“WWW“ imam ‘

L a. iv“.-
.‘..‘.2.. _... w

_',._.~'7.1I.

 

 

 

522-:

 

 

 

 

 

 

. -' .. " H2
«“ ‘ ,.x

 

 

 

 

x.

- 1!. ‘ -. m

l 1 r 4 4‘1. ""1. “. N4
' I a A ' -- lu'q r‘ ‘1

z y , 1; .I, - . . V . .2» u

u 2 ..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2
..
- ..,
, q
..
1. .L-J
.u , , 2
. .2 .. _ , v . , -.r..
mm. , . . 141 - , '!_,. ‘ " NEH-f2
, . . . V ,.
,

In. 2. .2

.1.

‘42...

2
.4;
w
u . :n‘ ‘
,4

3&7.“

74

.W
.2st n
h: s .

Aw-
, .2.
.m 1‘
. aqua”,

1.
.2

‘14
, i”.

' 11"‘2 I
,. ‘

-:‘.'-‘5'. u" . . - E
. , 3, mpg; , . . .. .25-
1-w. ‘4‘l'4'.'l"(i', V . , 2mm?”
2 x. 4 ' .1 ‘1 '
2. .2 2

3..

'm‘uflr‘J-xw un‘w.

r'n_',-.-u .1 .

‘l' .xquu‘i .-u
‘1'; lam. u:

. .. .4

:
.., 2

n
4‘.

 

 

 

l

THESIS

lllllllllllllfllllll|||l|||l|lllllll|l||lllllllllllllllllllll

31293 01051 5553

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

Self-Reports of Childhood Neglect and
Physical Abuse As Differential Predictors

Of Psychological Functioning
presented by

Lisa M. Gauthier

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

MfA- degree in Psychology

 

  

 

, I] / or professor \"
Dr. Gary Stollak

0—7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

Date 3/fli’ [/94-

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

MAY‘ 2199!

 

 

 

 

; mgr) 3 1993

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MSU Is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution
chclm ems-9.1

SELF-REPORTS OF CHILDHOOD NEGLECT AND PHYSICAL ABUSE AS DIFFERENTIAL
PREDICTORS OF PSYCHOLOGICAL FUNCTIONING

By
Lisa M. Gauthier

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS
Department of Psychology

1994

ABSTRACT

SELF-REPORTS OF CHILDHOOD NEGLECT AND PHYSICAL ABUSE AS DIFFERENTIAL
PREDICTORS OF PSYCHOLOGICAL FUNCTIONING

By
Lisa M. Gauthier

This study sought to examine the differential outcomes of reported
physical abuse and neglect in a sample of 512 college undergraduates. In
contrast to physical abuse, which by its nature must involve some parental
intrusion into a child's life, neglect is characterized by a lack of parental
involvement. As such, it was hypothesized that childhood neglect would be
more predictive of dysfunctional attachment styles and increased
symptomatology in young adults than would physical abuse.

Questionnaires about childhood neglect and physical abuse,
symptomatology, and attachment styles were administered to subjects. Results
indicated support for the hypothesis. The expected relationship between
neglect and more severe psychological problems and anxious attachment
styles was demonstrated. Neglect was found to be significantly related to all
the indices of psychological dysfunction while physical abuse was related to
only one. The implications of these results were discussed in terms of the need
to focus both empirically and theoretically upon the impact of neglect, as well

as physical abuse.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

For helping me to complete this thesis, I owe my gratitude to many
people:

To my chairperson, Dr. Gary Stollak, for his constant support and
encouragement, as I developed the ideas for my thesis and carried them
through.

To Dr. Lawrence Messé, who, with his helpful guidance, availability and
statisitical expertise, kept me focused on examining my hypotheses with care.

To Dr. Joel Aronoff, for helping me to carefully consider the theory
guiding my research and encouraging me to focus on those ideas which are
truly meaningful to me.

To my research assistants, Kristi Bird, Keith Duvall and Jen Huige, for
their help in carrying out data collection with a large number of subjects.

To Steve Meyers, for his friendship and helpful advice on how to
negotiate the thesis process, how to conduct data collection, and how to
conceptualize hypotheses and analyses.

To Frank DeMarco, for his friendship, his help with understanding
SPSS, and the use of his computer, all of which helped the thesis process move

along more smoothly.

iii

Table of Contents

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ vi
LIST OF APPENDICES .................................................................................................. vii
INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ...................................................................................... 3
Definitions of Abuse ........................................................................................... 3
Developmental Issues and Attachment Theory ............................................. 6
Caregiving and the Differential Impact of Neglect and Physical ...............
Abuse - 10
Impact of Neglect and Physical Abuse on Attachment Styles .................. 13
Effects of Neglect and Physical Abuse on Psychological ..............................
Functioning and Development ................................................... 15
Differential Impact of Neglect and Physical Abuse on .................................
Symptomatology - 19
Family Environment and the Impact of Chronic Neglect ......................... 22
Methodological Issues ............................................... - 25
Self-Report Measures of Abuse ...................................................................... 27
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM .................................................................................... 30
HYPOTHESES ................................................................................................................. 31
METHOD ......................................................................................................................... 33
Subjects ................................................................................................................. 33
Procedure ........................................................................................ - 33
Measures ............................................................................................................... 33
Demographic Information ................................................................................ 33
Predictor Variables ............................................................................................. 34
Measuring Reports of Physical Abuse and Neglect ......................... 34

Subject Categorization into Physical Abuse and Neglect ...................

Groups ...................................................................................................... 34

Criterion Variables ............................................................................................. 35
Measuring Global Symptomatology .................................................... 36

Measuring Internalizing and Externalizing .............................

Symptomatology ................... -- - -- - - - - -- - 37

Measuring Attachment Styles .................................................. 37

RESULTS ......................................................................................................................... 40
Missing data ........................................................................................................ 40
Demographic Characteristics .......................................................................... 4O
Psychometric Examination of Scales ............................................................. 4O
Reliability of Subscales .......................................................................... 40
Correlations between mother and father subscales on the ................

AB—III-A .................................................................................................... 46

iv

Correlations between Neglect, Rejection, Nonresponsiveness ..........

 

 

 

subscales ................................................................................................... 46

Validation of Continuous Attachment Measure ................................. 46

Subject Characteristics ...................................................................................... 51
Relationship between demographic variables and indices ...............

of neglect and physical abuse ............................................................. 51

Effects of demographic variables on the dependent variables ..... 52

Test of hypotheses ..... 55
Planned Comparisons: Neglect versus Physical Abuse ................... 55

Planned Contrasts between Neglect and Physical Abuse ...................

