Please read the attached document to answer question #2For each prompt, please provide some information from related readings. You can also use class material and also outside source(s). All sourc

Reporting Child Sexual Abuse within Religious Settings: Challenges and Future Directions The sexual abuse of children within religious settings is an issue that has gained increased popular and professional attention over the past two decades. Various reports have highlighted the scale of such abuse, along with shortcomings in reporting practices. In this article, we outline some contemporary research that sought to understand the psychology that underpins variable reporting practices. In line with this research, we set out two conceptual frameworks that have some potential to help to explain such practices:system justiﬁcation theoryandmoral foundations theory.Further, we describe how these frameworks could be adopted in research moving forward in order to make sense of the ways in which members of religious groups respond to allegations of child sexual abuse within their institutions. We close the article by arguing that by gaining a deeper understanding of the psychology underlying reporting practices, it may be possible to communicate more effectively about child sexual abuse within religious institutions, and therefore encourage more widespread reporting of allegations before more children are harmed. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

K EY PRACTITIONER MESSAGES :

Those most likely to observe or suspect child abuse in religious settings are themselves likely to participate in such settings.

The challenge for these‘onlookers’is to overcome the psychological dynamics that push against the recognition and reporting of child abuse in religious settings.

These dynamics can be understood via established psychological theories and frameworks.

Practitioners concerned with improving reporting practice in these contexts can draw on this work to inform training and intervention strategies.

K EY WORDS : clergy abuse; Church; religion; child sexual abuse; sexual offending T he sexual abuse of children in institutions, a matter of public interest since at least the early 1990s, has in recent years become the focus of heightened concern in the national discourse. The abuse of children in religious settings, with the most well-known (but certainly not only) example being in the Roman Catholic Church throughout the world (e.g. Keenan, 2012), has contributed to an understandable public reaction: not just shock, but anger. This anger has been directed at both the perpetrators of this abuse and at those within the institutions *Correspondence to: Craig A. Harper, Department of Psychology, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham NG1 4BU, UK. E-mail [email protected] Craig A. Harper* Department of Psychology, Nottingham Trent University, UK Colin Perkins Diocese of Chichester, Church of England, UK ‘We outline some contemporary research that sought to understand the psychology that underpins variable reporting practices’ ‘The abuse of children in religious settings…has contributed to an understandable public reaction: not just shock, but anger’ Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Accepted: 23 April 2017 Child Abuse Review Vol.27:30–41 (2018) Published online 20 July 2017 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/car.2484 who appear to have failed to‘read the signs’that abuse was occurring, or in some cases to have indeed read those signs and yet failed to act upon them.

Much of the associated media discourse has called for control-led and risk- based responses to the perceived failure to recognise, respond to or report child sexual abuse (CSA) in institutions, replicating a common media response to this topic (e.g. Lonne and Parton, 2014). In particular, the theme of‘mandatory reporting’of alleged or suspected child abuse in institutions has, in some quarters, been taken up as a shibboleth of the commitment to eradicate such abuse in the future. According to a recent summary report of a roundtable event, hosted by the NSPCC (2014), mandatory reporting is deﬁned as a process that places a legal duty on designated groups of people associated with institutions to report incidents of child abuse. Mandatory reporting is enshrined in law in the USA and Canada, and across much of Australia. The UK has precise statutory guidance, such as the UK government documentWorking Together to Safeguard Children(HM Government, 2015), which places a clear professional expectation (though not compulsion) on people to report suspected abuse, and the government has recently concluded a consultation exercise regarding the potential implementation of a mandatory reporting duty in England and Wales. However, we know that even in those jurisdictions where these laws are in place, reporting practices are often inconsistent (most recently popularised in the movieSpotlight, which dramatised the story of the cover-up, and subsequent reporting, of decades of CSA within the Archdiocese of Boston, part of the US Catholic Church; see also Reilly, 2003). In this article, we outline some of the potential barriers to such reporting in religious settings, and identify some ways in which we might begin to test some methods that are designed to increase compliance with reporting standards.

The Scale of Sexual Abuse within Religious Settings While attempts have been made to quantify the prevalence of CSA in the general population (see for instance the meta-analysis by Stoltenborghet al.(2011), who described CSA as a‘global problem of considerable extent’(p. 90)), data regarding institutional CSA are scarce and inconsistent (Keenan, 2012). Much of the available research in this regard comes from analyses of the Roman Catholic Church, which, as a global organisation accountable to a single primary authority (Rome), is uniquely positioned to gather such data. Even then, data are emerging in an unstructured fashion, driven often by media reports and subsequent inquiries. Thus, while a comprehensive and deﬁnitive picture of the scale of institutional CSA is not currently available, and while much of our discussion will include references to the Roman Catholic Church, we would encourage readers to apply the examples presented in this section as illustrations of the potential scope of CSA in wider religious settings.

