IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0222716.html

Reasons to care: Personal motivation as a key factor in the practice of the professional foster carer in Romania

Author

Listed:
  • Alexandru Neagoe
  • Doina Larisa Maria Neag
  • Daniel Lucheș

Abstract

Personal motivation is a key factor in the service of foster care, impending both on the welfare of the child and on the satisfaction of the carer. This paper explores the benefits, challenges and dilemmas involved in the job of professional (i.e. state-supported) foster carer in Romania–a country where the issue of child protection has drawn a great deal of international attention over the last thirty years. The principal hypothesis concerns whether the benefits, challenges and dilemmas identified by foster carers are influenced by the factors that led to their taking up this kind of work. Quantitative research was conducted using a questionnaire as the main tool. The paper takes a descriptive, cross-sectional and multifactorial approach. Sampling was carried out by self-selecting method, and the study involved 51 participants. The research project identified a statistically significant variation in the challenges and dilemmas reported by foster carers. Thus, the results of the study show that the majority of the carers indicate a primarily intrinsic motivation for their work. By way of conclusion, it is argued that social workers, operating in collaboration with multidisciplinary teams, can offer carers support in managing more difficult periods in the child–carer relationship, thus enhancing the sustainability of the foster care service.

Suggested Citation

  • Alexandru Neagoe & Doina Larisa Maria Neag & Daniel Lucheș, 2019. "Reasons to care: Personal motivation as a key factor in the practice of the professional foster carer in Romania," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(9), pages 1-11, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0222716
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0222716
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0222716
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0222716&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0222716?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Valerio Capraro & David G. Rand, 2018. "Do the Right Thing: Experimental evidence that preferences for moral behavior, rather than equity or efficiency per se, drive human prosociality," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 13(1), pages 99-111, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Foussiakda, Agino Cécilia & Kasherwa, Amani Clovis, 2020. "The challenges affecting foster care in a “failed-state” context: Case of the SEDI child protection network in South-Kivu Province, Democratic Republic of Congo," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Anabel Belaus & Cecilia Reyna & Esteban Freidin, 2018. "Testing the effect of cooperative/competitive priming on the Prisoner’s Dilemma. A replication study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(12), pages 1-15, December.
    2. Chorus, Caspar & van Cranenburgh, Sander & Daniel, Aemiro Melkamu & Sandorf, Erlend Dancke & Sobhani, Anae & Szép, Teodóra, 2021. "Obfuscation maximization-based decision-making: Theory, methodology and first empirical evidence," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 28-44.
    3. repec:plo:pone00:0209247 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Ekström, Mathias, 2018. "The (un)compromise effect," Discussion Paper Series in Economics 10/2018, Norwegian School of Economics, Department of Economics, revised 16 May 2018.
    5. Charles Ayoubi & Boris Thurm, 2023. "Knowledge diffusion and morality: Why do we freely share valuable information with Strangers?," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(1), pages 75-99, January.
    6. Linek, Maximilian & Traxler, Christian, 2021. "Framing and social information nudges at Wikipedia," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 188(C), pages 1269-1279.
    7. Hedegaard, Morten & Kerschbamer, Rudolf & Müller, Daniel & Tyran, Jean-Robert, 2021. "Distributional preferences explain individual behavior across games and time," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 231-255.
    8. Müge Süer & Nicola Cerutti & Jana Friedrichsen & Gyula Seres, 2024. "Do Women Comply More Than Men? Experimental Evidence from a General Population Sample," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 519, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    9. Angeliki Antoniou, 2019. "Compatibility of Small Team Personalities in Computer-Based Tasks," Challenges, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-12, May.
    10. Arechar, Antonio A. & Rand, David G., 2022. "Learning to be selfish? A large-scale longitudinal analysis of Dictator games played on Amazon Mechanical Turk," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    11. Pau Juan-Bartroli & Jos'e Ignacio Rivero-Wildemauwe, 2025. "Social preferences or moral concerns: What drives rejections in the Ultimatum game?," Papers 2510.22086, arXiv.org.
    12. Rebekka Kesberg & Stefan Pfattheicher, 2019. "Democracy matters: a psychological perspective on the beneficial impact of democratic punishment systems in social dilemmas," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-13, December.
    13. Chapkovski, Philipp, 2022. "Information avoidance in a polarized society," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    14. Vincent Berthet & Camille Dorin & Jean-Christophe Vergnaud & Vincent de Gardelle, 2020. "How does symbolic success affect redistribution in left-wing voters? A focus on the 2017 French presidential election," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(3), pages 1-12, March.
    15. Carlos Maximiliano Senci & Hipólito Hasrun & Rodrigo Moro & Esteban Freidin, 2019. "The influence of prescriptive norms and negative externalities on bribery decisions in the lab," Rationality and Society, , vol. 31(3), pages 287-312, August.
    16. Jos'e Ignacio Rivero-Wildemauwe, 2025. "Trade among moral agents with information asymmetries," Papers 2505.20551, arXiv.org, revised May 2025.
    17. Carlos Andres Trujillo & Catalina Estrada-Mejia & Jose A Rosa, 2021. "Norm-focused nudges influence pro-environmental choices and moderate post-choice emotional responses," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(3), pages 1-23, March.
    18. Catola, Marco & D’Alessandro, Simone & Guarnieri, Pietro & Pizziol, Veronica, 2021. "Personal norms in the online public good game," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 207(C).
    19. Amnon Maltz & Moti Michaeli & Sapir Gavriel, 2024. "Are Anti-Vaxxers Anti-Social? How Convictions Shape Prosocial Behavior and Vaccination Decisions," Carlo Alberto Notebooks 730 JEL Classification: D, Collegio Carlo Alberto.
    20. Arvid Erlandsson, 2021. "Seven (weak and strong) helping effects systematically tested in separate evaluation, joint evaluation and forced choice," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 16(5), pages 1113-1154, September.
    21. Capraro, Valerio & Rodriguez-Lara, Ismael & Ruiz-Martos, Maria J., 2020. "Preferences for efficiency, rather than preferences for morality, drive cooperation in the one-shot Stag-Hunt game," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 86(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0222716. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.