Groups - - - ...... - - - -- - -57

DISCUSSION .............. 63
Implications of Findings for Understanding Neglect and Abuse ............. 63
Theroetical Implications .................................................................................. 66
Definitional Issues ............................................................................................. 68
Limitations of Study .......................................................................................... 69

Future Directions ............................................................................................... 72
Summary and Conclusion ................................................................................ 73
REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 75

\l

LIST OF TABLES

 

 

 

1. Demographic Characteristics of the Sample ........................................................ 41
2. Psychometric Properties of Measures Used .............................................................
Reliability Coefficients, mean subject Scores, and standard ..........................
deviations for the AE-III (A) ............................................................................ 43
Reliability Coefficients, mean subject scores, and standard ..........................
deviations for the SCL—90-R .................................................. . ............................ 4 4
Reliability coefficients, mean subject scores, and standard ..........................
deviations for the AAS ....................................................................................... 45
Correlations between Mother and Father subscales on the AE-III (A)....48
Intercorrelations Between Neglect, Rejection, and .........................................
Nonresponsiveness subscales of AE-III (A) .................................................. 49
Validation of AAS by Attachment categorization on the RQ, ..................... 50

3. Relationship between Demographic Variables of Sex and Ethnicity and .........
Indices of Neglect and Physical Abuse ................................................................. 53

4. Relationships Between the Independent and Dependent Variables ..................
Relationship between reports of Any Abuse and Symptomatology ............

and Attachment Styles ................................................ ---58

Cell means for Global Symptomatology, and Internalizing and ..................
Externalizing Symptomatology for Neglect and Physical Abuse ................
Groups ....... - - 60

Cell means for Attachment Styles for Neglect and Physical ........................
Abuse Groups 61

Main Effects of Neglect and Physical Abuse on Symptomatology and .......
Attachment Styles ............................................................................................ 62

v i

LIST OF APPENDICES

A. Experimenter Instructions for Data Collection .................................................... 82
B. AE-III (A) Questionnaire .......................................................................................... 85
C. AE-III (Adapation) Scale Items ................................................................................ 91
D. SCL—90—R Questionnaire ........................................................................................... 95
E. SCL—90-R Scale Items ................................................................................................. 99
F. Relationships Questionaires; AAS and RQ ........................................................... 102
G. AAS (Modified) Scale Items .................................................................................... 105
H. Self-Report Attachment Style Prototypes (RQ) .................................................. 107
I. Relationship Between Demographic variables of parent's education, ................

income, marital status and indices of Neglect and Physical Abuse ................ 108
J. Results of analyses using combined Neglect, Rejection, and .................................

Nonresponsiveness scales as an independent variable .................................... 110

vii

INTRODUCTION

Much research in the area of child maltreatment has focused upon the
negative effects of abusive acts, rather than on the impact of neglect. This
points to a theoretical bias in the literature that identifies abuse as actions
which are easily measurable and have clear physical (and probable
psychological) effects. However, neglect including the absence of caring and
nurturance, while not easily quantifiable, may have more devastating effects
on children than actual abusive acts (Egeland & Erickson, 1987).

While it is clear from past research that neglect and physical abuse
have detrimental effects on children's functioning (Cicchetti, 1989; Egeland &
Erickson, 1987; Erickson et al, 1989; Kinard, 1982), important questions
concerning the unique impact of different types of maltreatment, and
particularly, the negative impact of neglect, remain unanswered. Within the
framework of attachment theory, studies that have found that different forms
of maltreatment are uniquely related to certain types of psychosocial
difficulties (Briere & Runtz, 1990; Egeland et al, 1983) suggest that neglect may
be more harmful to certain aspects of development than physical abuse. Just
as attachment to significant others can be conceptualized as occurring along a
continuum of engagement through disengagement, we may also view types of
maltreatment along this same continuum. Because physical abuse by
definition requires more engagement between two peOple than chronic
neglect, which is defined by physical and emotional withdrawal, neglect may

have more serious long-term consequences for individual functioning.

1

2
The present study replicated past findings that physical abuse and

neglect are both harmful to psychological functioning, but more importantly,
examined areas which have not been closely studied in child abuse and neglect
research: the differential impact of recollections of childhood neglect and
physical abuse on psychological functioning and attachment styles. This
focus on both the intrapsychic and interpersonal effects of maltreatment is
critical because the quality of relationships with others affects psychological
health, and in turn one's interpersonal interactions are influenced by the
quality of psychological functioning.

The present study attempted to answer questions that have generated
mixed findings in the literature by examining the specific types of
psychological outcomes (i.e., internalizing or externalizing symptomatology),
as well as the types of attachment styles (i.e., secure, avoidant, or resistant),
that result from experiences of neglect or physical abuse. This study is an
important contribution to the literature because understanding the quality of
attachment in individuals who have experienced neglect or physical abuse
can illuminate the process of how children develop certain styles of
approaching the world; as actively (and positively) engaging with others in
the environment, or withdrawing from or actively, but negatively, engaging
the environment.

The current research explored the possible differential effects between
neglect and physical abuse by relating undergraduates' reported experiences
of childhood neglect and physical abuse to their reported symptomatology and
attachment styles. The quality of psychological functioning and the ability to
establish close relationships are assumed to be related to particular types of
early childhood experiences ranging from positive and supportive to

maltreating (i.e., physically abusive, neglectful, rejecting).

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Definitions of abuse

The majority of studies have found that child abuse has detrimental
effects on children's cognitive, social and emotional development (Cicchetti,
1989; Egeland & Erickson, 1987; Erickson et al, 1989; Kinard, 1982). However,
research on child abuse is handicapped by a lack of consensus on the
definitions of abuse. The lack of consensus about the definitions of different
types of abuse reflects the fact that there is theoretical and empirical
confusion about the point at which discipline becomes abusive (Weiss et al,
1992). This confusion has hindered the establishment of a coherent body of
literature on abuse (Kinard, 1979; Rosenbloom, 1985).

Eccurately defining any particular type of maltreatment such as
physical assault, neglect or psychological abuse is difficult because abusive
interactions in families occur in complex ways that are not easy to observe or
categorize. Isolating the effects of a particular type of maltreatment is made
more problematic by the fact its various forms rarely occur in isolation (Aber
et al, 1989)] Carlson et al (1989), for example, found that according to reports
of case workers, children in their sample experienced overlapping forms of
maltreatment including physical neglect (71%), emotional mistreatment
(41%), and physical injury (40%). These statistics indicate that research on
the impact of abuse should consider signs of one type of maltreatment (e.g.,
children not properly dressed or physically injured) as possible indicators of

other types that also might be occurring in the home.

4
Many current studies on child maltreatment focus on the distinct

outcomes of abuse and neglect (Kaplan & Pelcovitz, 1982). This expanded focus
is a clear improvement over the previous rather narrow emphasis in the
literature on physical abuse, or the "Battered Child Syndrome" (Kempe &
Helfer, 1972). However, our understanding of psychological maltreatment
including emotional neglect is still lacking for a number of theoretical and
methodological reasons. It is unclear conceptually, whether emotional abuse
should be considered an underlying component of all forms of abuse, or a
subcategory of maltreatment (Brassard et al, 1987; Tzeng & Jacobsen, 1988).
Drawing a distinction between abuse and neglect has been criticized as
creating a misleading dichotomy between "active" abuse and "passive" neglect
(Garbarino et al, 1986). However, it is useful to make the distinction between
abuse and neglect as it becomes apparent that they may produce differential
effects (Egeland et al, 1983), with neglect being possibly more detrimental to
certain important aspects of development than physical abuse (Augoustinos,
1987). Our understanding of neglect is also hindered by methodological
difficulties in measuring neglect and different forms of psychological
maltreatment. For example, neglect tends to be chronic and not defined by a
specific act. Neglect is also underreported because it is less noticeable than
physical abuse.

Some definitions of abuse in the literature focus on the effects of abuse
on the child, while others focus on the abusive acts or omissions of proper
caregiving. In a longitudinal study on abuse, Egeland & EricksW
provided clear definitions of various types of abusive behaviors, based upon
actual behaviors or omissions of caregiving in groups of mothers. These
investigators identified specific behavioral outcomes for children as a

function of the type of maltreatment that they had received. W

5
Erickson categorized children into different abuse groups according to the

 

mothers' behavior. Their definitions of types of abusive mothers encompass

 

most types of abuse in the literature (excluding sexual abuse):

   

   

1) The physically abusive group presented behaviors ranging from frequent
intense spanking for disciplinary purposes to uncontrolled angry outbursts
resulting in serious injuries, including extensive bruises, cuts, and cigarette
burns.

