The Influence of Socioeconomic Class on Views of Child Abuse

By

Amanda Burkard Albright College Research Methods

Prepared for:

Charles Brown, PhD Albright College Reading, PA [email protected] 610-921-7865 I. Summary Sheet

A. Research Question:

Are there social class differences in perceptions of child abuse?

B. Hypothesis:

The higher a family’s socioeconomic class, the more likely they will view child abuse as inappropriate.

C. Type of Research:

This will be an explanatory research project.

D. Qualitative or Quantitative Study

This will be a quantitative study.

E. Methods Utilized to Conduct Study

I will utilize surveys and content analysis to conduct this study.

2 Abstract

Several factors influence the prevalence of child abuse, including social perceptions. As these perceptions are often a product of one’s environment, it is important to determine the effect of aspects of this environment. This study sought to discover the influence of socioeconomic class on views of child abuse. This was accomplished through a stratified random sample of four thousand individuals separated by social class. The adult residents of Berks County, Pennsylvania were utilized as the sampling frame. First an accurate list of these residents was obtained and divided based upon pre-determined class categories. Each group’s percentage of the total population was calculated to determine the number of necessary elements from each category. Class groups were assigned a letter to ensure both confidentiality and a representative sample. The elements were then randomly selected in the appropriate category by a computer program and mailed a survey. Non-response prompted another random selection from the appropriate category. Survey questions included both demographic questions and questions based on indicators of child abuse. Indicator question responses were assigned a number value. These numbers were tabulated to determine a score, which corresponds to a previously developed ordinal category based upon a scale of views on child abuse. These scores were then related back to the socioeconomic class through a cross tabulation table, where the correlation can be observed. Potential third variables were controlled for by stacking additional cross tabulation tables. I hypothesized that a higher socioeconomic class would correspond with a more negative view on child abuse as an inappropriate action. It is important to determine class differences with regard to views on child abuse to more accurately distribute resources for both investigations and prevention programs. An understanding of factors that contribute to occurrences of child abuse can aide in the development of prevention and detection programs as well as possible therapy and intervention techniques to prevent escalation and future instances of child abuse.

3 Introduction

Child abuse is a substantial social problem, with over 25,000 cases reported in 2009 by the Department of Public Welfare for the state of Pennsylvania alone (2009). This abuse has implications for the child, the family, and society itself. While personal and familial costs are more obvious, social expenses are potentially more detrimental. The child welfare system requires vast amounts of time and money to identify, substantiate, and prosecute cases of abuse.

Additional funding is required to remove and provide placements for abused children.

Pennsylvania reports $46.68 million required to investigate cases of child abuse of the total $1.5 billion budget of the child welfare system in 2009 (PADPW 2009). Research has shown that there are a variety of factors that contribute to child abuse, including social characteristics, parental attitudes, and beliefs about discipline and abuse. Determining the relevance of these factors and their relationship to each other is an important step in discovering the causes of child abuse.

The focus of this research was the detection of differences in views on child abuse that are held by members of different social classes. The subcultural theory of sociology cites the differences between subcultures and the larger culture as the cause of deviant behavior. Every culture has its own norms and values that govern behavior. Subcultures, which exist within a larger culture, often have norms that conflict with those of the larger culture, usually without the subculture itself being labeled as deviant. The disorganization, isolation, and anonymousness of urban areas foster the creation of these subcultures in lower class populations. The lower class subcultures have values that are the product of their separate experiences and goals and thus deviate from the typical middle-class standards of behavior. An impoverished upbringing with scarce resources will yield different results than one in which every opportunity is available. 4 Disparities in education, employment, and even social circles can serve to create different beliefs. Actions and attitudes that are considered deviant by the middle class might be accepted as normal by the lower class. For example, in lower class families, children are often viewed either in the role of a small adults or as a costly liability. Children are seen in terms of their contribution, or lack thereof, to the family. This alternate view of children can lead to increased frustration when the children act outside of their expected roles. Individuals from lower class backgrounds often use violence as a tool to resolve conflicts. The combination of these factors cultivates an environment in which child abuse can be explained and almost accepted. These beliefs are then transmitted down to future generations, perpetuating both the subculture and its norms. Determining the extent of these differences will be beneficial for many reasons. Those responsible for identification and reporting of child abuse should be aware of preconceptions and viewpoints in order to make better decisions. Programs and policies can be designed to be sensitive to these differences and can thus be tailored to the appropriate group ensuring higher rates of detection and prevention.