The most substantial study to date is the John Jay Report (John Jay College, 2004, 2006; Terryet al.,2011), which was commissioned by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops as part of the response to public scandals.

Scrutinisingﬁles between 1950 and 2002, it was reported that 10 667 children had been abused by 4392 priests and deacons–representing four per cent of the clergy who had served during this period. Further, Terryet al.(2011) reported that over 3000additionalvictims had come forward since the ‘‘Mandatory reporting’... has, in some quarters, been taken up as a shibboleth of the commitment to eradicate such abuse’ ‘Data regarding institutional CSA are scarce and inconsistent’ ‘The most substantial study to date is the John Jay Report’ 31 Reporting sexual abuse in religious settings Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Child Abuse Rev. Vol. 27: 30–41 (2018) DOI: 10.1002/car publication of the 2004 report, although it was noted that the prevalence of abuse within the US Catholic Church appears to have peaked in the mid- 1980s, and had been gradually declining since then.

In 1996, the Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne in Australia instituted the Melbourne Response, an initiative which, according to the Archdiocesan website,‘assists people who have been abused sexually, physically or emotionally’within the Church. The independent commissioner handling reports for the Melbourne Response (Peter O'Callaghan QC) has publicly stated that he has found more than 300 conﬁrmed cases of clergy-perpetrated CSA, in evidence submitted to the Protecting Victoria's Vulnerable Children Inquiry (Cumminset al.,2012). The subsequent report of the Victorian Parliament,Betrayal of Trust, received‘hundreds of accounts’from alleged victims of CSA in religious settings, and yet declined to suggest an overall ﬁgure regarding the scope of such abuse. It also acknowledged‘those victims who were unable to participate in the Inquiry–who remained locked in silence, who found the re-telling of their experience too traumatic, or who have taken their lives’(Parliament of Victoria, 2013, p. vi) as a result of their abuse, indicating a belief that CSA in Australian religious contexts is substantially more widespread than the ofﬁcial estimates may suggest.

In May 2010, again in response to an increased public awareness of the sexual abuse of children, the German government set up a conﬁdential telephone line for victims to report such abuse. In theﬁrst 18 months, 4208 people contacted the service to report being sexually abused as children, 534 of whom had been abused in Catholic or Protestant institutions (Spröberet al.,2014).

Following a torrent of revelations regarding child abuse in the Catholic Church in the Republic of Ireland, theCommission of Investigation Report into the Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin(the Murphy Report; Y. Murphyet al., 2009) reported in 2009 that it had received information pertaining to alleged CSA against 172 named priests and 11 unnamed priests, and concluded that 102 of these priests came within the Commission's remit. The Commission examined complaints regarding the abuse of over 320 children, yet it acknowledged that the number of perpetrators or victims known to the Commission was unlikely to yield a sense of the true scale of abuse. Indeed, one accused priest admitted to the Commission that he had abused over 100 children, while another suggested that he had abused fortnightly for over 25 years.

The Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse in Ireland (the Ryan Report; Ryan, 2009) heard evidence from 1090 adults who recounted being abused as children within a range of institutional settings. While the Ryan Report (unlike the Murphy Report) looked at all institutions in Ireland, it should be noted that this country's speciﬁc historical situation meant that many of those institutions within which abuse took place were inextricably linked to the Irish Catholic Church (e.g. McLoone-Richards, 2012).

Current Practices in Reporting Sexual Abuse in Religious Settings The failure to recognise CSA, and indeed the failure to report such abuse when it is either known about or suspected, has featured prominently in the numerous ‘A belief that CSA in Australian religious contexts is substantially more widespread than the ofﬁcial estimates may suggest’ ‘The failure to recognise CSA…has featured prominently in…numerous reports’ 32Harper and Perkins Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Child Abuse Rev. Vol. 27: 30–41 (2018) DOI: 10.1002/car reports already available on the theme of sexual abuse in religious settings. The report of an investigation by the Attorney General of Massachusetts into CSA in the Catholic Archdiocese of Boston (Reilly, 2003), which exposed a ‘massive and prolonged mistreatment of children by priests’(p. 2), found that ‘throughout the decades that the Archdiocese was dealing with a large and growing problem of clergy sexual abuse of children, it steadfastly maintained a practice of not reporting allegations of sexual abuse of children to law enforcement.’(p. 52) A 2005 inquiry into CSA in the Irish Catholic Diocese of Ferns identiﬁed over 100 allegations of CSA against 21 priests between 1962 and 2002. Again, very poor reporting practices were identiﬁed (F. D. Murphyet al.,2005). The Murphy Report into the Archdiocese of Dublin found that ‘all…considerations, including the welfare of children and justice for victims, were ‘subordinated’to the priorities of‘the maintenance of secrecy, the avoidance of scandal, the protection of the reputation of the Church, and the preservation of its assets.’(Y. Murphy et al.,2009, p. 4) Unsurprisingly, given this overarchingﬁnding, the reporting practices of the Archdiocese regarding CSA were characterised as‘do not ask, do not tell’ (Y. Murphyet al., 2009, p. 9). The wider-ranging Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse (the aforementioned Ryan Report) noted that ‘cases of sexual abuse were managed with a view to minimising the risk of public disclosure and consequent damage to the institution and the Congregation. This policy resulted in the protection of the perpetrator.’(Ryan, 2009, p. 21) The Ryan Report noted that reporting practices of CSA in institutions in Ireland were not uniform, and that the willingness to report varied with the identity of the perpetrator:

‘When lay people were discovered to have sexually abused, they were generally reported to the Gardai. When a member of the Congregation was found to be abusing, it was dealt with internally and not reported to the Gardai…The difference in treatment of lay and religious abusers points to an awareness on the part of Congregational authorities of the seriousness of the offence, yet there was a reluctance to conﬁne religious [order members] who offended in this way.’(Ryan, 2009, p. 21) This crucial detail–of differential reporting practices according to the role of the perpetrator–warrants further attention. While advocates of mandatory reporting suggest that such inconsistent practices can only be remedied by compelling the reporting of abuse, there is evidence to suggest that mandated reporters still exercise similar levels of discretion as do non-mandated actors (e.g. Leviet al.,2006; Smith, 2010). This is in spite of possible sanctions that can be placed on organisations and individuals who do not comply with the legislation (e.g.ﬁnes of up to $10 000 and/or imprisonment of up to 5 years in some states in the USA (Children's Bureau, 2016)).

The various reports cited in this paper detail different types of‘failure’to report CSA, such as failure to recognise or believe that abuse is happening, and failure to report abuse even when it is recognised. However, there may be common psychological features that help us explicate these various phenomena. Brackenridge (2001), writing within the context of CSA in sport, ‘Willingness to report varied with the identity of the perpetrator’ ‘Mandated reporters still exercise similar levels of discretion as do non-mandated actors’ ‘The reporting practices of the Archdiocese regarding CSA were characterised as‘do not ask, do not tell’’ 33 Reporting sexual abuse in religious settings Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Child Abuse Rev. Vol. 27: 30–41 (2018) DOI: 10.1002/car uses a‘triangular model’of child protection drawn from the work of Helen Armstrong to explicate the response of the‘onlooker’who observes child abuse (whether or not that observation leads to suspicion). In reference to this model, Brackenridge asks a telling question: Who are these onlookers, and where do their allegiances lie? She notes that in a sport setting, the onlookers will likely be those who are committed to that setting (e.g. players, staff, supporters), and by extension are loyal to the institution within which the abuse occurs. Noting research which indeed shows that sports organisationsﬁnd it difﬁcult to sympathise with victims of sexual abuse, Brackenridge argues that this difﬁculty arises from the challenge any report of abuse presents to the viability of the institution. That is, taking a report of abuse seriously draws institutionally connected onlookers ‘into recognising publicly that there areﬂaws in the very institution…that supports their own existence. It is far less problematic for onlookers to minimise or ignore problems of sexual exploitation, or to align with the alleged abusers, whether overtly or by default, since this enables life to continue much as before.’(Brackenridge, 2001, p. 167) In a recent experimental study of these effects in the context of religious institutional afﬁliation, Mintoet al.(2016) examined the extent to which social identity (operationalised as religious identiﬁcation) had an impact on churchgoers' propensities to believe an allegation of historical sexual abuse by a Catholic priest. The authors found that Christians (both of Catholic and non-Catholic denominations) were more likely to be sceptical about the allegation, rate the alleged victim as less credible and rate the priest as more credible, than non-Christians (a mixed group comprising participants of non- Christian faiths and of no faith at all). Further, and only among Catholics, these effects were mediated by religious identiﬁcation, but were not moderated by ambiguity of guilt. That is, Catholics who identiﬁed strongly with their faith were more likely to be sceptical of the allegation (includingﬁnding the alleged victim as less credible and the priest as more credible) than those who identiﬁed with their faith to a lesser extent, but these responses were not tempered when evidence of certainty of the priest's guilt was presented. In their discussion, Mintoet al.(2016) stated that these effects represent a motivated degradation of alleged victims of sexual abuse by members of the Catholic Church, and an attempt to bolster the sense of morality that the Church holds most dear.