2) The hostile/verbally abusive group chronically found fault with the
children, criticizing them in a harsh manner.

3) The neglectful group were irresponsible or incompetent in managing day-
to—day child-care activities. They failed to provide for the necessary health or
physical care of their children and did little to protect them from possible
dangers in the home. They lacked the skills, knowledge and understanding to
provide consistent and adequate care.

4) The psychologically unavailable egroup were unresponsive to their
children and (oftentimes) passively rejecting of them. They appeared
detached and uninvolved with their child and did not respond positively to
their children's attempts to elicit interaction. They usually provided for the
physical needs of their children and were not physically abusive or overtly
rejecting of them (Egeland & Erickson, 1987, p. 113).

 

While research indicates that child maltreatment has negative effects
on children, few studies have attempted to trace the developmental outcomes of
such negative experiences on children using longitudinal designs, or to
recognize that it is the context within which abuse occurs rather than isolated
acts of abuse that lead to deficits in children's functioning (Aber et al, 1989;
Azar & Wolfe, 1989; Egeland & Erickson, 1987; Houck & King, 1989). It has been
difficult to separate the impact of abuse from the influence of the
environmental context because of a lack of control groups (Ammerman et al,
1986), and an inability to pinpoint specific incidents of abuse (Grey et al, 1979;
Erickson et al, 1989; Sweet & Resick, 1979). Our understanding of abuse might
be improved by a focus on the impact of the pattern of interactions and
environmental influences that create an abusive atmosphere. For example,
the absence of positive interaction has been found to be more predictive of
child behavior problems than abusive or coercive interactions (Pettit & Bates,

1989). The current study examined how reports of the absence or presence of

6
neglectful or abusive interactions within families are related to the

psychological functioning and relationship styles of individuals.

II. Developmental Issues and Attachment Theory
Understanding the effects of child neglect and physical abuse in light

of developmental and attachment theory can lead to a richer understanding of
the cumulative effects of abuse and neglect as a child develops, as well as the
possible differential effects of these two forms of maltreatment. Maltreatment
may adversely affect the child not only because it is an isolated traumatic
incident, but because it is part of a pattern of unhealthy parent-chfld .
interactions that undermine a child's ability to negotiate developmental tasks.
Because neglect tends to be more chronic and pervasive than physical abuse
(Lutzker, 1990), neglect may have a more deleterious effect than physical
abuse on development. This pervasive quality of neglect may lead to neglect
having a powerful "organizational" impact on development, that is, it may
affect various developmental domains (i.e., cognitive, social, emotional) (Aber
et al, 1989, p. 587; Houck & King, 1989).

Attachment theory can increase our understanding of abuse and
neglect by allowing us to view such maltreatment not as isolated acts, but as
characteristics of the attachment relationship between a parent and child. If
' we conceptualize attachment to significant others as occurring along a
continuum of engagement through disengagement, we may also view types of
maltreatment along this same continuum. Physical abuse requires more
engagement between two people than chronic psychological neglect, which is
defined by physical and emotional withdrawal. Within the frame of this
continuum, it is possible to discuss the potential differential impact of neglect

and physical abuse on a child's ability to form attachments to others.

7
Research on infant-mother attachment supports the notion that a lack

of consistent nurturance distorts a child's interpersonal interactions (e.g.,
leading to avoidance or resistance), and thwarts his/ her ability to integrate
information from the environment and to achieve a sense of self-efficacy
(Cicchetti, 1989; Crittenden et al, 1989: Gray et al, 1979; Houck & King, 1989;
Rutter, 1972). Crittenden et al (1989) indicate that such an avoidant pattern
may be detrimental to development. They found that abused children who
were compliant with their parents (i.e., they anticipated and acted in
accordance with their parent's wishes) achieved higher developmental
quotients than abused children who were passive and withdrawn. It seems
that engaging with others, whether in a negative or positive manner, led to
better development than completely withdrawing from the environment.
Evidence of the negative effects of institutional and hospital care on
infants led Bowlby ( 1969) to formulate an attachment theory based upon a
behavioral control system. He describes a system based on survival
mechanisms that allow the infant to explore his/ her environment only under
safe conditions (i.e., when the caretaker is within proximity). If danger
becomes imminent, the child can then seek out the caretaker. Attachment is a
"goal-corrected system" (p. 251) with the goal being a sense of security.
Bowlby extends his theory beyond the physical survival value of the
system and refers to the continual transactions between the infant and the
caretaker which allow the infant to develop internal working models of the
world. These models ideally offer security and predictions about what
caretakers (and eventually other people) will do in certain situations, and
about the child's ability to elicit such care. The attachment relationship, then,
has social survival value, by allowing the infant to explore, to learn to interact

within its environment and to develop autonomy.

8
Ainsworth et a1 (1978) studied the behavioral manifestations of the

quality of attachment in infants and found that patterns of parent-child
interactions affect the ability of infants to deal with stress and unfamiliar
situations. Her study of infants' reactions in the Strange Situation task
revealed that infants showed different reactions to novel stimuli (a stranger
entering the room) and to separation from and reunion with their mothers.
All the children studied could be placed in one of the three attachment
categories (secure, avoidant, or resistant). Briefly, the secure infants easily
separated from their caregivers and explored, but quickly sought out and were
comforted by their caregivers when distressed (i.e., when an unfamiliar
person entered the room). The avoidant children avoided and looked away
from the caregiver even when levels of stress rose. These infants were
unimaginative and apathetic in their exploration. The resistant infants
displayed little exploration and an inability to be comforted by their
caregivers upon reunion. Ainsworth‘s research suggests that attachment to
the caregiver and its manifestations during interactions with others are
critical developmental issues that effect children's ability to interact with
others and to develop a sense of self-efficacy in new situations in the
environment.

According to developmental theory, if a child does not master early
stage-salient issues such as trusting and attaching to the caregiver, he/ she
cannot (more) successfully negotiate later, more complex developmental tasks
(Erikson, 1980). Development is viewed as a series of reorganizations where
the individual transacts with the world in qualitatively different ways at each
stage (Sroufe, 1979). Many theorists and researchers discuss how abuse can
prevent certain stage-salient issues from being mastered. Cicchetti (1989)

states that "certain developmental systems are at risk for delays at certain

9
ages" (p. 390), illustrating how critical it is to determine the age at which

physical abuse or neglect first occurs, as well as whether or not either recurs
(Friedrich & Einbender, 1983; Jacobsen & Straker, 1982; Kinard, 1979). It is
important to examine the point in the developmental trajectory during which
maltreatment prevents the child from exploring and integrating new
information.

Houck & King (1989) discuss the impact that maltreatment can have on
toddlers, stating that it can compromise the development of a secure
attachment and then interfere with the "emergence of an autonomous-self, the
emergence of social relatedness and the exploration of the environment..."

(p. 197). This conclusion suggests that maltreated children might be reluctant
to explore and learn about their environment because they do not experience
the security and safety of a consistent, nurturing caregiver to whom they can
return following their explorations. This reluctance has been termed
"adaptational failure," where failure to adapt at one stage makes adaptation
more difficult at later stages (Cicchetti, 1987 cited in Houck & King, 1989).

W is not able to establish "basic

trust" in the caretaker during the first year of life, he or she will have

 

 

 

 

difficulty moving on to later psychosocial stages that involve establishing a

sense of autonomy or self-initiative, developing new skills, and maintaining a

 

 

 

 

coherent sense of selD Allen & Oliver (1982, cited in Augoustinos, 1989)
A A \I
suggest that anguage development is compromised in maltreated children

because they lack trust in the environment, are afraid to talk, and therefore do

T" —o.