The remainder of this document outlines and evaluates the methods and procedures that were used to develop the research study. The relevant literature is reviewed, concentrating on its relationship to the current study and the areas in need of further study. The research methods are presented and analyzed in terms of both usage and definition. Results are provided along with controls for potential third variables. A final analysis and conclusion will further summarize the relevance of the study. In addition, a budget and time schedule is provided, along with a sample survey, categorical scale, and cover letter for review.

5 Literature Review

A considerable amount of research has been conducted on various aspects of child abuse.

Two major areas of study are the prevalence and the causes of this form of abuse. Many also include discussions of differences based on various social factors, including race, gender, and social class. Another pertinent area of research is the relationship of social class to parenting styles and beliefs about children, especially regarding disciplinary practices. Research in these areas provides a picture of some basic aspects of child abuse, however, there areas of inconsistency and a lack of a fully comprehensive picture.

While research has shown higher incidents of child abuse among the lower classes, it has also shown that this may in fact be due to reporting practices. According to Milner and

Murphy (1995), several social factors influence the amount of reported cases that are then substantiated by intake caseworkers and other professionals, including the interviewer’s gender and personal beliefs. In addition, abuse was found to be more likely to be reported in poorer families. In fact, Herman reported a minimum of a 24 percent error rate between substantiated and actual cases of abuse (2005). Both studies suggested improved training and standard procedures as methods to reduce reporting problems. Baumrind suggests that low income families are subject to increased scrutiny by the public and therefore the child welfare system, making the detection of abuse more likely (1994). She also cites definitions of abuse based upon middle class values as a cause of differences in abuse rates. While an act may technically be considered abuse, a lower class culture might view the act differently, as in a form of discipline.

6 Other research blamed abuse reporting disparity on the physical location of the child.

Urban areas with unstable populations and low income households were shown to be more likely to have higher crime and abuse rates, while rural areas with similar characteristics had lower rates. The social environment was shown to affect reporting and prosecution rates.

Rural cultural was found to have a general mistrust of the government, value isolationism, and use informal social measures as a form of social control, which influenced the amount of reported and prosecuted cases (Ménard and Ruback 2003). The numbers of reported and substantiated cases of child abuse do not necessarily reflect the actual number of occurrences, therefore affecting the accuracy of research studies.

Studies that do focus on poverty and class as indicators of child abuse cite several underlying causes as major contributors including stress, lack of resources, and an inadequate family or community support system. Baumrind describes the connection as, “abuse is a response to stress and a sense of powerlessness; neglect is a reaction of helplessness to the inability to provide,” and blames societal abuse and neglect of the parent as the true problem

(1994). Research by Thompson, et al. also focused on parent’s attitudes, economic stressors, social factors, and critical events as triggers for abuse (1993). Even in middle class environments, violence is associated with typically lower class issues, such as personal trauma or social stressors (Stewart, et al. 1987). Gerris, Deković, and Janssens cite increased information sources and education as vital resources that are absent for lower class parents

(1997). However, social class alone cannot fully account for child abuse, as it does occur across all classes.

Other research has determined race, ethnicity, and culture to be more significant than class as a determinate of child abuse. Kruttschnitt, McLeod, and Dornfeld found that while

7 the persistence of poverty was found to be correlated with an increase in the severity of abuse, when the third variable of race was controlled for, this association diminished (1994).

However, racial differences in methods of abuse, such as physical types and use of a weapon, did affect the findings. Garbarino and Ebata (1983) claim that ethnicity, not class is the determinate factor that influences the prevalence of child abuse, as a lack of economic resources does not always translate to a lack of social resources. They claim different cultures have distinct definitions and interpretations of child abuse, somewhat based on evolutionary history. Perceptions and responses to child behaviors are one area, for example what one culture views negatively as hyperactive behavior, another might consider merely energetic. However, these beliefs are not constant across all groups of a particular culture and do not always produce consistent actions; therefore other social factors must also provide influence.

Parental values and styles were also a focus of study. Gerris, Deković, and Janssens

(1997) found a relationship between parental perspective and social class, with lower class parents exhibiting more a controlling and less supportive parenting style. Traits such as conformity and obedience are valued. Baumrind (1994) proposes social class differences as influential in child rearing. Lower class parents are more likely to have a negative opinion of children and utilize and authoritarian style that does not encourage independence. However, the research fails to determine how these beliefs and parenting styles are developed and transmitted. Marital conflict also affects parenting ability, as it leads to decreased parental involvement, increased discipline, and a lack of consistency (Krishnakumar and Buchler

2000). Focus on personal conflict creates a lack of focus on child rearing, increasing the potential for harsh disciplinary practices, if not abuse. In addition, low income parents

8 perceive more behaviors as problematic and have more difficulty with problem solving skills,

which can reduce the gap between punishment and abuse (Thompson, et al. 1993).

