REASONING ABOUT THE REMOVAL OF A CHILD FROM HOME - A COMPARISON OF POLICE OFFICERS AND SOCIAL-WORKERS

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.