Objective: There were two aims: First, to determine to what extent four variables, disclosure, doll play, affect and collateral information, affect the decision-making processes of child sexual abuse experts and lay persons when confronted with an abuse allegation, and second, to see how these two groups of raters might differ from one another.
Method: A randomized block partially confounded factorial design was used. Participants made abuse likelihood and confidence ratings in response to six hypothetical cases of child sexual abuse, four of which had varying combinations of the four types of information and two of which were constant across all raters. Participants also completed attitudes and knowledge questionnaires.
Results: Disclosure and collateral information both had large effects on both rater groups. Doll play and affect had little or no effect on the decisions of either group. Experts were slightly more conservative in their judgments over all than students were. Experts also displayed more knowledge of the sexual abuse literature and more child-believing attitudes than their student counterparts.
Conclusion: Concrete information such as disclosure statements and collateral information affected abuse decisions while inferential data such as doll play and affect did not. The goal of these evaluations may be the clarification of such concrete information and the inferential data may be used only to guide one's inquiry. This conclusion argues against the concern that experts might jump to conclusions of abuse merely based upon suggestive, symbolic material.