the view that investigative decision making should flow from a well-conducted forensic investigation, we suggest that it is inappropriate to base investigative judgments on a child's age per se. Rather, it is more informative to ascertain something about a child's developmental level by asking the child questions and gauging the child's responses. For instance, in all but the most unambiguous reported neglect cases, CAN investigators should not assume that a child is "too young to be left alone" or "old enough to be left alone." We were thus interested in examining the types of reasons related to child's age that respondents might provide. We expect that most respondents who provide reasons related to the child's age will judge the child to be either too young to be left alone (i.e., in the younger child condition) or old enough to be left alone (in the older child condition), with relatively fewer respondents citing the need to assess the child's developmental level more carefully. In line with this prediction, we also anticipate that respondents in the younger child condition will have significantly higher mean levels of agreement with REMOVE than will respondents in the older child condition. We also manipulated the predominant race and SES of the neighborhood in the vignette so that in one case the neighborhood was White, upper-middle class and in the other case the neighborhood was Black

Reasoning about the Removal of a Child From Home 9 and poor. As with child's age, we anticipated that respondents may be influenced by these case characteristics. On the whole, previous research indicates that Black or low-SES families are more likely to be reported than are White or high-SES families (Hampton & Newberger, 1984; O'Toole, Turbett, & Nalepka, 1983; Zellman, 1992), and that CAN cases involving Black children have higher substantiation rates than those cases involving White children (Eckenrode et al., 1988; cf. Winefield & Bradley, 1992). We thus anticipate that respondents in the Black/low-SES condition will have a significantly higher mean level of agreement with REMOVE than will respondents in the White/high-SES condition. Method Respondents Forty-seven police officers and 34 social workers enrolled in a 3-day workshop focusing on issues related to the investigation of CAN cases voluntarily participated in the study. The workshop (held in Milwaukee, WI) focused on particular types of male sex offenders of children, child development (e.g., language and cognitive development), the Step-Wise Interview procedure (Yuille, Hunter, Joffe, & Zaparniuk, 1993), and Statement Validity Analysis (Yuille, 1988). All respondents reported having experience in conducting investigations (e.g., interviewing and credibility assessment). A greater proportion of social workers were female (n = 28) than were male (n = 6) and a smaller proportion of police officers were female (n = 10) than were male (n = 37), χ2(1, N = 81) = 27.2, p < .001. The difference in years of experience working with CAN cases between police officers (M = 4.8, SD = 6.5) and social workers (M = 7.4, SD = 7.3) was marginally significant, t(79) = -1.7, p = .10, although no significant difference in age was

Reasoning about the Removal of a Child From Home 10 observed between police officers (M = 39 years, SD = 6 years) and social workers (M = 37 years, SD = 7 years), t < 1.

Materials Four vignettes of a reported CAN case (modified from Mandel et al., in press) were used in this study. One vignette follows: A social work agency receives an anonymous call on May 28th from a caller who states that he is aware of a case of child neglect and abuse. The caller gives the name of the family and the address. Chris, a social worker with many years experience, responds to the call. The address that was given is located in a very poor area of the city that is predominantly populated by Blacks. At 4:15 p.m., the social worker knocks on the door. It is answered by a child approximately 6 or 7 years old. At first glance Chris sees that the child is dirty. There are bruises on both the child's knees and there is a scrape on the child's right elbow. Looking past the child, Chris views the residence. It seems quite messy. Upon closer inspection Chris finds that there is little food in the refrigerator. Chris questions the child on the whereabouts of the parents, and the child's response is "I don't know." Chris also asks how long the child has been alone. The child responds, "All day." After considering the situation, Chris decides to take the child into care. Depending on the experimental condition, the child was described as being either "approximately 6 or 7 years old" or "approximately 11 or 12 years old." The address of the family that was given was described as being located in

