ATTENTION: The software behind KU ScholarWorks is being upgraded to a new version. Starting July 15th, users will not be able to log in to the system, add items, nor make any changes until the new version is in place at the end of July. Searching for articles and opening files will continue to work while the system is being updated. If you have any questions, please contact Marianne Reed at mreed@ku.edu .

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorSchwarz, Corinne
dc.contributor.authorXing, Chong
dc.contributor.authorBritton, Hannah E.
dc.contributor.authorJohnson, Paul E.
dc.date.accessioned2023-03-17T22:08:44Z
dc.date.available2023-03-17T22:08:44Z
dc.date.issued2020-11-01
dc.identifier.citationCorinne Schwarz, Chong Xing, Hannah E. Britton & Paul E. Johnson (2022) A Prototype Comparison of Human Trafficking Warning Signs: U.S. Midwest Frontline Workers’ Perceptions, Journal of Human Trafficking, 8:4, 419-440, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/23322705.2020.1834772en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1808/34056
dc.description.abstractGuided by the cognitive prototype approach, this article examines the prototype structure of the frontline workers’ perceptions concerning warning sign indicators in human trafficking. Online survey responses across a range of workplace sectors were analyzed using multiple-group confirmatory factor analysis (MG-CFA) for three groups. These groups were based on respondents’ self-reported human trafficking experiences: no witness (no encounter of human trafficking), sex trafficking witness, and labor trafficking witness. The MG-CFA analysis revealed a three-factor structure – physical condition, reproductive health, and personal risk – representing the participants’ perceptions of the warning signs. Further analysis showed group-level mean (latent intercept) and variance differences between the prototype structures of the three witness groups. The final structural model results indicate that these group-level prototype differences can be explained by two organizational resource variables: identification protocol and training. The results are discussed in light of the current empirical literature on human trafficking identification, stereotypical frames of victimhood, and policy practices.en_US
dc.publisherTaylor & Francisen_US
dc.rights© 2020 Taylor & Francisen_US
dc.subjectAnti-trafficking identificationen_US
dc.subjectWarning signsen_US
dc.subjectService providersen_US
dc.subjectPrototypesen_US
dc.subjectStructural equation modelingen_US
dc.titleA Prototype Comparison of Human Trafficking Warning Signs: U.S. Midwest Frontline Workers’ Perceptionsen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
kusw.kuauthorXing, Chong
kusw.kuauthorBritton, Hannah E.
kusw.kuauthorJohnson, Paul E.
kusw.kudepartmentCommunication Studiesen_US
kusw.kudepartmentPolitical Scienceen_US
kusw.kudepartmentWomen, Gender & Sexuality Studiesen_US
kusw.kudepartmentPolitical Scienceen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1080/23322705.2020.1834772en_US
dc.identifier.orcidhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-7267-9492en_US
kusw.oaversionScholarly/refereed, publisher versionen_US
kusw.oapolicyThis item meets KU Open Access policy criteria.en_US
dc.rights.accessrightsopenAccessen_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record