 

'—

not get the prfltig: they need in expressive and recgptive language skill;

 

 

this lack of trust may lead not only to language and other skills deficits, but
may also prevent the individual from experiencing real intimacy with others]

The experience of maltreatment, which is essentially a breach of trust, may

10
prevent children from ever allowing themselves to be vulnerable to others in

relationships, thereby preventing them from forming close friendships, or
relationships in later life.

Stern (1985) expands upon Erikson's ideas by emphasizing the _
importance of the quality of parent-child interactions for the psychological
and interpersonal development of the child. Stern states that the infant does
not merely learn by taking in new information, he/ she learns from the
interactional process itself. Through interactions with a responsive
caregiver, the infant develops "evoked companions" which are
representations of people in the infant's life that accompany the infant when
it is alone. Having experienced a self-regulating caregiver, the infant is able
to feel secure and to explore the world when the caregiver is not present
because of these evoked companions. This theory suggests that children with
neglectful, nonresponsive parents may be particularly negatively affected by
such experiences. If a child is chronically neglected, he/ she has had no
opportunity to develop these evoked companions because he/ she has not
experienced a self-regulating caregiver. Children who are physically abused,
on the other hand, may experience periods of interaction with their caregiver
(some of which may be positive) which allow them to experience some sense of

regulation by a caregiver.

III. Caregiving and the Differential Impact of Neglect and Physical Abuse

The effect of a lack of mutual regulation between child and caretaker is
critical to understanding why neglect may be so harmful. Bowlby (1969) states
that attachment to the caregiver is mediated by the infant‘s crying, calling or
babbling behavior which "has proximity to the mother as a predictable

outcome." (p. 244) Individuals who learn that their needs are not consistently

11
responded to and that their actions (e.g., crying, reaching out for a caregiver)

do not bring about comfort, may lose a sense of control and efficacy within
their environment. Children's understanding of causality, or notion of
themselves as an agent in the environment, is affected by their approach to
the environment. Likewise, the success with which they are able to engage
their environment will affect how much efficacy they believe they have
within it. Possessing a sense of "effectance," or seeing the result of one's own
actions allows one to establish a sense of contingency between one's actions
and subsequent effects (Hatter, 1983; Loevinger, 1976). Perceiving no.
contingency between one's actions and subsequent outcomes can lead to a
learned helplessness (Abramson et al, 1980), where the individual gives up
after many unsuccessful attempts at maintaining control (Taylor, 1983). The
learned helplessness hypothesis holds that emotional, cognitive, and
motivational deficits occur as a result of "learning that outcomes are
uncontrollable" (Abramson, Garber & Seligman, 1980, p. 4).

Individuals who are maltreated often do not experience a consistently
responsive caregiver. In the instance of neglect this lack of regulation and
stimulation may be more striking than in the case of physical abuse. Frodi &
Smetana ( 1984) examined the ability of maltreated and non-maltreated
children to discriminate emotions in others. They state that while victims of
"violent encounters" in families may become skilled at reading the emotions of
others in order to learn to protect themselves, that children whose parents are
chronically neglectful may not ever acquire such skills because of the
physical and emotional unavailability of the parents and the lack of
interaction and stimulation. While the group differences were

nonsignificant, they did find that physically abused children had a greater

12
ability to discriminate emotions on an Interpersonal Awareness Test than

neglected children.

Sroufe (1979) describes developmental issues which form a sequence
and the role the caregiver must play in order for these events to develop
smoothly. From 0-3 months physiological regulation is the infant's main focus
which is facilitated by caregiver's providing smooth routines. Between 3-6
months the child is learning how to manage tension, and needs sensitive,
cooperative interactions with the caregiver. If these first two phases are not
mastered by the infant with the help of a caregiver, a secure attachment
relationship, the next phase (6-12 months), cannot be established. This
relationship is contingent upon the responsiveness and availability of the
caregiver. Responsiveness may be critical because proximity of the parent
without interest in the child's needs or interaction may not promote the
infant's trust in the parent and may send the child a mixed message (e.g., "I am
here physically, but not emotionally").

If a secure attachment relationship is established, between 12-18
months the infant begins to explore and master the environment, working
from the caregiver's secure base. This stage seems to form the bridge between
dependence on the caregiver and dependence on the self. If provided with
firm support by the caregiver, between 18-30 months the toddler develops
autonomy. This autonomy allows the child (between 30-54 months) to
effectively manage impulses, establish a clear sex-role identification and
healthy peer relations, with the help of clear roles and values and flexible
self-control on the part of the caregiver.

In examining these phases and the role the caregiver needs to play to
allow the child to progress to the next stage, it is possible that chronic neglect

would create significant delays during all the stages. Neglected children may

13
not experience smooth routines, responsive availability of a caregiver, a

secure base to whom they can return, firm support, or clear roles and values.
Neglected children may not possess a "motivational duality" which is "security
in the familiar, yet attraction to the unfamiliar" (Sroufe, 1979,

p. 835). Instead, they may have no security in the familiar which creates a
repulsion to or withdrawal from the unfamiliar. In the face of environmental
challenges, then, their degree of involvement may be low and they may have

little ability to be resilient.

IV. Impact of Neglect and Physical Abuse on Attachment Sgles

 

As discussed earlier, a child's experience of responsive or
nonresponsive caregiving is theorized to influence how the child develops
emotionally and socially, how well the child adapts to new situations, and how
successful the child is in confronting challenges and exploring his/her world.
According to attachment theory, children crystallize their views about the
nature of relationships through repeated interactions with their parents.
Bowlby theorizes that infants form "representational models," which are
expectations about the quality of future interactions with people based upon
experiences with attachment figures (Bowlby, 1969; Crittenden & Ainsworth,
1989). A child's expectation that interactions with the caregiver bring distress
and pain may generalize to relationships with other people.

Many studies have found that children who were abused engage in
more approach/ avoidance behavior and aggression with both peers and
caretakers (George & Main, 1979; Rivera & Widom, 1990; Widom, 1989). While
these behaviors might appear maladaptive, they may be learned patterns that
enable the child to cope with the conflicting emotions in wanting to approach

the parent and knowing that such an approach will often be frustrating and

14
painful. If these patterns persist throughout the child's life, they can elicit

negative responses from others and result in what Salzinger et a1 (1991) called
"adaptational failure" (p. 69). These patterns seem to appear quite early on and
persist in many abused children. For example, Crittenden & Ainsworth (1989)
found that infants usually learn to accommodate their mother's styles of
interaction by the time they are one year of age.

Studies of maltreated children utilizing observational methods, teacher
and parent ratings, and peer nomination have consistently identified peer
relations as difficult for abused children (Cicchetti, 1989). This difficulty with
relationships with peers may be related to the type of attachment style these
children have developed during the course of interactions with their parents
(and others in their lives). The first controlled observational study on the
interactions of physically abused versus non-abused toddlers was conducted by
George & Main (1979). Observations of toddlers (N = 20, 1-3 years) in
interactions with peers and caregivers in a day-care setting, revealed that
among abused toddlers there was a pattern of behavior characterized by
aggression, verbal threats, and approach—avoidance behavior with peers. A
study by Main & George (1985) found that abused toddlers responded
abnormally to their age-mates' distress. None of the abused toddlers showed
signs of concern when faced with an age-mate's distress. In fact, they even
responded with fear, anger or physical attacks. However, this study did not
examine the reactions of neglected children to such situations.