Reasoning about the Removal of a Child From Home 11 either "a very poor area of the city that is predominantly populated by Blacks" or "a predominantly White, upper-middle class area of the city." The four vignettes were otherwise identical. Design A 2 (child's age) x 2 (predominant neighborhood race and SES) betweensubjects design with random assignment to conditions was employed. The frequency of investigators in each condition was independent of profession, χ2(3, N = 81) = 3.1, p > .30. Procedure Respondents were instructed to carefully read and consider the hypothetical case presented to them, and to indicate on a strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7) scale their response to the question, "to what extent do you agree or disagree with the social worker's intervention?" Respondents then listed in an open-ended manner the features of the case that led to their level of agreement with REMOVE (i.e., their reasons for their level of agreement with REMOVE). Respondents' reasons were exhaustively content coded into response categories by the first author. We selected a level of grouping that reflected both characteristics about the case and whether respondents' statements indicated reasons for agreeing or disagreeing with REMOVE. For example, responses such as, "the bruises need further investigation," or "the bruises might have resulted from playing," were grouped under Category 13 (see Table 1) as a reason for disagreeing with REMOVE. However, responses such as, "the bruises might require medical attention," were grouped under Category 3 as a reason for agreeing with REMOVE. The coding procedure yielded 25 categories. In order to avoid categories that accounted for only a couple of

Reasoning about the Removal of a Child From Home 12 responses, those represented by less than 5% of respondents were omitted, except for Category 11 (developmental level) which was of a priori interest. The remaining 20 categories are described in Table 1. To establish interrater reliability, a second rater coded responses from a random sample of 40 respondents. Inter-rater reliabilities ranged between 85% and 100% across the 20 categories (M = 95%). Responses were coded blind to experimental condition (except in those few cases where respondents mentioned the child's age or the predominant race/SES of the neighborhood in their responses). ______________________________ Insert Table 1 about here ______________________________ Results Preliminary Statistics A single index of number of reasons for agreeing with REMOVE (#REASONS) was created by subtracting the sum of (disagree) Categories 9-20 from (agree) Categories 1-8 (these two sums were strongly correlated, r[79] = .64, p < .001). Not surprisingly, #REASONS and level of agreement with REMOVE (LEVAGREE) were significantly correlated, r(78) = .72, p < .001. Age of respondent was not significantly correlated with #REASONS or LEVAGREE (ps > .25). Number of years of professional experience was not significantly correlated with LEVAGREE (p > .25) but was marginally correlated with #REASONS, r(79) = .17, p = .07. Comparisons Between Police Officers and Social Workers Due to the nonindependence of profession and sex of respondent, oneway (Profession) ANCOVAs on LEVAGREE and #REASONS, with sex entered

Reasoning about the Removal of a Child From Home 13 first as a covariate, were calculated. Sex was a significant covariate of LEVAGREE (F[1, 77] = 9.7, p < .005) and of #REASONS (F[1, 77] = 13.2, p = .001). However, even after controlling for sex of respondent, significant differences between police officers and social workers emerged for both LEVAGREE (M = 4.7, SD = 1.9 for police officers vs. M = 3.0, SD = 1.9 for social workers; F[1, 77] = 7.8, p < .01) and for #REASONS (F[1, 77] = 10.9, p = .001). In contrast, if sex of respondent was entered as a covariate after profession, then only the effect of profession was significant (Fs for sex < 1). Table 2 shows the percentages of police officers and social workers in each of the reason categories (second and third columns) and the Chi-square estimates of independence of profession and investigators' reasons for their level of agreement with REMOVE (fourth column). As can be seen in Table 2, police officers were significantly more likely than social workers to provide the following specific reasons for agreeing with REMOVE: (a) little food, (b) child alone "all day," (c) messiness of residence, (d) child's bruises/scrape, and (e) dirtiness of child. As also can be seen in Table 2, social workers were significantly more likely than police officers to provide the following specific reasons for disagreeing with REMOVE: (a) inadequate investigation, (b) question child, (c) some food, (d) question others, (e) child's responses, and (f) question parents. ______________________________ Insert Table 2 about here ______________________________ We also examined whether police officers and social workers who agreed with REMOVE (i.e., indicated a rating of 5, 6, or 7) provided different types of reasons. Only one difference across the 20 categories emerged: A