Mintoet al.(2016) noted that the trend towards disbelieving allegations of child abuse perpetrated by clergy was contrary to what may be expected.

Ingroup behaviour tends towards the rapid exclusion of the deviant. Arguably in this case, this would be the suspected abusive priest. Discussing this phenomenon, Minto and her colleagues echo Brackenridge's thoughts regarding‘onlookers’; acknowledging theexistenceof the‘deviant priest’ threatens the validity and integrity of the institution, and it is the institution through which the onlookers gain a sense of identity and purpose. It is far easier, therefore, to exclude the victim, whose report threatens the institution and therefore the institutionally derived identity, than to deal with the report on its own terms (Mintoet al.,2016).

These behaviours may not derive from deliberate, carefully reasoned decision-making. Arguing from within the psychodynamic tradition, and ‘Brackenridge asks a telling question: Who are these onlookers, and where do their allegiances lie?’ ‘Christians…were more likely to be sceptical about the allegation’ ‘It is the institution through which the onlookers gain a sense of identity and purpose’ 34Harper and Perkins Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Child Abuse Rev. Vol. 27: 30–41 (2018) DOI: 10.1002/car noting the importance of theemotionalcontent of institutional identiﬁcation, Carr (2001) stated that ‘in becoming a member of a group or organisation, the individual surrenders some of their identity…[and views] their own identity in terms of their…context.’(pp. 426–427) The processes involved in forming this merged relationship between personal and institutional selves–which Carr termsnarcissistic identiﬁcation –are‘deep-seated, largely unconscious, intimately connected to the development of identity, and have emotional content’(p. 429). It may also be that in the context of religious institutions, strict adherence to doctrine and institutional standards further compounds this effect, contributing to a lesser propensity to believe allegations of CSA in such settings, as observed by Minto and colleagues. As the Church typically sees itself as a bastion of high moral standards, members may have a difﬁcult time accepting that those at its helm are capable of perpetrating such acts (e.g. Scheper-Hughes and Devine, 2003).

Understanding and Addressing Current Reporting Practices: Directions for Research The descriptive conceptual explanations for a lack of recognition or reporting of sexual abuse within institutions (e.g. Brackenridge, 2001; Scheper-Hughes and Devine, 2003), coupled with the recent experimental data reported by Minto et al.(2016), suggest that enacting blanketmandatory reporting legislation may not be effective in improving reportingpractices in religioussettings. Mandatory reporting still requires people tobelievethat abuse may be happening; the discussion so far indicates that those most likely to observe the signs may be the least likely to believe them. Instead, a more indirect approach may be required.

That is, methods to encourage reporting that are informed by psychological theories and frameworks potentially offer a more effective way of encouraging Brackenridge's (2001)‘onlookers’to recognise potential cases of CSA and report them to relevant authorities. In this section, weﬁrstsetoutwhatthese psychological frameworks look like, and outline how they can be used to theoretically explain under-reporting of CSA within religious settings. Next, we offer some testable hypotheses for examining their empirical validity in this area. Finally, we highlight some potential practical uses of these frameworks in order to improve current reporting practices in closed communities.

System Justiﬁcation Theory System justiﬁcation theory (SJT) (Jostet al.,2004) asserts that people are implicitly motivated to ‘justify and rationalise the way things are, so that existing social, economic, and political arrangements tend to be perceived as fair and legitimate.’(Jost and Hunyady, 2005, p. 260) Previous research has found that the‘system justiﬁcation motive’can contribute to judgements that may be at odds with perceived wisdom, such as justiﬁcations for unequal pay among the genders (Jost and Thompson, 2000), the attribution of personalityﬂaws to people who are medically unﬁt ‘[Church] members may have a difﬁcult time accepting that those at its helm are capable of perpetrating such acts’ ‘The‘system justiﬁcation motive’ can contribute to judgements that may be at odds with perceived wisdom’ ‘Mandatory reporting still requires people tobelievethat abuse may be happening’ 35 Reporting sexual abuse in religious settings Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Child Abuse Rev. Vol. 27: 30–41 (2018) DOI: 10.1002/car (Kayet al.,2007) and the belief that some level of income inequality is justiﬁable (as a result of living in a meritocratic society (Jostet al.,2003)).

Importantly, the system justiﬁcation motive is typically exaggerated when people perceive a threat being posed to the status and legitimacy of the existing status quo. For example, Kayet al.(2005) reported a series of studies whereby participants' motivations for afﬁrming the status quo were heightened by presenting aﬁctitious news story written by an outsider (depicted as a foreign journalist) that criticised the state of American society.

The system justiﬁcation motive appears to be universal, in that all people desire to live in an environment that is fair (Lerner, 1980). That said, the importance and strength of the motive are subject to individual variation. For example, Jostet al.