There may be a relationship between the experience of neglectful or
physically abusive parenting and the subsequent development of attachment
styles in adulthood. Children with nonresponsive parents may have difficulty
relating to others because they have no history of mutually positive and

supportive interactions with their parent(s). Collins & Read (1990) found, for

15
example, that young adult individuals with secure attachment styles perceived

their parents as warm, whereas individuals with anxious attachment styles
described their parents as inconsistent and cold.

Erikson stresses the important link between an individual's ability to
develop trust in others and establish autonomy, and psychological health.
Because certain individuals do not experience the mutual regulation that
Erikson discusses (particularly in cases of neglect), their behavior becomes an
attempt to compensate for a lack of mutually satisfying social interactions. He
says, that in the extreme, individuals who fail to develop a sense of trust while
growing up may "withdraw into schizoid and depressive states..." (Erikson,
1950, p. 249), and may "test (the) borderlines between senses and physical
reality" (Erikson, 1950, p. 248). If insecurely attached individuals have not
(established) estabilished their own clear but flexible boundaries (between
self and others, closeness and autonomy), they may either establish rigid
boundaries (e.g., become avoidant, obsessive, compulsive) or diffuse
boundaries (e.g., become preoccupied with relationships, enmeshed with
others).

V. Effects of Neglect and Physical Abuse on Psychological Functioning and
Development

 

Studies of the effects of maltreatment on children have consistently
found that abused and neglected children show deficits in functioning relative
to their non-maltreated peers (Cicchetti, 1989; Egeland and Erickson, 1987;

Erickson et al, 1989; Kinard, 1982). Because developmflentwis un9§§_§E9.QQ_as.a.-

'. .__..._

 

 

'I-fi-W~-r.1m..¢p- '.... _

process of integrating skills across cognitive, emotional, andsocialflareasof

d

functioning, the findings indicating that maltreated children show deficits

WW

across a range of domains are not surprising.

" "u" "wanna. - .

 

- 16
', One of the clearest findings,in the literature on child abuse is the

deleterious effect of abuse on the child's emotional maturity and ability to

interact with others (Cicchetti, 1989; George & Main, 1979; Kinard, 1982; Main

 

 

 

 

& George, 1985). The behavior problemsuof’afibusedhchildren can lead to

problems interacting with pgers. Becagsgpeenpelatiorps have been cited as an
M . ~ ——. “at", ”‘1‘”Wmfivm‘“ - WW

 

impgrgnt developmental issue ,dufinggepreschMandearly school-age time
133299- (Cicchetti, 1989), mgs41nb¢p§e£wrefilawgopgswrnpay‘wexac _ ' 's
mywfigalagq eflnriotironal__prjflqp_lerp_§g Frustrating interactions with others may
contribute to the child's negative sense of self, reinforcing a poor self-concept
and low self-esteem (Green, 1978; Kinard, 1982). Kinard (1982), for example,
using the Piers-Harris Children's Self-Concept Scale found a negative
relationship between the severity and frequency of abuse and self concept. If
the child is not able to experience healthy reciprocal interactions with a
caregiver early on, it is likely his/ her secure sense of self and ability to
negotiate relationships with others will become distorted. If emotional
functioning organizes behavior (Sroufe, 1979), it might follow that maltreated
children who are insecurely attached and psychologically distressed may also
show deficits in cognitive and social functioning as well as emotional
functioning. Many studies have found that abused/neglected children show
poorer cognitive functioning than their non-abused age-mates, and low IQ
scores which border on the mentally retarded range (Friedrich & Einbender,
1983; Kempe & Helfer, 1972; Salzinger et al, 1991).

The Minnesota Mother—Child Interaction Project, a longitudinal study of
267 high-risk families (Egeland et al, 1983; Erickson et al, 1989), examined the
impact of abuse on development. This study compared the functioning of
maltreated and control group children age 3 months through the preschool

years on several outcome variables. This study examined the cumulative

17
impact of abuse over time, as well as the differential effects of various types of

abusive parenting; physically abusive, hostile/verbally abusive, neglectful
and psychologically unavailable (i.e., unresponsive, rejecting). Egeland et al
(1983) examined the success of children in different maltreatment groups at
completing tasks, as well as how they approached the barrier box task and
teaching tasks. They examined variables such as self-esteem, ego control,
apathy-withdrawal, flexibility, creativity, agency, hyperactivity,
distractibility, dependency, directness of help-seeking, intensity of help-
seeking, positive affect, negative affect, persistence (proportion of time on
task), enthusiasm, negativity, compliance, reliance, affection for mother, and
avoidance of mother. During a tool-using task at 24 months all four
maltreatment groups were found to be more noncompliant, frustrated and
angry than the control group. In a 42 month barrier-box task the abused
groups showed less creativity, less agency, and more hyperactivity and
negative affect than the control group. The maltreated group also obtained
lower WPPSI scores at five.

When Egeland et al (1983) examined differences between the
maltreatment groups they found that children who had been neglected had
the highest mean scores on apathy and withdrawal, the highest scores on
negative affect, and the lowest scores on flexibility, creativity, agency,
positive affect, and affection for mother of all groups during a 42-month
barrier-box task. The physically abused group had the highest scores in
hyperactivity and distractibility of all groups during this same task. This
group also had the highest score of all abuse groups on ego control and had a
slightly higher score than the control group in directness of help seeking.
Interestingly the group who had experienced neglect without physical abuse

had the lowest scores on self-esteem, agency, and negative affect of all groups

18
at 42 months. It appears that neglect without abuse was more problematic for

children than experiencing neglect with physical abuse. The lack of
interaction seemed to be the more critical factor in determining negative
outcomes than was the experience of physical abuse.

The results of the Minnesota Mother-Child Interaction Project clearly
indicate that children who were abused performed more poorly than the
control groups on all tasks and had a poorer, less persistent approach to the
tasks. Notably, there were striking differences between children who had
experienced different types of maltreatment. The group who showed the
greatest degree of withdrawal from tasks and the greatest negative affect was
the group who had experienced neglect without physical abuse. It appears
that any stimulation, even if negative, was "better" for the child than no
stimulation at all.

Maltreated children's poor problem solving skills may lead them to feel
extremely frustrated with challenging tasks and to withdraw from the task or
be non-compliant. The distractibility and negative affect which these
children display likewise inhibit their ability to successfully complete
cognitive tasks. Aber et a1 (1989) found that on Puzzle Preference and Marble-
In-the-Hole Tasks children who were maltreated showed lower cognitive
maturity, lower effectance motivation, and higher dependency than low
income controls and middle class comparisons. It is possible that this vicious
cycle affects performance on IQ tests and in schoolwork. It has been found
that maltreated children perform more poorly in school than their non-
abused peers (Houck & King, 1989). This lower performance may be because
they lack a "secure readiness to learn" which Aber et al (1989) state is critical
for integrating new information. In a sample of abused, neglected and control

low income children, Kent (1976) found that 53% and 82% of the abused and

19
neglected groups, respectively, were doing below average in school, as

compared to only 28% of the control group. Neglected children were
performing worse than the abuse or control groups, indicating that in part

they may have even less secure readiness to learn than the other groups.

VI. Differential Impact of Neglect and Physical Abuse on Symptomatology

 

Many studies of maltreatment find a range of emotional and behavioral
difficulties in physically abused and neglected children. Studies which utilize
behavioral questionnaires have found internalizing and externalizing
behavior problems in abused children (Aber et al, 1987; Downey & Walker,
1989; Perry et al, 1983; Vissing et al, 1991). Utilizing the Child Behavior
Checklist and the Conner's Teacher Questionnaire, Salzinger et al ( 1984, cited
in Ammerman et al, 1986) found that abused children (age 11) had more
reported behavior problems and were less socially competent than non-abused
children. Reidy (1977) compared teacher ratings of physically abused,
neglected, and control children on the Behavior Problem Checklist, and found
that the abused and neglected groups obtained higher ratings of aggression
than the control group.