Reasoning about the Removal of a Child From Home 14 significantly greater proportion of social workers (48%) than of police officers (7%) questioned the credibility of the child's responses, despite their agreement with REMOVE (χ2[1, N = 36] = 6.9, p < .01). Comparable analyses carried out on respondents who disagreed with REMOVE (i.e., indicated a rating of 1, 2, or 3) yielded no significant differences. Effects of Case Characteristics As anticipated, of the respondents who provided reasons having to do with the child's age, the proportion of respondents (26%) who treated the child's age per se as a criterion for decision making (viz., categories 1 and 10) was significantly greater than the proportion of respondents (4%) who raised questions about the need to further assess the child's developmental level (Binomial 2-tailed p = .0003). And, as might be expected, compared with respondents in the older child condition, respondents in the younger child condition were significantly more likely to state that the child was too young to be left alone (χ2[1, N = 81] = 3.8, p = .05) and significantly less likely to state that the child was old enough to be left alone (χ2[1, N = 81] = 6.6, p = .01). A 2 x 2 (Child's Age x Predominant Neighborhood Race/SES) factorial ANOVA on LEVAGREE revealed a marginally significant main effect of child's age (F[1, 76] = 3.0, p = .09) that must be interpreted in light of a significant interaction effect (F[1, 76] = 8.5, p = .005). Fisher's LSD tests (α = .05) revealed that LEVAGREE was significantly lower in the older child and Black/low-SES condition than in each of the other three conditions (see Table 3 for means and standard deviations). ______________________________ Insert Table 3 about here

Reasoning about the Removal of a Child From Home 15 ______________________________ Discussion One goal of this study was to compare police officers' and social workers' investigative judgments. We found that police officers and social workers reasoned differently and arrived at different decisions in CAN cases. Social workers agreed less with the premature intervention than did police officers, and social workers provided significantly more reasons for disagreeing with that intervention than did police officers. Our data do not support the notion (see, e.g., Yuille, 1988) that social workers, because of their emphasis on child advocacy and child protection, are more likely than police officers to endorse removing a child from home. Results indicated that only a couple of social workers mentioned highly ambiguous pieces of case information, such as the dirtiness of the child, the child's scrape and bruises, or the messiness of the residence, as reasons to support the intervention. In contrast, each reason for disagreeing with the intervention was provided by at least one quarter of the social workers, and almost 90% of social workers mentioned at least one reason for disagreeing with the intervention. For example, over half explicitly acknowledged the general inadequacy of the investigation--double the proportion of police officers who did so. Many of the reasons for disagreeing with the intervention are different from those offered in support of the intervention in that they challenge the information seeker to consider alternative interpretations for facts in the case or to seek out additional, pertinent information in order to test competing hypotheses. The reasons social workers provided do suggest a healthy skepticism on their part, which in turn was reflected in their overall moderate

Reasoning about the Removal of a Child From Home 16 disagreement with REMOVE. Despite the fact that police officers' mandate is to seek out as much uncontaminated information in reported CAN cases as possible, only 11% or less of police officers suggested the importance of seeking additional information from the child, the child's parents, or other potential information sources, such as teachers, neighbors, or relatives of the child. A substantial percentage of police officers, however, were influenced by factors that, at best, are inconclusive, such as the messiness of the residence or the child's scrape and bruises. The police officers in this study, then, certainly seemed to lack the kind of skeptical, scientific approach that is vital for carrying out effective forensic investigations. A second goal of this study was to examine the influence of two case characteristics--the child's age and the predominant race and SES of the neighborhood of the family in the hypothetical case--on respondents' investigative judgments. As anticipated, respondents were more likely to draw conclusions about whether the child was "'too young' or 'old enough' to be left" alone based on the child's age per se than they were to (more appropriately) question the child's developmental level. Even briefly pursuing questions with a child may reveal important facts about the child's developmental level or about the case more generally. Investigators who claim that the child is "too young to be alone" or "old enough to be alone" bypass this crucial information-seeking stage of investigation. We also found an unanticipated, but interesting, interaction between child's age and neighborhood race/SES on levels of agreement with the intervention (because race and class were manipulated in combination, rather than separately, this result may be due to the interaction of age with

Reasoning about the Removal of a Child From Home 17 race, class, or both). Respondents' judgments in one particular condition stand out. Those who read that the child was 11 or 12 years old and that the neighborhood was poor and predominantly populated by Blacks generally were less in agreement with removing the child from home than respondents in the other three conditions; this was reflected in both mean level of agreement and mean number of reasons for agreeing with the intervention. This finding suggests that case characteristics may be more meaningful to CAN investigators when viewed configurally. Rather than treating case characteristics as a simple checklist of CAN indicators, investigators may assemble these characteristics into a representation or story that then has implications for investigative decision making. Indeed, in the area of juror decision making, Pennington and Hastie (1986, 1992) have found considerable support for the notion that jurors assemble evidence provided in court testimony into a script or story that depicts a causal sequence of events from start to finish. In so doing, jurors may embellish their stories by drawing on their own world knowledge or preexisting scripts. In this study, investigators in the older child and Black/low-SES condition may have thought that, given the fact that the child is not so young, and given the fact that the family may be providing all that it can within its means, it makes little sense to remove the child from home. In contrast, even when the child is older, a White, upper-middle class family lacking an abundance of food in its refrigerator may seem unusual and perhaps even neglectful to some investigators in light of the CAN allegations. In other words, the presumed race/SES of the family may have triggered a "White, upper-middle-class script" containing suppositions about factors such as how much food is normative. These suppositions may have