(2003) demonstrated how the expression of this motive is mostly linked to needs for order and closure, and lower scores on measures of‘openness to experience’, with these traits typically linked to factors such as a conservative-based personality.

Crucially for our argument, these traits also tend to be more prevalent within highly religious communities than in general public samples (e.g. Brandt and Reyna, 2010; Saraglou, 2002). Further, given the scale of recent media scandals about CSA within religious communities, it is perhaps reasonable to suggest that members of such communities feel under threat about the legitimacy and inherent morality of their institutions. As such, we argue that SJT offers one psychological framework for understanding why, under certain circumstances, members of religious organisations may suppress and not report incidents of alleged CSA.

In the only paper to directly examine responses to sexual offending using a system justiﬁcation approach, Ståhlet al.(2010) presented two studies demonstrating that system justiﬁcation motivation contributes to enhanced attributions of blame being made about victims of rape. In theﬁrst of these studies, the authors found that modern sexism (operationalised as the view that women and men are essentially equal in contemporary society, and that attempts to advance gender equality further are futile) predicted rape victim blaming (operationalised as the belief that a victim of rape could have done more to prevent her victimisation, or was in some way responsible for it occurring).

However, this effect was only found among male participants, with no such inﬂuence of modern sexism on victim judgements among females taking part in the study. This result can be interpreted as males attributing blame to the victim of rape in order to strengthen the view that the sexes are equal within society. That is, if they did not attribute this blame, it would implicitly assert that the offender (a male) did not treat the victim (a female) as an equal, which would be a threat to these participants' perception of equality between the genders. In the second study, Ståhlet al.(2010) reported that the use of stereotypes about women (such that they are caring and seductive) led to increased levels of victim blaming among female participants scoring high on modern sexism. Among males, however, there was no interaction between stereotype priming and modern sexism scores in relation to levels of rape victim blaming. Again, this result was consistent with a system justiﬁcation approach to victim blaming, in that females (typically the victims of rape) can be primed into‘justifying the system’(i.e. engaging in rape victim blaming) under certain circumstances.

Kayet al.(2005) referred to this process asvictim derogation, and argued that people are often motivated to attribute blame to those at the bottom of the social ladder for their position in society in order to bolster a perception of fairness within the‘system’, even if they are members of the derogated group. ‘SJT offers one psychological framework for understanding why… members of religious organisations may… not report incidents of alleged CSA’ ‘The system justiﬁcation motive is typically exaggerated when people perceive a threat…to the…status quo’ 36Harper and Perkins Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Child Abuse Rev. Vol. 27: 30–41 (2018) DOI: 10.1002/car We argue that system justiﬁcation motivation is high among religious individuals in relation to allegations of sexual abuse within their institutions.

The perceived scale of clergy-perpetrated sexual abuse among wider society may lead to the perception among religious groups that their system is under threat. Consistent with SJT, we propose that it is this perceived threat that contributes to a propensity to‘close ranks’when allegations of CSA surface within these contexts. As such, we would expect that such a propensity could be primed among religious individuals. Experimentally, we would hypothesise that presenting a news story ostensibly about a case of clergy-perpetrated CSA with system-threatening information embedded in this (e.g. suggestions that abuse is endemic within such institutions) would increase the likelihood that religious participants would (a) minimise the abusive nature of such interactions, (b) derogate or blame alleged victims and (c) offer support to the alleged perpetrator. In contrast, the presentation of a news story with embedded information designed to alleviate perceptions of system threat could have the opposite effect, increasing the likelihood of the allegation being taken seriously and reported to the relevant authorities. In line with Mintoet al.'s (2016)ﬁndings, we might expect some level of mediation by degree of religiosity in these outcomes. That is, those with a greater level of religiosity (or attachment to their particular institution) may demonstrate these effects to a greater degree, such is their attachment to the‘system’that is being justiﬁed.

If we are correct in our assertions, theseﬁndings could have profound implications for the ways in which we discuss the reporting of CSA in religious settings. Firstly, it may be possible to issue media outlets with guidance about how to maximise the potential for members of religious communities to report allegations of such abuses. Similarly, safeguarding ofﬁcers and social workers operating directly within these communities may be able to use SJT principles (such as highlighting the threat posed to the‘system’by perpetrator actions, rather than by exposing abuses) in order to promote the reporting of alleged CSA‘on the ground’. It can be emphasised, for instance, that any effort to protect the institution instead of the victim will inevitably damage both.

Ultimately, utilising a SJT approach in this area offers the potential to understand the psychological processes that underpin (non-)reporting of CSA in religious settings, and further to improve these practices moving forward.