HWhile children who experience any form of maltreatment exhibit more

problem behaviors than their non-abused peers, there is evidence which

indicates that children whgmmgwgmmg
. JbehmldememommmmMamm-me

3911ng engage in morefiexternaljizinmg behaviorsiConaway & Hansen, 1989;

uh,rh .m .—

 

 

 

Kinard, 1979). If we view the effects of abuse from a social-learning
perspective, this would indicate that children with more aggressive role
models would learn to act aggressively and likewise, that children with

neglectful, withdrawn role models would develop internalizing symptoms

20
(Augoustinos, 1987). Weiss et al ( 1992), for example, found that thflgpflggthnf

receiving hasnptysieahzeeuliee appear, tghelelated new a re 1 n
an. d ext.ernal'12ing,hshatigrsin childrenihanvmdntemalizmahehaxig‘s. The
Egeland et al (1983) longitudinal study discussed earlier found that the.
.negl_eCt._e.d....grr.0._0..p...w.119. hagngwpsneasgéhhxeisal abuse hammer
Wdufing a 42-month barrier-box task.
The physically abused group, on the other hand, had the highest scores in
hyperactivity and distractibility of all groups during this same task. Kent

(1976) found that WW

u I! - a1 than no '0 o 0 ‘_I .o u 110. _‘_ 1,0 {g d1slau my:
WWW

Chronically neglected children might tend to withdraw from their
environment more than physically abused children and thus may display
more internalizing behaviors. Internalizing painful emotions may be the
most adaptive way for them to cope with their home environment. The
physically abused child on the other hand, may perceive some contingency
between his/ her behavior and his/ her parent's behavior. The abused child
may act out and anger his/ her parents who then become physically abusive.
The child may relate the physical abuse to the preceding behavior which
provoked it. Even if the child does nothing to provoke a violent outburst,
there may be subsequent interaction where the parents feel sorry for their
actions, and possibly apologize to the child. The neglected child may simply
learn that his/ her behavior does not elicit any positive or negative response
from his/her caregivers.

Internalizing and externalizing behaviors appear to have long-term

negative effeCIS- PfgplemgnuhinremersnnarW

aggressive behaviors, lack of social competence,Hopyyithgrawal“huayeflb‘eewn‘

,,,.,.,.—u-*"

 

21
Smhomgwnmmmendurmansxchianic premlems in adultS. such a:

Antisocial Personality Disprder or Anxiewm (Cicchetti, 1989; Green,

1983 )- Eurthermqtsagillfflgsggyaadaggreasiqnnte.defiantwbeha..V, ions...

 

 

which often appearmggrlyflggwtpmahnsedmhfldnenwand have been shown_ to
persist into adulthopd (Lewis et al, 1989; Widom, 1991). For 1e fern e

delinquflgngyfl HEIELEQIESPFQSPWQQBLaQQ theft) followirg physical W

 

321188 hairbssesalled.agtpqsttqesmatigedaptive_..r_esponse'f (Bowers, 1990’
p. 390).

In comparing the outcomes of different types of problem behaviors, it
may be that externalizing behavior is the lesser of two "evils." A child who
acts out, for example, may receive more attention from others, even if it is
negative. A child who withdraws may remain unnoticed by parents and
teachers, who might be more apt to give attention to children who are
disruptive both at home and in the classroom (Kendall et al, 1991). Individuals
who are physically abused may receive occasional reinforcement when acting
out and eliciting attention from others. This type of experience may prevent
the behavior of approaching and seeking out relationships from being
extinguished (Saunders et al, 1991), as may occur in individuals who are
chronically neglected. Individuals who experience chronic
nonresponsiveness may learn that there is no relationship between attempts
to seek closeness and interaction and the occurrence of interaction, and
therefore they may withdraw. This reasoning suggests that if the experience
of parental nonresponsiveness causes a child to withdraw from interactions,
then the child is negatively affected not only because of the lack of positive
interaction with others, but because a child in such a family is less likely to

become connected to support systems outside of the family.

22
The internalizing or externalizing patterns of behavior discussed above

may be linked to the type of attachment relationship that abused and neglected
children form with their caregivers. An internalizing style might be linked
to an avoidant style of attachment, while an externalizing style of behavior
might be more closely linked with a resistant style. The avoidant child may
not attempt to seek proximity to attain comfort, whereas the resistant child
may attempt to engage others with aversive, acting-out behavior. While
studies have shown mixed results in this area, there is some evidence to
indicate this may be true. Crittenden (1988, cited in Houck & King, 1989) state
that neglected children appear to manifest an avoidant pattern, while abused
children seem to show avoidance-ambivalence.

However, the results of studies in this area are mixed, as Renken et al
(in press) found that avoidant attachment in boys predicted later aggressive/
antisocial behavior, whereas resistant attachment predicted passive-
withdrawal. They found that the outcome variables of aggression and
withdrawal in girls were not strongly related to infant attachment. While it
may be difficult to prove conclusively that one type of abuse will lead to a
particular anxious attachment style, it is possible that reports of both neglect

and physical abuse will be related to reports of anxious attachment styles.

VII. Family Environment and the Impact of Chronic (Psychological) Neglect

It is clear that the development of social, emotional, and cognitive
competence depends upon one's experience of positive interactions with
others. In conjunction with examining types of abuse an individual has
experienced, it is also important to examine the overall quality of family
interactions. In many families with physically abused children, there is a

pervasive atmosphere of violence, and spousal abuse may also be present

23
(Kaplan & Pelcovitz, 1982). The effects of witnessing parental violence may be

as harmful to a child as experiencing violence him/ herself (Lewis et al, 1989;
Rosenbaum & O'Ieary, 1981). Rosenbaum & O'Leary (1981) studied the effects
of wife-battering on children by comparing a sample of abused women
(N = 52), with 2 comparison groups: a matched comparison group with good
marriages (N = 20), and a group of non-abused women in discordant marriages.
Responses by mothers to the Behavior Problems Questionnaire and the
Personal Data Questionnaire, indicated that children who witnessed the
parental abuse clearly (but non-significantly) showed more deviant behaviors
than controls. These type of studies point to the importance of examining the
general family atmosphere as well as the occurrence of abuse within families.
It is likely that an individual who is chronically neglected experiences
a negative family atmosphere with little interaction. However, an individual
who is physically abused may have a greater likelihood of experiencing some
periods of positive interaction and stimulation. For example in a study of the
effects of abuse on language development, Allen and Oliver (1982, in
Augoustinos, 1987) found that neglect was the only variable that significantly
affected language scores. They argue that the lack of environmental
stimulation may be more critical in language development than other factors
such as abuse. It is likely that deficits in language development and
difficulties in communicating with others would pervade the neglected child's
functioning in multiple areas such as emotional and cognitive development.
Lynch & Roberts (1982) conducted a study in which they examined
characteristics of physically abused children using their non-abused siblings
as a control group. While they found that overall, the abused children had
lower self-confidence, spontaneity, and intelligence than their siblings, these

differences were usually nonsignificant. They concluded that aspects of the

24
abusive environment itself, not the abuse alone, may lead to difficulties. In a

study of 369 sexually abused children (using information provided by a parent
behavior rating scale as well as by a social worker), Conte & Schuerman (1987)
found that abused children rated by social workers to come from families with
greater overall problems and family pathology were more negatively affected
by abuse than abused children who had positive, supportive relationships with
siblings or other adults. Conte & Schuerman conclude that:

variables indicating supportive relationships with others and the general
functioning of the victim's family together explain the largest amount of
variance in both measures (parent reports and social worker reports) of child
functioning (Conte & Schuerman, 1987, p.209)