Reasoning about the Removal of a Child From Home 18 conflicted with the food situation described, raising concerns about the possibility of neglect (and possibly increasing the likelihood that a "neglect" script would be constructed), and ultimately influencing judgments about the appropriateness of removing the child from home. The description of CAN professionals' investigative judgments as relying on salient case characteristics that trigger scripts, which in turn guide the construction of a causal representation, conflicts with our view of how a forensic investigation should proceed. There were good reasons in this study for respondents to be skeptical of the removal of the child from home, regardless of what experimental condition they were in. Multiple interpretations for the existing fact pattern could easily be generated, suggesting a need for additional information gathering before the removal of the child from home was justifiable. Limitations and Future Research The hypothetical scenario approach taken in this study allowed us to control both the information presented in the case as well as the decisional outcome of the case (viz., the removal of the child from home). Thus, we were able to examine respondents' reactions to an outcome that we could define as premature. A limitation of this approach, however, is that CAN investigators in real-world investigations are responsible for making their own decisions rather than making decisions about another investigator's decision. Thus, in future research it will be important to examine how investigators arrive at their own decisions in the course of investigating CAN cases. Additionally, because this study used only one basic vignette, it will be important to examine the stability of this study's findings using other vignettes.

Reasoning about the Removal of a Child From Home 19 Much of the research on investigative decision making relies on the use of vignettes that are read by respondents. Vignettes provide researchers with flexibility in constructing and manipulating particular case features. Vignette research, however, also compromises external validity. One reason for this stems from the mode of presentation itself. In real cases, a much greater amount of information is received through multiple sensory modalities. What CAN investigators might directly see and hear in a real case can at best be described verbally in a vignette. Even if such information (e.g., that a child refuses to look directly at an investigator, or shuffles anxiously when asked a particular question) is described verbally, its effect on the decision-making process may differ considerably from the effect of visual, aural, olfactory, or tactile information. Thus, future research might examine the effects of presenting the same semantic content in different modalities (e.g., typed vs. tape-recorded vs. audio-visual) on investigative decision making. Although it is important ultimately to study decision making in realworld contexts, it also may be possible to improve vignette research by making information discovery more interactive than it is in the standard, passive approach. For example, "flexible vignettes" in which the information and order of information respondents receive depends upon the questions they ask could be designed. The use of computer-simulated case investigations could be explored in future research. Using such an approach, a respondent might be given some initial facts about the case and then given the option to choose what information to pursue next. The program could be set up to provide different facts (or even no information) in response to various questions asked. By maintaining control over the fact patterns in a

Reasoning about the Removal of a Child From Home 20 case, while removing some of the unrealistic constraints placed on respondents in typical vignette research, investigators may be able to develop better descriptive accounts of investigative decision making in the CAN domain. Conclusion Thaler and Shefrin (1981) postulated that individuals can be both farsighted planners and myopic doers. The farsighted planner wants to defer decisional closure until more information is gathered and more consideration can take place; the myopic doer wants to decide quickly what needs to be done and take action. In prescribing a scientific approach for forensic investigations, we realize that CAN investigators do not have the academic luxury of spending large amounts of time researching each case. Indeed, as Mandel et al. (in press) noted, excessive deliberation may sometimes be detrimental to the overarching goal of effective and efficient case management. However, it is crucial that investigators not overemphasize their role as myopic doers either. If serious actions, such as the removal of a child from home or the pressing of charges against an alleged offender, are carried out without thorough, prior investigation, one must ask on what basis such decisions rest. Moreover, because evidence gathered in forensic investigations forms a critical part of the information available to the courts (should a case proceed to that point), thorough information seeking and evaluation by investigators are likely to improve the quality of subsequent legal decision making. The findings of this study and Mandel et al. (in press) suggest that individual and professional differences in investigative thoroughness do exist, and that some investigators are willing to terminate the investigative process even when only scant evidence is available and the

Reasoning about the Removal of a Child From Home 21 possibilities for collecting more useful evidence seem great. At the same time it is important to remember that CAN investigators must operate in a complex and often ambiguous decision-making environment that poses multiple trade offs and considerations. They face the arduous task of balancing their roles as farsighted planners and myopic doers so that in the end they emerge as effective practical reasoners.

