Cited by 37Child Abuse and TraumaChild Welfare and AdoptionChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development

The Social Information Processing Model in Child Physical Abuse and Neglect: A Meta-analytic Review

Open access
Camilo, Cláudia, Garrido, Margarida Vaz, Calheiros, Maria Manuela·2020·Child Abuse & Neglect

Abstract

Background Child maltreatment has been recently examined from a cognitive-behavioral perspective. The Social Information Processing (SIP) model specifies how parental cognitions can be associated with child physical abuse and neglect and suggests that maltreating parents do not adequately respond to the child's needs due to errors/bias in the cognitive processing of child-related information.Objective This study provides two separate meta-analytic reviews of research exploring the role of parents' socio-cognitive variables in shaping child physical abuse and child neglect, identifying the association of each SIP stage to these types of maltreatment.Method After a four-phase systematic literature search based in PRISMA with inter-judges' agreement, 130 effect sizes were extracted from the 51 studies selected.Results Overall, the effect sizes of the four cognitive stages of the model were significant for physical abuse and ranged from small (r = .190 for parents' interpretations of children's signals) to moderate (r = .315 for parents' perceptions of children's signals). Regarding neglect, only the overall effect of parent's preexisting schemata was significant but small in magnitude (r = .231).Conclusions The results of these multilevel meta-analyses support the general hypothesis that physically abusive parents may incur in biases in processing child-related information, but further research is still required regarding neglect. Theoretically this work is likely to provide a more solid framework to understand parental cognitions underlying child maltreatment with potential implications for evaluation and intervention with maltreating or at-risk parents.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.chiabu.2020.104666

Cites

117 of 117 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Camilo, C., Garrido, M. V., & Calheiros, M. M.
Affiliations
Iscte – Instituto Universitário de Lisboa (PT)
Corresponding author
Camilo, Cláudia
Venue
Child Abuse & Neglect
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-10
Volume
108
Pages
104666
ISSN
0145-2134 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3081513382
Cited by
37
References
117
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 2
FWCI
0.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Child Abuse & Neglect (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Repositório do ISCTE-IUL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Portuguese National Funding Agency for Science, Research and Technology (RCAAP Project by FCT) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (PTDC/MHC-PCN/5217/2014, SFRH/BD/99875/2014)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child Abuse and Trauma
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Child Welfare and Adoption
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Keywords
social information processing model, child physical abuse, child neglect, child abuse, parental cognitions, cognitive biases
MeSH terms
Physical Abuse, Adolescent, Child, Child Abuse, Child, Preschool, Female, Humans, Male, Social Behavior

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review