While there is a wealth of information available on child abuse, there is a general lack of

connection between the previously conducted research studies. Incidents of abuse can be

related to social class. Potential causes of abuse can be identified, based upon social factors.

While some studies claim race or ethnicity to be the determinate cause, these studies are

inconclusive. Economic resources and social class can be related to both abuse and parenting

styles. However, there is little information linking social class and attitudes toward abuse.

Therefore, this study sought to determine whether such a relationship exists. Based upon

both the complied research and sociological theory, it was hypothesized that a higher

socioeconomic class would correspond to a view of actions that constitute child abuse as

more inappropriate.

Methods

For the purposes of this study, data collection was accomplished through the use of a survey given to a stratified random sample of 4000 elements. These elements were then divided based upon socioeconomic class, into lower class, middle class, upper middle class, and upper class, which were defined in reference to amount of income. The survey was administered through the mail, accompanied by a cover letter explaining the survey’s basic purpose and content along with a self-addressed envelope to ensure completion. Random sampling increased the possibility of generalizing the findings to the population. As the purpose was to discern views on child abuse and their variance as to social class, it was necessary to obtain data from each of these classes. Also, a stratified sample more clearly represented the population than a simple random sample, especially in terms of the prevalence of each socioeconomic class.

9 The adult residents of Berks County, Pennsylvania were utilized as the sampling frame.

Based upon data obtained from the 2000 census, there are 141,609 families in Berks County.

These families can be sorted into classes based upon their income. Lower class was determined to be from $0 to $24,999, middle class from $25,000 to $74,999, upper middle class from

$75,000 to 149,999, and upper class as $150,000 and above. Corresponding percentages were calculated to be: lower class, 26%, middle class, 53%, upper middle class, 19%, and upper class

3%. As the sample size is 4000 elements, the exact numbers used were as follows: lower class –

1000, middle class – 2,100, upper middle class – 700, and upper class – 200. Names of all Berks

County residents, along with their income, were obtained from local tax offices and township records. This did create a potential sampling error, as these records only include those who are taxed and report their residences, which in reality might not include all individuals. The residents were then categorized into a social class based upon this income and the pre- determined categories. Each group was assigned a letter; for example, lower class will be represented as “A,” middle class as “B,” and so on. Individuals in their categories were entered into an Excel spreadsheet, which randomly selected the necessary number of elements to be surveyed. Surveys were then appropriately lettered and mailed to the selected respondents, who were allotted a six week time period in which to complete the survey. After three weeks, a reminder post card was mailed, encouraging participation in the survey. A non-response after the six weeks prompted another random selection from the corresponding social class. Lettering the surveys ensured that there was the correct number of respondents from each category, while preserving the confidentiality of the individual. Demographic questions listed in the survey ensured the accuracy of the class assignment. An incorrect assignment would have been corrected by discarding the incorrect survey and sending another survey to a different random

10 element. Initially, there was an 83% (3,320) response rate to the survey. Further surveys were distributed to ensure the necessary 4,000 responses from the appropriate categories.

Survey questions were derived from predetermined indicators of child abuse. Perceptions, and thus definitions, of child abuse vary from individual to individual. Actions that are viewed by one as normal or acceptable might be considered abuse by another. Legally, child abuse is divided into four categories. Physical abuse, which results in physical injury, includes such acts as hitting, slapping, kicking, and punching. While sometimes a deliberate act, it is also often the product of out of control anger or frustration. This creates potential difficulties in determining where to draw the line between punishment and abuse. Sexual abuse, which includes any physical contact that results in sexual gratification for the perpetrator, is typically easier to identify as abuse. Neglect, or the failure to provide necessary food, clothing, shelter, and education, and emotional abuse, which includes berating, harshly criticizing, and threatening are potentially difficult to identify, as there are often no physical signs. Frequently, more than one action or type of action is exercised. The wide range of behaviors that can potentially constitute abuse creates differences in the way that abuse is defined and perceived. This study focused on physical and emotional abuse and neglect, as sexual abuse represents a potentially separate area of study.