Moral Foundations Theory Aside from speciﬁc (and perhaps conscious) motivations to bolster and justify their social identity and worldview, members of religious institutions may also have deeper, perhaps non-conscious reasons for not reporting alleged cases of abuse within their communities. Harper and Harris (2017) recently advanced the argument that our moral makeup may be in part responsible for the ways in which we respond to reported cases of sexual offending.

Moral foundations theory (MFT; Haidt and Joseph, 2004) asserts that human morality is a multifaceted phenomenon. MFT is based on three clear premises. First, we appear to take a dual-process approach to important or contentious decision-making. Harper and Harris (2017) called this process ‘feelﬁrst, rationalize later’(p. 5). That is, we have automatic emotional responses to certain stimuli, and then rationalise these responses through conscious elaboration. In this sense, we could conceptualise the degradation ‘Any effort to protect the institution instead of the victim will inevitably damage both’ ‘Members of religious institutions may also have deeper, perhaps non- conscious reasons for not reporting alleged cases of abuse’ ‘System justiﬁcation motivation is high among religious individuals in relation to allegations of sexual abuse within their institutions’ 37 Reporting sexual abuse in religious settings Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Child Abuse Rev. Vol. 27: 30–41 (2018) DOI: 10.1002/car of CSA allegations within religious settings as rationalisations of an automatic negative emotional reaction to the perceived threat that the allegation poses to the institution. Second, morality is a multidimensional construct. Haidt and his colleagues have systematically reviewed the literature pertaining to morality in the areas of cultural and evolutionary psychology (Haidt and Graham, 2007; Haidt and Joseph, 2004; Iyeret al.,2012), and suggest that human morality comprises six‘moral foundations’(Table 1). The third premise of MFT is that the relative importance of each moral foundation differs within each individual, giving everybody a distinct and idiographic moral composition. These varying compositions have been linked to established political ideologies. For example, those who highly subscribe to issues about‘care’and‘fairness’, but less so those linked to the other four foundations, tend to identify as politically liberal, while conservatives typically endorse all six foundations equally.

We suggest that embedding the principles of MFT within communication and safeguarding training in religious settings has the potential to develop people's understanding of current reporting practices, and subsequently to improve such behaviours. Indeed, a recent study by Niemi and Young (2016) found that higher levels of endorsement of the‘binding’foundations (i.e.

authority, loyalty and purity) increased victim blaming in cases of sexual and non-sexual crime. A logicﬁrst step in this endeavour to establish the religion-speciﬁc interaction between MFT principles and reporting behaviour would be to systematically examine the roles of each of the moral foundations in reporting practices. This could be conducted using survey methods incorporating Grahamet al.'s (2011) Moral Foundations Questionnaire (MFQ). The MFQ is a validated self-report measure of respondents' endorsement of each moral foundation, and has been found to be predictive of political orientation/identiﬁcation, as well as views about politically controversial issues (e.g. Iyeret al.,2012; Kolevaet al.,2012; Low and Wui, 2016). Administering such a measure when asking respondents about their views in relation to sexual abuse in religious institutions may help us to understand the deeper understanding of the moral basis for (non-)reporting Table 1.The foundations of human morality, according to moral foundations theory Moral foundation Description Typical moral behaviours Care We are biologically designed to care for our young, and those who are unable to care for themselvesProtection and compassion for children and those unable to care for themselves Fairness We are driven to gain social resources through reciprocal altruism and mutual cooperation. Rewards and punishments are given out proportionatelySupport for the fair distribution of social resources, based upon shared social values Anger towards those who gain resources through unfair or unjustiﬁed means Loyalty Historically, we needed to form coalitions with kin in order to protect our own tribes from enemiesPatriotism and pride in one's group and national identity Development of strong relationships based on homogeneous ideologies Authority We require organised social structures in order to operate effectively. These are typically organised as hierarchiesDeferment to agreed social hierarchies Respect for social leaders Sanctity We are driven to avoid physical and behavioural pathogens that threaten the wellbeing of our bodies or social normsA drive to avoid exposure to disease Expressed disgust at socially-taboo ideas Liberty We are driven towards self-determination and freedom from controlDesire for freedom from government interference in personal andﬁnancial affairs ‘Embedding the principles of MFT within… safeguarding training…has the potential to develop… understanding of current reporting practices’ 38Harper and Perkins Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Child Abuse Rev. Vol. 27: 30–41 (2018) DOI: 10.1002/car of alleged CSA in these contexts. These data can then be used in order to frame training and other communication materials in an attempt to improve reporting practices (for an example of how framing arguments in accordance with MFT principles can be effective, see Dayet al.,2014).

