The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Reactions to children's transgressions in at-risk caregivers: Does mitigating information, type of transgression, or caregiver directive matter?

Reactions to children's transgressions in at-risk caregivers: Does mitigating information, type of transgression, or caregiver directive matter?
Reactions to children's transgressions in at-risk caregivers: Does mitigating information, type of transgression, or caregiver directive matter?

This study examined whether caregivers who exhibit high risk for child physical abuse differ from low-risk caregivers in reactions to transgressing children. Caregivers read vignettes describing child transgressions. These vignettes varied in: (a) the type of transgression described (moral, conventional, personal), (b) presentation of transgression-mitigating information (present, absent), and (c) whether a directive to avoid the transgression was in the vignette (yes, no). After reading each vignette, caregivers provided ratings reflecting their: (a) perceptions of transgression wrongness, (b) internal attributions about the transgressing child, (c) perceptions of the transgressing child's hostile intent, (d) own expected negative post-transgression affect, and (e) perceived likelihood of responding to the transgression with discipline that displayed power assertion and/or induction. For moral transgressions (cruelty, dishonesty, hostility, or greed), mitigating information reduced caregiver expectations that they would feel negative affect and, subsequent to the transgression, use disciplinary strategies that display power assertion. These mitigating effects were smaller among at-risk caregivers than among low-risk caregivers. Moreover, when transgressions disobeyed a directive, among low-risk caregivers, mitigating information reduced the expectation that responses to transgressions would include inductive disciplinary strategies, but it did not do so among at-risk caregivers. In certain circumstances, compared to low-risk caregivers, at-risk caregivers expect to be relatively unaffected by transgression-mitigating information. These results suggest that interventions that increase an at-risk caregiver's ability to properly assess and integrate mitigating information may play a role in reducing the caregiver's risk of child physical abuse.

Child physical abuse, Child transgressions, Mitigation, Social information processing
0145-2134
917-927
Irwin, Lauren M.
470f2139-9b56-4cd0-bd9b-1c84212cd6e0
Skowronski, John J.
47eb23aa-177b-4634-b986-5b935998bf6b
Crouch, Julie L.
9a7bddd0-ee4f-4dc0-ba1c-1a7a7ec3ee83
Milner, Joel S.
ffe087c5-2ea5-47b7-846f-9709ce0e1d3f
Zengel, Bettina
9d343ec9-7b10-45e3-b818-41287d9c4bd5
Irwin, Lauren M.
470f2139-9b56-4cd0-bd9b-1c84212cd6e0
Skowronski, John J.
47eb23aa-177b-4634-b986-5b935998bf6b
Crouch, Julie L.
9a7bddd0-ee4f-4dc0-ba1c-1a7a7ec3ee83
Milner, Joel S.
ffe087c5-2ea5-47b7-846f-9709ce0e1d3f
Zengel, Bettina
9d343ec9-7b10-45e3-b818-41287d9c4bd5

Irwin, Lauren M., Skowronski, John J., Crouch, Julie L., Milner, Joel S. and Zengel, Bettina (2014) Reactions to children's transgressions in at-risk caregivers: Does mitigating information, type of transgression, or caregiver directive matter? Child Abuse & Neglect, 38 (5), 917-927. (doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2013.08.017).

Record type: Article

Abstract

This study examined whether caregivers who exhibit high risk for child physical abuse differ from low-risk caregivers in reactions to transgressing children. Caregivers read vignettes describing child transgressions. These vignettes varied in: (a) the type of transgression described (moral, conventional, personal), (b) presentation of transgression-mitigating information (present, absent), and (c) whether a directive to avoid the transgression was in the vignette (yes, no). After reading each vignette, caregivers provided ratings reflecting their: (a) perceptions of transgression wrongness, (b) internal attributions about the transgressing child, (c) perceptions of the transgressing child's hostile intent, (d) own expected negative post-transgression affect, and (e) perceived likelihood of responding to the transgression with discipline that displayed power assertion and/or induction. For moral transgressions (cruelty, dishonesty, hostility, or greed), mitigating information reduced caregiver expectations that they would feel negative affect and, subsequent to the transgression, use disciplinary strategies that display power assertion. These mitigating effects were smaller among at-risk caregivers than among low-risk caregivers. Moreover, when transgressions disobeyed a directive, among low-risk caregivers, mitigating information reduced the expectation that responses to transgressions would include inductive disciplinary strategies, but it did not do so among at-risk caregivers. In certain circumstances, compared to low-risk caregivers, at-risk caregivers expect to be relatively unaffected by transgression-mitigating information. These results suggest that interventions that increase an at-risk caregiver's ability to properly assess and integrate mitigating information may play a role in reducing the caregiver's risk of child physical abuse.

This record has no associated files available for download.

More information

Accepted/In Press date: 26 August 2013
e-pub ahead of print date: 26 September 2013
Published date: May 2014
Keywords: Child physical abuse, Child transgressions, Mitigation, Social information processing

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 413074
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/413074
ISSN: 0145-2134
PURE UUID: cb0fe8f5-d479-4eb3-b2ba-73f3ce9f0d8e
ORCID for Bettina Zengel: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0002-0871-3158

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 14 Aug 2017 16:31
Last modified: 05 Jun 2024 19:19

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Lauren M. Irwin
Author: John J. Skowronski
Author: Julie L. Crouch
Author: Joel S. Milner
Author: Bettina Zengel ORCID iD

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×