From these conceptual definitions, several factors were identified and used to operationally define child abuse. These included obvious acts such as slapping, hitting, and choking along with, the more difficult to define malnourishment, neglect, and abandonment.

Even simply berating or threatening a child can be defined as verbal abuse. These specific indicators were used to develop eight survey questions to gage respondents’ views on child abuse. The inclusion of a variety of different behaviors ensured that a more accurate and

11 complete perspective of the individual is measured. Actions were listed with the possible responses of: (a) always, (b) if necessary, (c) only for discipline, (d) as a last resort, and (e) never to indicate when such actions are appropriate for use with children. Each letter response was assigned a point value, with a = 0, b = 1, c = 2, d = 3, e = 4; therefore the possible scores ranged from 0 to 32.

Views on the appropriateness child abuse were then measured according to an ordinal scale of classifications. The point scores corresponded to four categories: child abuse is always appropriate (0-7 points), child abuse is sometimes appropriate (8-15 points), child abuse is rarely appropriate (16-23 points), and child abuse is never appropriate (24-32 points). The higher the score, the more likely an individual is to view a particular action as abuse, and therefore inappropriate. Categories were then cross tabulated with socioeconomic class to determine whether a correlation between class and viewpoint on child abuse existed. Spuriousness was controlled for by cross tabulating for other demographic potential third variables in this case: gender, race, age, and level of education, to determine if these variables had any effect on the view of child abuse as inappropriate. Any variable determined to have such an extraneous effect would not support the hypothesis. Time order was not a factor, as income is a relatively stable characteristic and should remain stable over the time period of the study.

Analysis

Survey results were calculated as percentages and tabulated by class and category. No respondents reported actions that constitute child abuse as always appropriate. An analysis of the results demonstrates a slight correlation between the independent variable (socioeconomic class) and the dependent variable (view of child abuse as acceptable), as shown in the table below:

12 Lower Class (A) Middle Class (B) Upper Middle Upper Class (D) Class (C) Always Appropriate Sometimes 50% (500) 48% (1000) 29% (200) 0% (0) Appropriate Rarely 50% (500) 43% (900) 57% (400) 50% (100) Appropriate Never Appropriate 0% (0) 10% (200) 14% (100) 50% (100) Total Numbers 100% (1000) 100% (2100) 100% (700) 100% (200)

Fifty percent of lower class participants (500) felt that actions that constitute child abuse were

sometimes appropriate. This number decreased as class increased, with middle class rates of

48% (1000), upper middle class at 29% (200), and upper class members finding these actions

sometimes appropriate at a rate of 0% (0). Inversely, no lower class members reported child

abuse actions as never appropriate, while this number increased to 10% (200) in the middle class,

14% (100) in the upper middle class, and 50% (100) in the upper class. As more upper class

members had a more negative view of child abuse, correlation can be established. However, the

differences in the percentages are inconsistent, with some only minor, therefore the strength of

the correlation is slight. The presence of a correlation, even a slight one, required further

evaluation for extraneous variables through stacked tables.

Control for Gender

The first potential third variable controlled for was gender, which was found not to be an

extraneous variable. By chance, there were an equal number of male and female respondents

(2000). Values for males and females were consistent across classes, which can be seen in the

tables below:

Males Lower Class (A) Middle Class (B) Upper Middle Upper Class (D) Class (C) Always Appropriate Sometimes Appropriate 40 % (200) 50% (500) 25% (100) 0% (0)

13 Rarely Appropriate 60% (300) 40% (400) 50% (200) 0% (0) Never Appropriate 0% (0) 10% (100) 25% (100) 100% (100) Total Numbers 100% (500) 100% (1000) 100% (400) 100% (100)

Females

Lower Class (A) Middle Class Upper Middle Upper Class (B) Class (C) (D) Always Appropriate Sometimes Appropriate 60% (300) 45% (500) 33% (100) 0% (0) Rarely Appropriate 40% (200) 45% (500) 66% (200) 100% (100) Never Appropriate 0% (0) 10% (100) 0% (0) 0% (0) Total Numbers 100% (500) 100% (1100) 100% (300) 100% (100)

While there are differences between lower class males and females, with 40% (200) of lower

class males reporting child abuse as sometimes appropriate, in contrast to 60% (300) of females.

This is also true for rarely appropriate values, with 60% (300) of lower class males in this

category and only 40% (200) of females. However, for other classes, the variation is far less.