Separating out the impact of types of abuse from the influence of a
child's environment is far from an easy task. Studies which find that abusive
families have multiple problems including high levels of stress, psychiatric
illness in family members, and social isolation all point to the difficulty in
identifying the specific effects of abuse (Erickson et al, 1989; Gray et al, 1979;
Resick & Sweet, 1979; Sweet & Resick, 1979). Using Berger & Knutsen's (1984)
questionnaire about punitive childhood environments, Whitrnore et al (in
press) found no relationship between the severity of symptoms of Attention
Deficit Disorder and reports of physical punishment. They concluded that
families who present for psychiatric services (e.g., for ADHD) may have "poor
parenting abilities in general" (p.11). This indicates that it may be necessary
to examine other aspects of the overall family environment (e.g., neglect) in
assessing the effects of abuse. It is clear that researchers on child abuse need
to avoid the tendency to assume that abuse is the causative factor when both
substantiated child abuse and child behavior problems are present. In fact, it
is possible that the reason abuse has such pervasive and long term effects on

children's development is that it takes place within a neglectful family

25
environment; a family in which there is not only ongoing abuse, but the

absence of consistent positive interaction.
In light of the importance of the overall family atmosphere and the
lack of positive interactions, the current study examined the impact which

reports of pervasive neglect have on individuals' reported functioning.

VIII. Methodological Issues

Much research in the area of child abuse has been characterized by
methodological problems including a lack of clear definitions of different
types of abuse, biased sample selection, small sample sizes, use of
heterogeneous subject samples (where overlapping types of abuse are grouped
together), lack of multiple or reliable outcome measures, and hazy definitions
of "matched" control groups. These difficulties have led to problems with
determining whether there are distinct outcomes of different types of abuse.
Many researchers have conducted studies of abuse without operationally
defining physical abuse, neglect, or emotional abuse (Elmer, 1979; Kinard,
1979; Rosenbloom, 1985), or without adequately characterizing the home
atmosphere in which the child lives. This lack of definition is consistent with
the nature of this controversial issue; not everyone agrees where "normal"
punishment ends and abuse begins. It is difficult to interpret the findings of
studies which state that the experimental group was abused without defining
what constitutes abuse (Pfeffer & Trad, 1988). The Minnesota Mother-Child
Interaction Project (Erickson et al, 1989) was one of the few studies that
provided clear, thorough definitions of the types of abuse that were being
investigated. Assigning each of the maltreatment groups of mothers
(physically abusive, verbally abusive, neglectful, and psychologically

unavailable) into physically and non-physically abusive categories, allowed

26
the investigators to achieve greater precision in their interpretations about

the effects of different types of abuse on children.

Another difficulty with child abuse research is biased sample selection
(Achenbach, 1978; Jacobsen & Straker, 1982). Because it is difficult to find
abused children to study, these subjects are often found through the juvenile
court system, day-care facilities for battered children, and Protective Service
agencies (Cicchetti et al, 1987; Elmer, 1977; Main 8: George, 1985). By the time a
family is referred to Protective Services, the abuse and/ or neglect have often
been ongoing. Therefore, the children who are being studied may have
experienced frequent and severe abuse or neglect. This may cloud our
understanding of the early effects of maltreatment which is less severe. This
points to the necessity of understanding the effects of a range of interactions
in wider samples (Berger et al, 1988). Research with clinical samples also
tends to focus on the impact of harmful interactions to the exclusion of the
impact of a lack of positive interactions.

Combining subjects who have experienced different types of
maltreatment into a single "abuse" group can also confound the results of
child abuse research (Aber et al, 1989; Ammerman et al, 1986). Studying the
effects of abuse within families when overlapping types of maltreatment
occur creates a conceptual and empirical dilemma, particularly when such
overlap is not acknowledged by researchers.

Because these questions about isolating the effects of certain types of
abuse remain unanswered, researchers tend to either combine all types of
abuse into an "abuse" group (physical abuse, neglect, emotional abuse) (Aber
et al, 1987; Downey & Walker, 1989; Rivera & Widom, 1990), or to separate the
groups by the predominant verified form of abuse (e.g., abuse versus neglect

versus emotional maltreatment) (Crittenden, 1985; Green, 1975; Erickson et al,

27
1989; Kent, 1976; Reidy, 1977). Each of these methods has its strengths and

weaknesses. On the one hand, separating the groups may allow for greater
clarity in understanding how specific types of maltreatment affect children's
development. For example, Vissing et a1 (1991) studied verbal aggression
versus physical aggression in families and found that the combination of
verbal violence and abusive violence was more strongly related to behavior
problems than the presence of either in isolation. However, separating
children who experience different types of abuse into different groups may
lead to inaccurate conclusions regarding how different types of psychological
and maltreatment occur together in the real world. A possible solution to this
issue is to more closely examine differences within various groups (Aber et al,

1989).

IX. Self—Report Megures of Abuse

Many studies of child-abuse have focused on clinical samples comprised
of individuals who experienced substantiated physical abuse or neglect
(Berger et al, 1988). Relying solely on this type of population can lead to a
severity bias as well as a tendency to focus only on the impact of overtly
abusive interactions.

While it is clear that self-report measures are subject to distortion (e.g.,
denial of difficult experiences) and bias (Paulhus, 1991), studies still find a
high number of individuals who report extremely punitive and abusive
childhood experiences (Briere & Runtz, 1988). Berger et a1 (1988) found that in
a questionnaire survey of 4,695 university students, approximately 9% of the
sample reported a large number of severely punitive childhood experiences
that could be categorized as abusive. Notably, only 27% of those subjects who
reported experiences that could be categorized as abusive actually defined

their experiences as abusive (Rausch & Knutsen, 1991). This finding indicates

28
that there may be a discrepancy between what researchers label "abusive"

and what individuals in families perceive as abusive.

Shek (1989) found that Chinese students' reports of the quality of
maternal and paternal treatment styles was significantly correlated with
psychological well-being as assessed on measures of anxiety, depression,
somatic symptoms, purpose in life, and ego strength. Parental treatment styles
were assessed by items such as "warm vs. cold," "stern vs. mild," "relaxed vs.
tense," etc. on a 7-point Likert scale. The present study expanded upon this
approach by utilizing a questionnaire that examines reports of specific
behaviors related to these different parental styles. Reports of specific
behavior may be as important in assessing the quality of parent-child
interactions as global perceptions of the manner in which one was treated.

hi a study of university women, Briere & Runtz (1988) found that
physical maltreatment by fathers was associated with somatization and anxiety
on the Hopkins Symptom Checklist, and that psychological maltreatment by
fathers was associated with anxiety, depression, and dissociation. They utilized
multivariate analyses to distinguish between the effects of particular types of
abuse and the general effects of abuse. In another study, Briere & Runtz
(1990) found that retrospective reports of different types of abusive
experiences were related to different types of psychosocial difficulties:
physical abuse was related to later aggression, psychological abuse was
associated with low self esteem, and sexual abuse was related to maladaptive
sexual behavior. However, these studies utilized very brief measures of abuse
(e.g., a 7-item scale of psychological abuse and a 5-item scale of physical abuse
with items such as "slap you," "hit you").

