Public perceptions of child protection, children’s rights, and personal values: An assessment of two states

Abstract

Although there is an expansive literature on public attitudes towards the welfare state, we know comparatively little about public attitudes toward child protection. Gauging public opinion about the state’s role in protecting children is complicated by the contested ideas that underlie the field. Child protection lies at the nexus between competing values about state obligations to allow unfettered parental freedom or to permit constraints on some parental behaviors. At issue is also the notion of balancing the individual rights of the parties involved: parents and children. Similar to the larger welfare state literature, public attitudes about child protection may be shaped by core human values. This study includes representative samples of the public in Norway and California (n = 2148), countries that are commonly viewed as representative of social democratic and liberal welfare state regimes. Respondents reviewed a vignette portraying a child at risk of harm and were asked a series of questions to gauge whether and/or how the state might constrain the parent’s behavior, questions pertaining to the rights of children, and their views about core human values. Findings indicate that residents of Norway were more likely to favor the values of security and equal rights, and Californians more likely to favor the value of self-direction. Contrary to the larger body of welfare state literature which suggests that human values help explain public attitudes about welfare provisions, in general, this study did not find that human values generally explained differences in country attitudes toward constrained parenting or toward children’s rights. Findings offer an exploratory first step in expanding notions about child protection as nested in welfare states.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 14 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.