Fifty percent (500) of middle class males reported child abuse a sometimes appropriate, 40%

(400) classified actions as rarely appropriate, and 10% (100) never appropriate. Corresponding

female middle class numbers were 45% (500), 45% (500), and 10% (100), respectively. Upper

middle class and upper class numbers followed a similar trend. Therefore, gender is not an

extraneous variable.

Control for Race

Respondents were divided into five racial categories: Caucasian, African American,

Hispanic, Native American, and Asian American, with the majority listing themselves as

14 Caucasian. Controls for race indicated that it was an extraneous variable. The table below illustrates the disparities between races:

Caucasian Lower Class (A) Middle Class (B) Upper Middle Upper Class (D) Class (C) Always Appropriate Sometimes 33% (100) 30% (300) 33% (100) 0% (0) Appropriate Rarely 67% (200) 50% (500) 67% (200) 0% (0) Appropriate Never Appropriate 0% (0) 20% (200) 0% (0) 100% (100) Total Numbers 100% (300) 100% (1000) 100% (300) 100% (100)

African American Lower Class (A) Middle Class (B) Upper Middle Upper Class (D) Class (C) Always Appropriate Sometimes 100% (100) 75% (300) 0% (0) 0% (0) Appropriate Rarely 0% (0) 25% (100) 0% (0) 100% (100) Appropriate Never Appropriate 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) Total Numbers 100% (100) 100% (400) 0% (0) 100% (100) Hispanic Lower Class (A) Middle Class (B) Upper Middle Upper Class (D) Class (C) Always Appropriate Sometimes 0% (0) 60% (300) 0% (0) 0% (0) Appropriate Rarely 100% (200) 40% (200) 100% (200) 0% (0) Appropriate Never Appropriate 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) Total Numbers 100% (200) 100% (500) 100% (200) 0% (0) Native American Lower Class (A) Middle Class (B) Upper Middle Upper Class (D) Class (C) Always Appropriate

15 Sometimes 100% (200) 100% (100) 0% (0) 0% (0) Appropriate Rarely Appropriate 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) Never Appropriate 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) Total Numbers 100% (200) 100% (100) 0% (0) 0% (0) Asian American Lower Class (A) Middle Class (B) Upper Middle Upper Class (D) Class (C) Always Appropriate Sometimes 50% (100) 0% (0) 100% (100) 0% (0) Appropriate Rarely 50% (100) 100% (100) 0% (0) 0% (0) Appropriate Never Appropriate 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) Total Numbers 100% (200) 100% (100) 100% (100) 0% (0)

The differences are especially apparent when Caucasians are compared with other races. As the

majority of respondents were from the middle class, it provides a relevant example. Thirty

percent of middle class Caucasians (300) felt actions that constitute child abuse are sometimes

appropriate, in contrast with 75% (300) of middle class African Americans, 60% (300) of middle

class Hispanics, and 100% (100) of middle class Native Americans. Percentages of those in the

middle class who felt child abuse was rarely appropriate also varied, with 50% (500) of

Caucasians, 25% (100) of African Americans, 40% (200) of Hispanics, and 100% (100) of Asian

Americans in this category. Caucasians were the only race in any class with responses of never

appropriate, 20% (200) of the middle class. Other classes displayed similar disparities in the

various categories; therefore race has an effect on views of child abuse.

Control for Age

The variable age was also controlled for and found to be extraneous. Age was also

divided into five categories: 18-25, 26-39, 40-55, 56-70, and 71 and above. The tables below

display the scores for each category:

18-25

16 Lower Class (A) Middle Class (B) Upper Middle Upper Class (D) Class (C) Always Appropriate Sometimes 50% (100) 43% (300) 0% (0) 0% (0) Appropriate Rarely 50% (100) 43% (300) 0% (0) 0% (0) Appropriate Never Appropriate 0% (0) 14% (100) 0% (0) 100% (100) Total Numbers 100% (200) 100% (700) 0% (0) 100% (100) 26-39 Lower Class (A) Middle Class (B) Upper Middle Upper Class (D) Class (C) Always Appropriate Sometimes 100% (200) 75% (300) 0% (0) 0% (0) Appropriate Rarely 0% (0) 25% (100) 100% (100) 100% (100) Appropriate Never Appropriate 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) Total Numbers 100% (200) 100% (400) 100% (100) 100% (100)