Concluding Remarks In this article, we have systematically outlined why reporting practices in relation to alleged CSA in religious settings require further investigation, and have highlighted two conceptual frameworks from social psychology that could help researchers in this endeavour. We argue that (non-)reporting practices in these settings have their genesis in deep-rooted psychological processes, and understanding these processes offers a potentially useful way to shape communication both within and outside of religious institutions in order to facilitate better reporting practices.

Further work is undoubtedly required in order to examine the empirical and practical validity of the arguments that we have advanced in this article.

Naturally, there will also be other cultural variables that impact upon reporting practices (e.g. degree of religiosity, and attitudes and beliefs about sexuality) that also require some level of analysis in order to produce a holistic account about why members of religious groups may be reluctant to discuss allegations of CSA within their institutions. However, by examining these practices from a psychological perspective, we may be able to gain knowledge about these issues that improves communication styles, and ultimately prevents those who pose a risk to children from continuing to operate within such settings.

References Brackenridge CH. 2001.Spoilsports: Understanding and Preventing Sexual Exploitation in Sport. Routledge: London.

Brandt MJ, Reyna C. 2010. The role of prejudice and the need for closure in religious fundamentalism.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin36: 715–725. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0146167210366306.

Carr A. 2001. Understanding emotion and emotionality in a process of change.Journal of Organizational Change Management14: 421–436. https://doi.org/10.1108/ EUM0000000005873.

Children's Bureau. 2016.Penalties for Failure to Report and False Reporting of Child Abuse and Neglect. Children's Bureau: Washington, DC.

Cummins P, Scott D, Scales B. 2012.Report of the Protecting Victoria's Vulnerable Children Inquiry. State of Victoria Government: Melbourne, Australia.

Day MV, Fiske ST, Downing EL, Trail TE. 2014. Shifting liberal and conservative attitudes using moral foundations theory.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin40: 1559–1573. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0146167214551152.

Graham J, Nosek BA, Haidt J, Iyer R, Koleva S, Ditto PH. 2011. Mapping the moral domain.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology101: 366–385. https://doi.org/10.1037/ a002847.

Haidt J, Graham J. 2007. When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize.Social Justice Research20:98–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11211-007-0034-z.

Haidt J, Joseph C. 2004. Intuitive ethics: How innately prepared intuitions generate culturally variable virtues.Daedalus133:55–66. https://doi.org/10.1162/0011526042365555. ‘(Non-)reporting practices in these settings have their genesis in deep- rooted psychological processes’ 39 Reporting sexual abuse in religious settings Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Child Abuse Rev. Vol. 27: 30–41 (2018) DOI: 10.1002/car Harper CA, Harris AJ. 2017. Applying moral foundations theory to understanding public views of sexual offending.Journal of Sexual Aggression23(2): 111–123. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13552600.2016.1217086.

HM Government. 2015.Working Together to Safeguard Children. HM Government: London.

Iyer R, Koleva SP, Graham J, Ditto PH, Haidt J. 2012. Understanding libertarian morality: The psychological dispositions of self-identiﬁed libertarians.PlosONE7: e42366. https://doi.

org/10.1371/journal.pone.0042366.

John Jay College. 2004.The Nature and Scope of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests and Deacons in the United States, 1950-2002. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB): Washington, DC.

John Jay College. 2006.The Nature and Scope of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests and Deacons in the United States, 1950-2002: Supplementary Data Analysis. USCCB:

Washington, DC.

Jost JT, Hunyady O. 2005. Antecedents and consequences of system-justifying ideologies.

Current Directions in Psychological Science14: 260–265. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963- 7214.2005.00377.x.

Jost JT, Thompson EP. 2000. Group-based dominance and opposition to equality as independent predictors of self-esteem, ethnocentrism, and social policy attitudes among African Americans and European Americans.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology36: 209–232. https:// doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1999.1403.

Jost JT, Blount S, Pfeffer J, Hunyady G. 2003. Fair market ideology: Its cognitive-motivational underpinnings. InResearch in Organizational Behavior: An Annual Series of Analytical Essays and Critical Reviews(vol. 25), Staw BM, Kramer RM (eds). Elsevier Science Ltd:

Oxford; 53–91.

Jost JT, Banaji MR, Nosek BA. 2004. A decade of system justiﬁcation theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo.Political Psychology 25: 881–919. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00402.x.

Kay AC, Jost JT, Young S. 2005. Victim derogation and victim enhancement as alternate routes to system justiﬁcation.Psychological Science16: 240–246. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956- 7976.2005.00810.x.

Kay AC, Jost JT, Mandisoza AN, Sherman SJ, Petrocelli JV, Johnson AL. 2007. Panglossian ideology in the service of system justiﬁcation: How complimentary stereotypes help us to rationalize inequality.Advances in Experimental Social Psychology37: 305–358. https:// doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(06)39006-5.

