Weighing consequences: understanding decision-making in mandatory reporting of suspected child physical abuse

Mandatory reporting of suspected child abuse presents a complex ethical and cognitive challenge for professionals, particularly social workers. This study explores how Chinese social work students make decisions in response to suspected child physical abuse, focusing on the interplay between intuitive and analytical cognition and the ethical tensions between deontology and consequentialism. Using a vignette-based experimental design, 318 social work students evaluated a fictional case and reported their likelihood to report, perceived risks, and potential consequences. Cluster analysis identified two decision-making types: “intuitive” reporters who prioritized child protection outcomes and “analytic” reporters who weighed all potential consequences more evenly. Logistic regression and mediation analysis revealed that higher perceived risk was associated with intuitive thinking and greater likelihood of reporting, while analytic reasoning sometimes inhibited reporting due to concerns about institutional inadequacy. The findings suggest that while social work students are ethically committed to child protection, consequentialist considerations—particularly doubts about post-reporting support—can override this commitment. This study underscores the importance of integrating ethical reasoning and dual-process theory into child protection training and highlights systemic barriers that complicate the translation of mandatory reporting policy into practice.