40-55 Lower Class (A) Middle Class (B) Upper Middle Upper Class (D) Class (C) Always Appropriate Sometimes 0% (0) 67% (200) 0% (0) 0% (0) Appropriate Rarely 100% (100) 33% (100) 67% (200) 0% (0) Appropriate Never Appropriate 0% (0) 0% (0) 33% (100) 0% (0) Total Numbers 100% (100) 100% (300) 100% (300) 0% (0) 56-70 Lower Class (A) Middle Class (B) Upper Middle Upper Class (D) Class (C) Always Appropriate Sometimes 33% (100) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) Appropriate Rarely 67% (200) 100% (300) 50% (100) 0% (0) Appropriate Never Appropriate 0% (0) 0% (0) 50% (100) 0% (0) Total Numbers 100% (300) 100% (300) 100% (200) 0% (0)

71 and above Lower Class (A) Middle Class (B) Upper Middle Upper Class (D) Class (C)

17 Always Appropriate Sometimes 100% (200) 50% (200) 100% (100) 0% (0) Appropriate Rarely 0% (0) 25% (100) 0% (0) 0% (0) Appropriate Never Appropriate 0% (0) 25% (100) 0% (0) 0% (0) Total Numbers 100% (200) 100% (300) 100% (100) 0% (0)

Forty-three percent (300) of middle class members ages 18-25 found child abuse sometimes

appropriate, compared with 75% (300) of those ages 26-39, 67% (200) of those 40-55, 0% (0) of

those 56-70, and 50% (200) of those 71 and over. Middle class members aged 18-25 found

actions rarely appropriate in 43% (300) of cases, 25% (100) of cases for 26-39 year olds, 33%

(100) of cases for 40-55 year olds, 100% (300) of cases for 56-70 year olds, and 25% (100) of

those 71 and older. Lower class percentages also differed. Percentages in the sometimes

appropriate category for lower class members were as follows: 50% (100) for those 18-25, 100%

for those 26-39, 0% (0) for those 40-55, 33% (100) for those 56-70, and 100% (200) for those 71

and above. Other classes and categories shared similar differences. Age is, therefore, an

extraneous variable, effecting beliefs about child abuse.

Control for Education

Education was classified according to High School, Associates Degree, Bachelors Degree,

and Beyond Bachelors Degree. Responses in these categories also indicated an extraneous

variable, as shown in the table below:

High School Lower Class (A) Middle Class (B) Upper Middle Upper Class (D) Class (C) Always Appropriate Sometimes 75% (300) 67% (400) 0% (0) 0% (0) Appropriate Rarely 25% (100) 33% (200) 0% (0) 100% (100) Appropriate

18 Never Appropriate 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) Total Numbers 100% (400) 100% (600) 0% (0) 100% (100) Associates Degree Lower Class (A) Middle Class (B) Upper Middle Upper Class (D) Class (C) Always Appropriate Sometimes 0% (0) 67% (200) 100% (100) 0% (0) Appropriate Rarely 100% (100) 33% (100) 0% (0) 0% (0) Appropriate Never Appropriate 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) Total Numbers 100% (100) 100% (300) 100% (100) 0% (0)

Bachelors Degree Lower Class (A) Middle Class (B) Upper Middle Upper Class (D) Class (C) Always Appropriate Sometimes 100% (200) 43% (300) 0% (0) 0% (0) Appropriate Rarely 0% (0) 57% (400) 75% (300) 0% (0) Appropriate Never Appropriate 0% (0) 0% (0) 25% (100) 0% (0) Total Numbers 100% (200) 100% (700) 100% (400) 0% (0) Beyond Bachelors Lower Class (A) Middle Class (B) Upper Middle Upper Class (D) Class (C) Always Appropriate Sometimes 0% (0) 20% (100) 50% (100) 0% (0) Appropriate Rarely 100% (300) 80% (400) 50% (100) 0% (0) Appropriate Never Appropriate 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 100% (100) Total Numbers 100% (300) 100% (500) 100% (200) 100% (100)

19 While values for lower levels of education are similar, those for respondents with higher education were vastly different. Sixty-seven percent (200) of the middle class surveyed with both a high school diploma and an associatesassociate’s degree felt that child abuse was sometimes appropriate, this contrasts with 43% (300) and 20% (100) of those with a bachelors degree and those with a degree beyond bachelors, respectively. No members of the upper middle class had only a high school diploma. One hundred percent (100) of upper class respondents with an associatesassociate’s degree found child abuse sometimes appropriate, while none of those with a bachelorsbachelor’s degree, and 50% (100) fell into this category. No respondents with a high school diploma or associates degree felt that child abuse was rarely appropriate, while 75% (300) of upper class members with a bachelorsbachelor’s degree and 50% (100) of those with a degree beyond a bachelors did. These disparities indicate that education is an extraneous variable.