Reasoning about the Removal of a Child From Home 22 References Ceci, S. J., Leichtman, M. D., White, T. (in press). Interviewing preschoolers. In D. Peters (Ed.), The child witness in cognitive, social, and legal context. The Netherlands: Kluwer. Dalgleish, L. I., & Drew, E. C. (1989). The relationship of child abuse indicators to the assessment of perceived risk and to the court's decision to separate. Child Abuse & Neglect, 13, 491-506. Eckenrode, J., Powers, J., Doris, J., Munsch, J, & Bolger, N. (1988). Substantiation of child abuse and neglect reports. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 9-16. Faller, K. C., Bowden, M. L., Jones, C. O., & Hildebrandt, H. M. (1981). In K. C. Faller (Ed.), Social work with abused and neglected children: A manual of interdisciplinary practice (pp. 13-31). New York: Free Press. Hampton, R. L., & Newberger, E. H. (1985). Child abuse incidence and reporting by hospitals: Significance of severity, class, and race. American Journal of Public Health, 75, 56-60. Hunter, R., Yuille, J. C., & Harvey, W. (1990). A coordinated approach to interviewing in child sexual abuse investigations. Canada's Mental Health, 38, 14-18. Kempe, C. H., Silverman, F., Steele, B., Droegemueller, W., & Silver, H. (1962). The battered child syndrome. Journal of the American Medical Association, 181, 17-24. MacFarlane, K., & Bulkley, J. (1982). Treating child sexual abuse: An overview of current program models. Journal of Social Work and Human Sexuality, 1, 71-93.

Reasoning about the Removal of a Child From Home 23 Mandel, D. R., Lehman, D. R., & Yuille, J. C. (in press). Should this child be removed from home? Hypothesis generation and information seeking as predictors of case decisions. Child Abuse & Neglect. Meddin, B. J. (1984). Criteria for placement decisions in protective services. Child Welfare, 63, 367-373. National Center on Child Abuse Prevention Research. (1992). Current trends in child abuse reporting and fatalities: The results of the 1991 annual fifty state survey. Chicago, IL: National Committee for Prevention of Child Abuse. O'Toole, R., Turbett, P., & Nalepka, C. (1983). Theories, professional knowledge, and diagnosis of child abuse. In D. Finkelhor, R. J. Gelles, G. T. Hotaling, & M. A. Straus (Eds.), The dark side of families: Current family violence research (pp. 349-362). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1986). Evidence evaluation in complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 242-258. Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1992). Explaining the evidence: Tests of the story model for juror decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 189-206. Thaler, R. H., & Shefrin, H. M. (1981). An economic theory of self-control. Journal of Political Economy, 89, 392-405. Winefield, H. R., & Bradley, P. W. (1992). Substantiation of reported child abuse or neglect: Predictors and implications. Child Abuse & Neglect, 16, 661-671.

Reasoning about the Removal of a Child From Home 24 Yuille, J. C. (1988). The systematic assessment of children's testimony. Canadian Psychology, 29, 247-262. Yuille, J. C., Hunter, R., Joffe, R., & Zaparniuk, J. (1993). Interviewing children in sexual abuse cases. In G. Goodman & B. Bottoms (Eds.), Understanding and improving children's testimony: Clinical, developmental and legal implications (pp. 95-115). New York: Guilford Press. Zellman, G. L. (1992). The impact of case characteristics on child abuse reporting decisions. Child Abuse & Neglect, 16, 57-74.

Reasoning about the Removal of a Child From Home 25 Author Notes This work was supported in part by a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) Postgraduate Scholarship and a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) Doctoral Fellowship to David R. Mandel and grants from SSHRC to Darrin R. Lehman and to John C. Yuille. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to David R. Mandel, Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia, 2136 West Mall, Vancouver, B.C., Canada V6T 1Z4. Electronic mail may be sent to [email protected].

Reasoning about the Removal of a Child From Home 26 Table 1 Investigators' Reasons for Their Level of Agreement with REMOVE __________________________________________________________________________________________ Category

Description

__________________________________________________________________________________________ Reasons for Agreeing with REMOVE 1. Child is too young

Child is seen as being too young to be left unattended.