Keenan M. 2012.Child Sexual Abuse and the Catholic Church: Gender, Power, and Organizational Culture. Oxford University Press: Oxford.

Koleva S, Graham J, Ditto P, Iyer R, Haidt J. 2012. Tracing the threads: Howﬁve moral concerns (especially purity) help explain culture war attitudes.Journal of Research in Personality 46: 184–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2012.01.006.

Lerner MJ. 1980.The Belief in a Just World: A Fundamental Delusion. Plenum Books:

New York, NY.

Levi BH, Brown G, Erb C. 2006. Reasonable suspicion: A pilot study of pediatric residents.

Child Abuse & Neglect 30: 345–356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2005.05.004.

Lonne B, Parton N. 2014. Portrayals of child abuse scandals in the media in Australia and England: impacts on practice, policy, and systems: most media coverage distorts the public understandings of the nature of child maltreatment.Child Abuse & Neglect38: 822–836.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2014.04.020.

Low M, Wui MGL. 2016. Moral foundations and attitudes towards the poor.Current Psychology 35: 650–656. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-015-9333-y.

McLoone-Richards C. 2012. Say nothing! How pathology within Catholicism created and sustained the institutional abuse of children in 20th century Ireland.Child Abuse Review 21: 394–404. https://doi.org/10.1002/car.2209.

Minto K, Hornsey MJ, Gillespie N, Healy K, Jetten J. 2016. A social identity approach to understanding responses to child sexual abuse allegations.PloS ONE11: e0153205.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0153205.

Murphy FD, Buckley H, Joyce L. 2005.The Ferns Report, presented by the Ferns Inquiry to the Minister for Health and Children. Stationery Ofﬁce: Dublin, Ireland.

Murphy Y, Mangan I, O'Neill H. 2009.Commission of Investigation. Report into the Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin. Irish Department of Justice and Equality: Dublin, Ireland. 40Harper and Perkins Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Child Abuse Rev. Vol. 27: 30–41 (2018) DOI: 10.1002/car Niemi L, Young L. 2016. When and why we see victims as responsible: The impact of ideology on attitudes toward victims.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin42: 1227–1242.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216653933.

NSPCC. 2014.Exploring the Case for Mandatory Reporting: A Summary of a Roundtable Hosted by the NSPCC. NSPCC: London.

Parliament of Victoria. 2013.Betrayal of Trust: Inquiry into the Handling of Child Abuse by Religious and Other Non-Government Organisations. Parliament of Victoria: Melbourne, Australia.

Reilly TF. 2003.The Sexual Abuse of Children in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston.

Ofﬁce of the Attorney General Commonwealth of Massachusetts: Boston, MA.

Ryan S. 2009.Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse. Government of Ireland: Dublin, Ireland.

Saraglou V. 2002. Beyond dogmatism: The need for closure as related to religion.Mental Health, Religion & Culture5: 183–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/13674670210144130.

Scheper-Hughes N, Devine J. 2003. Priestly celibacy and child sexual abuse.Sexualities 6:15–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363460703006001003.

Smith MC. 2010. Early childhood educators: Perspectives on maltreatment and mandated reporting.Children and Youth Services Review32:20–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.

childyouth.2009.06.011.

Spröber N, Schneider T, Rassenhofer M, Seitz A, Liebhardt H, König L, Fegert JM. 2014. Child sexual abuse in religiously afﬁliated and secular institutions: a retrospective descriptive analysis of data provided by victims in a government-sponsored reappraisal program in Germany.BMC Public Health14:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-14-282.

Ståhl T, Eek D, Kazemi A. 2010. Rape victim blaming as system justiﬁcation: The role of gender and activation of complementary stereotypes.Social Justice Research23: 239–258. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11211-010-0117-0.

Stoltenborgh M, van Ijzendoorn MH, Euser EM, Bakermans-Krananburg MJ. 2011. A global perspective on child sexual abuse: Meta-analysis of prevalence around the world.Child Maltreatment16:79–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077559511403920.

Terry KJ, Smith ML, Schuth K, Kelly JR, Vollman B, Massey C. 2011.The Causes and Context of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests in the United States, 1950-2010. USCCB:

Washington, DC. 41 Reporting sexual abuse in religious settings Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Child Abuse Rev. Vol. 27: 30–41 (2018) DOI: 10.1002/car Copyright ofChild Abuse Review isthe property ofJohn Wiley &Sons, Inc.anditscontent may notbecopied oremailed tomultiple sitesorposted toalistserv without thecopyright holder's expresswrittenpermission. However,usersmayprint, download, oremail articles for individual use.