Despite the fact that there is a slight correlation between socioeconomic class and views about child abuse, race, age, and education are extraneous variables that also effect perceptions of child abuse. Therefore, the correlation is spurious and does not support the hypothesis.

However, there continues to be a need for further study in this area. No research is completely flawless and the possibility exists that through some unforeseen error or chance alone, the data is inaccurate. One identified potential problem of this study is the construction of the sample.

While a stratified random sample is representative of the population, it limits the number of responses and therefore the accuracy of the data, especially for classes with fewer members, such as the upper class. A possible remedy would be to increase the sample size in order to gain more comprehensive results. Regardless, several factors have been identified that are possible contributors to beliefs about child abuse, namely race, age, and education. While there has been

20 some research in the area of race, the effects age and education remain largely unknown; there remains a need for further study in these and other contributors to instances of child abuse.

Conclusions

The prevalence of child abuse and its social consequences make it an area worthy of greater study. While there is no lack of research on the subject, there is a need to expand relevant information and strengthen the connections between the various previous studies. This is especially true concerning the relationship between social class and views on child abuse. The current study utilized a survey administered to a stratified random sample of four thousand Berks

County, Pennsylvania residents, divided on the basis of social class. Responses to indicator questions were graded on a point scale and assigned to a corresponding ordinal category. A cross tabulation table was then used to display correlations. Further tables controlled for demographic third variables. This study established a correlation in the relationship between social class and views on child abuse, with higher social class associated with a more serious view on child abuse as inappropriate. However, controlling for the variables of race, age, and education determined that the correlation was spurious; therefore the hypothesis was not supported. However, further study should be conducted in this and related areas. Determining the factors that contribute to instances of child abuse can provide valuable information for both detection and prevention of future abuse. Professionals with a greater understanding behind the contributing factors of abuse can have a more comprehensive picture and thus be able to develop more accurate detection methods. This will theoretically help to reduce the number of falsely substantiated reports. In addition, more effective therapy and treatment programs for both offenders and victims can be developed. Assessing the contributing causes of child abuse, whatever they may be, should lead to a more economical distribution of valuable resources.

21 References

Milner, Joel S. and William D. Murphy. 1995. “Assessment of Child Physical and Sexual Abuse

Offenders.” Family Relations. 44 (4) 478-488.

Herman, Steve. 2005. “Improving Decision Making in Forensic Child Sexual Abuse Investigations.” Law and Human Behavior. 29 (1) 87-120. Ménard, Kim S. and R. Barry Ruback. 2003. “Prevalence and Processing of Child Sexual Abuse: a Multi-Data-Set Analysis of Urban and Rural Counties.” Law and Human Behavior. 27 (4) 385-402. Baumrind, Diana. 1994. “The Social Context of Child Maltreatment.” Family Relations. 43 (4) 360-368. Kruttschnitt, Candace, Jane D. McLeod and Maude Dornfeld. 1994. “The Economic Environment of Child Abuse.” Social Problems. 49 (2) 299-315. Stewart, Cyrus, Mary Margaret Senger, David Kallen, and Susan Scheurer. 1987. “Family Violence in Stable Middle-Class Homes.” Social Work. 32 (6) 529-531. Garbarino, James and Aaron Ebata. 1983. “The Significance of Ethnic and Cultural Differences in Child Maltreatment.” Journal of Marriage and Family. 45 (4) 773-784. Gerris, Jan R. M., Maja Deković and Jan M. A. M. Janssens. 1997. “The Relationship between Social Class and Childrearing Behaviors: Parents' Perspective Taking and Value Orientations.” Journal of Marriage and Family. 59 (4) 834-847. Krishnakumar, Ambika and Cheryl Buehler. 2000. “Interparental Conflict and Parenting Behaviors: A Meta-Analytic Review.” Family Relations. 49 (1) 29-44. Thompson, Ronald W., Crystal R. Grow, Penney R. Ruma, Daniel L. Daly and Raymond V. Burke. 1993. “Evaluation of a Practical Parenting Program with Middle- and Low- Income Families.” Family Relations. 42 (1) 21-25. Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare. 2009. “2009 Child Abuse Report.” www.dpw.state.pa.us