2. Dirtiness of child

Child's dirtiness is seen as a significant factor or evidence of neglect.

3. Child's bruises/scrape

Child's injuries are seen as a significant factor (e.g., evidence of abuse, concerns about child requiring medical care).

4. Messiness of residence 5. Little food

Messiness is seen as a significant factor or evidence of neglect. Fears that child is not receiving proper nutrition; states there is no food.

6. Parents location unknown

Accepts child's response concerning the whereabouts of parents at

face value. 7. Child alone "all day"

Accepts child's response concerning the length of time left alone at face value; sees child being alone as unacceptable.

8. Child needs protection

Child is seen as unsafe and/or in need of protection.

Reasons for Disagreeing with REMOVE 9. Caller is anonymous

Questions the caller's reasons or motives for reporting the case, requests more details from caller.

10. Child is old enough

Assumes child is old enough to stay alone temporarily.

11. Developmental level

Questions child's developmental level and ability to care for self while

alone. 12. Dirtiness of child 13. Child's bruises/scrape

Dirtiness of child is seen as ambiguous (e.g., "dirt might be from play"). Injuries are seen as minor or ambiguous (e.g., "bruises and scrapes are common play injuries among children").

Reasoning about the Removal of a Child From Home 27 (table continues) __________________________________________________________________________________________ Category

Description

__________________________________________________________________________________________ 14. Messiness of residence

Messiness of residence is seen as unimportant (e.g., "any family could have a messy home") or ambiguous (e.g., "is there a safety hazard?").

15. Some food

Acknowledges that there is food available; requests more information about the availability of food for the child.

16. Child's responses

Questions the credibility of the child's responses (e.g., child might not want to disclose information to a stranger).

17. Question child

States that child should be questioned further; suggests specific questions.

18. Question parents

States that attempts to locate and/or question parents should be made.

19. Question others

States that others (e.g., neighbors, teachers) should be

questioned. 20. Inadequate investigation Acknowledges the general inadequacy of the investigative process. __________________________________________________________________________________________

Reasoning about the Removal of a Child From Home 28 Table 2 Percentage of Respondents in Each Reason Category and Estimates of Independence of Profession ________________________________________________________________________ Categorya

All

χ2a

Police Soc Wk

________________________________________________________________________ Reasons for Agreeing with REMOVE Little food (5)

30%

40

15

6.3*

Child alone "all day" (7)

30

38

18

Child is too young (1)

19

26

9

4.0* 3.7

Messiness of residence (4)

19

30

3

9.4**

Dirtiness of child (2)

15

23

3

6.5*

Child's bruises/scrape (3)

15

23

3

6.5*

14

19

11

3

37

26

Parents location unknown (6) Child needs protection (8)

9

6

3.0 0.6

Reasons for Disagreeing with REMOVE Inadequate investigation (20)

53

6.4*

Child's bruises/scrape (13)

37

32

44

1.3

Question child (17)

22

6

44

Messiness of residence (14)

21

17

26

Some food (14)

19

11

29

4.6*

Question others (19)

19

11

29

4.6*

Child's responses (16)

15

6

26

6.3*

Question parents (18)

12

4

24

6.8**

Dirtiness of child (12)

12

11

15

0.3

16.3*** 1.1

(table continues)

Reasoning about the Removal of a Child From Home 29 _________________________________________________________________________ Category

All

χ2a

Police Soc Wk

_________________________________________________________________________ Caller is anonymous (9)

9

4

15

2.7

Child's is old enough (10)

7

4

12

1.6

Developmental level (11)

4

2

6

.8

_________________________________________________________________________ Note. Cumulative percentages exceed 100 % because respondents typically reported more than one reason. aCategory number in parentheses. bdf = 1, N = 81 *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

Reasoning about the Removal of a Child From Home 30 Table 3 Mean LEVAGREE as a Function of Child's Age and Predominant Neighborhood Race/SES ____________________________________________________________ Predominant Race/SES ______________________________________________ Child's Age

Black/Low

White/High

Row M

____________________________________________________________ 6 or 7

4.8 (2.1)a

4.0 (2.1)

4.4 (2.1)

11 or 12

2.7 (1.7)

4.5 (1.9)

3.6 (2.0)

____________________________________________________________ Column M

3.7 (2.2)

4.3 (2.0)

4.0 (2.1)

____________________________________________________________ aNumbers in parentheses are cell standard deviations.