22 Appendix A: Schedule June 3, 2010 – June 21, 2010  Design survey

 Conduct literature analysis

 Develop and outline methods

June 22, 2010 – June 27, 2010  Copy surveys and cover labels

 Print mailing labels

 Assemble mailings

June 28, 2010  Mail surveys

June 29, 2010 – August 13, 2010  Analyze returned surveys

 Re-mail any inaccurate / incomplete responses

July 19, 2010  Mail reminder postcards

August 14, 2010 – September 6, 2010  Final survey analysis

September 7, 2010 – September 16, 2010  Compile cross tabulation tables

 Develop conclusions

 Write-up final report

Estimated time schedule – 15 weeks

23 Appendix B: Budget Mailings

 Survey – 4000 mailed + 50 extra ($.20 per copy) $ 810.00

 Cover Letter – 4000 mailed + 50 extra ($.10 per copy) $ 405.00

 Envelopes – 41 box of 100 $ 266.50

 Reminder Postcards – 41 box of 100 $ 1,640.00

 Mailing Labels – 14 box of 300 $ 175.00

 Black Ink – 3 cartridges $ 45.00

 Stamps – 8,000 mailed + 100 extra ($.44) $ 3564.00

Total $ 6,905.50

All supplies purchased on-line – no travel expenses

All work and analysis conducted by researcher – no salary expenses

Total Expenses $ 6,905.00

24 Appendix C: Cover Letter

Amanda Burkard

Albright College

 Dear Berks County Resident

Dear Sir or Madam:

My name is Amanda Burkard. As part of my studies at Albright College, I am required to conduct a research study. I have chosen to focus on views of child abuse. I have included a short survey, along with a self-addressed, stamped envelope. Participation is both completely voluntary and confidential. Please fill out the survey as completely and honestly as possible and return it in the enclosed envelope. Any questions can be directed to Professor Charles Brown, PhD, Albright College, Reading, Pennsylvania (610-921-7865). Thank you in advance for your participation.

Sincerely,

Amanda Burkard Albright College 610-310-0772 [email protected]

6/21/2010

25 Appendix D: Survey The purpose of this research project is to determine if there is a correlation between income, level of education, or race on one’s level of depression. By completing this survey you acknowledge that you are participating voluntarily, that you are at least 18 years of age, and that you can quit the survey at any time. Furthermore, you provide consent to the researcher to use your responses as data for the research project. Thank you for participating in this study.

Please respond to the questions below to the best of your knowledge 1. What age group do you fit into? (a) 18-25 (b) 26-39 (c) 40-55 (d) 56-70 (e) 71 or above 8. What is your highest level of education achieved? 2. What is your gender? (a) High School or less (a) Male (b) Associates Degree (b) Female (c) Bachelors Degree (c) Other (d) Degree beyond a Bachelor’s Degree

3. How would you categorize your race? 9. On average, how many hours do you (a) Caucasian work a week? (b) African American (a) More than 40 hours per week (c) Hispanic (b) 40 hours per week (d) Native American (c) less than 40 hours per week (e) Asian American (d) I do not work (f) Other

4. Are you: (a) Married (b) Divorced (c) Widowed (d) Single

5. Do you have children? (a) Yes (b) No

6. What is your yearly individual income? (a) 0-24,999 (b) 25,000-79,999 (c) 75,000-149,999 (d) 150,000- or above

7. What is your yearly FAMILY income? (e) 0-24,999 (f) 25,000-79,999 (g) 75,000-149,999 (h) 150,000- or above

26 In your opinion, when is it appropriate to exercise the following methods with children?

10. Belittling 14. Leaving alone

(a) always (a) always (b) if necessary (b) if necessary (c) only for discipline (c) only for discipline (d) as a last resort (d) as a last resort (e) never (e) never

11. Threatening 15. Slapping

(a) always (a) always (b) if necessary (b) if necessary (c) only for discipline (c) only for discipline (d) as a last resort (d) as a last resort (e) never (e) never

12. Withholding food 16. Hitting

(a) always (a) always (b) if necessary (b) if necessary (c) only for discipline (c) only for discipline (d) as a last resort (d) as a last resort (e) never (e) never

13. Ignoring 17. Choking

(a) always (a) always (b) if necessary (b) if necessary (c) only for discipline (c) only for discipline (d) as a last resort (d) as a last resort (e) never (e) never

27 Appendix E: Scale

Point Values: a = 0 b = 1 c = 2 d = 3 e = 4

Possible score range: 0-32

Ordinal Categories (Views of child abuse):

0-7 points – Child abuse always appropriate 8-15 points – Child abuse is sometimes appropriate 16-23 points – Child abuse is rarely appropriate 24-32 points – Child abuse is never appropriate

28