The current study utilized a revised self-report questionnaire that

examines the occurrence of physical abuse and neglect in a sample of college

29
undergraduates. While studies utilizing clinical samples have found

correlations between different types of negative parent-chfld interactions and
unique psychological and interpersonal outcomes, few studies have used self-
reports to examine whether such relationships exist (Briere & Runtz, 1988;
Briere & Runtz, 1990; Egeland et al, 1983; Egeland & Erickson, 1987). Some
studies which have used self reports (Briere & Runtz, 1988; 1990) provided
vague definitions of psychological abuse, and used abbreviated scales of abuse.
The present study examined whether such systematic relationships exist
utilizing a more detailed measure to assess self-reports of different types of

abusive experiences.

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Based upon the findings in the literature and the previous theoretical
examination of the quality of the parent-child interactions which may
characterize neglect and physical abuse, it is possible that neglect and
physical abuse have very different effects on development, with chronic
neglect possibly being more harmful than physical abuse. However, the
exploration of this distinction has been hindered by methodological
limitations, and an overemphasis in the literature on the impact of physical
abuse.

The present research focuses specifically on the differential impact of
reported physical abuse and neglect. This study examines the effects of
reported neglect versus physical abuse on the severity and type of
symptomatology, as well as on the quality of attachment styles, utilizing cross-
sectional data. This study‘s findings are potentially important in that they
could point to the need to explore more closely the harmful impact of more
"silent" types of maltreatment in children.

The following general hypothesis is suggested: There is a positive
relationship between the experience of physical abuse or neglect (predictor
variables) and the degree of reported symptomatology and the insecurity of
attachment styles (criterion variables). It is further hypothesized that the
predictor variables (different types of maltreatment) will differentially
predict the criterion variables (symptomatology and attachment styles), such
that reports of neglect will be more predictive of anxious attachment styles

and global symptomatology than reports of physical abuse.

30

 

HYPOTHESES

1. Based upon findings in the literature that physically abused and neglected
children show more symptomatology than children who are not physically
abused, it was hypothesized that reported high physical abuse and/or neglect
will be more predictive of psychological distress (symptomatolOgY) than
reports of low physical abuse or neglect.

2. Based upon findings in the literature that physically abused and neglected
children have difficulty with peer relationships and interacting with others,
it is hypothesized that reports of high physical abuse and/or neglect will be

more predictive of anxious-attachment styles than reports of low physical

 

abuse and/ or neglect.

3. Likewise, reports of low physical abuse and/or neglect will be more
predictive of secure attachment styles than reports of high physical abuse
and/or neglect.

4. Based upon speculation that the psychological disengagement which
characterizes neglect may have a more negative impact on psychological
outcomes than the experience of physical abuse, which implies some parental
involvement, it is hypothesized that reports of high neglect, rejection, or
nonresponsiveness will be more predictive of psychological distress than
reports of high physical abuse and low neglect.

5. Based upon findings that childhood neglect tends to be associated with
withdrawal, while physical abuse tends to be associated with aggression and
hyperactivity, as well as speculation that the disengagement between parents

and children which characterizes neglect may lead to withdrawal from others,

31

 

32
it is hypothesized that reports of high neglect, rejection, or

nonresponsiveness will be more predictive of internalizing symptomatology,
while reports of high physical abuse will be predictive of externalizing
symptomatology.

6. Based upon speculation that the lack of emotional engagement between
parents and children which characterizes neglectful experiences may lead to
an avoidance of relationships, while the experience of physical abuse may
lead to a style of attempting to engage others aversively, it was hypothesized
that reported high neglect, rejection, and nonresponsiveness will predict
anxious-avoidant attachment styles, whereas reported high physical abuse

will predict anxious-resistant attachment styles.

METHOD

SUBJECTS

The subjects in this study were 512 undergraduates who were enrolled
in Introductory Psychology courses at Michigan State University.
Participation in this study fulfilled research experience requirements for
these students. Subjects were informed that their participation was voluntary

and that their responses would remain confidential.

PROCEDURE

During Spring, 1993, subjects were recruited through the MSU
Department of Psychology Subject Pool. Sign-up sheets were distributed to
Introductory Psychology classes. Data collection involved ten 2-hour
experiment sessions conducted by upper-division undergraduate psychology
research assistants supervised by a graduate student. There were
approximately 50 subjects present at each session. Appendix A describes the
standard procedures that were used in these sessions. Order of distribution of

the questionnaires was varied across sessions.

MEASURES

Demographic Information. The demographics questionnaire provided
information regarding subject's sex, age, ethnic background, marital status of
subject, marital status of parents, number of siblings, and socio-economic

status (See Appendix B for Page 1 of AE—III-A questionnaire).

33

 

 

I. PREDICTOR VARIABLES

Self-Reports of Neglect and Physical Abuse: Assessing Environments III
(Adaptation) (Forms for mother and father).

The AE-III (Adaptation) is a modified version of the AE-III (Berger &
Knutsen, 1984). The original AE-III questionnaire was developed due to a lack
of instruments for objectively examining the occurrence of childhood abuse
in clinic and non-clinic populations (Berger & Knutsen, 1984).

The AE-III (Adaptation) is a self-report questionnaire in which the
respondent rates descriptions of parent-chfld interactions and childhood
environments on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from "Never" to "Frequently."
Subjects were asked to complete the 75 item questionnaire in reference to both
their mother/ stepmother and their father/ stepfather.

The original AE—III was revised in the following ways to create the AE-
III (Adaptation): All items related to sexual abuse were excluded because they
were not related to the focus of the current study on physical abuse and
neglect. Parental Neglect and Nonreponsiveness scales were added as the
unrevised questionnaire did not have scales related to neglect. The wording of
some items was modified in order to make the items easier to understand. The
format was changed from true-false to a 4-point Likert scale format, because
respondents might be more likely to endorse a difficult experience as
occurring "rarely" rather than endorsing the statement as "true" for them.
The following scales of the original AE—IH were used in the current study:
Physical Punishment and Parental Rejection. (Perception of Discipline, Age-
Inappropriate Demands, Negative Family Atmosphere, and Positive Parental
Contact scales were left on the AE—III but were not used in subsequent

analyses). These scales were originally designed to provide descriptions of

35
childhood environments, rather than to be independent scales empirically

derived via factor analysis (Berger & Knutsen, 1984).

The following scales have been added based upon a content analysis:
Nonresponsiveness, Neglect, and Verbal Abuse (some items derived from
Briere and Runtz's scale, 1988). Test-retest reliabilities for the original scales
of the AE—III have been shown to range from .61-.85. Appendix B contains the
AE-III (Adaptation) questionnaire. Appendix C contains the items in each

scale.

Subject categorization into physiciabuse and neglect groups

Subjects scoring in the top third of the sample on the Neglect and
Physical Abuse scales of the AE—III-A were categorized as the high Physical
Abuse (N = 105) or high Neglect Groups (N = 144), and subjects scoring at the
bottom third of the sample were categorized as the low Physical Abuse (N = 158)
or low Neglect groups (N = 184). The decision to use the criteria of top and
bottom third of the sample to place subjects in the maltreatment groups was
based upon the assumption that a median split would not discriminate well
enough between subjects who had experienced low versus high levels of
neglect or physical abuse. Also, using the top 1/4 of subjects as a criteria for
membership in the maltreatment groups appeared to be too stringent a
criteria to conduct meaningful analyses, as some of the groups had extremely

small sample sizes.

II. CRITERION VARIABLES
A. SYMPTOMATOLOGY: SCL—90-R (Symptoms Checklist-90-Revised).

The SCL—90—R (Derogatis, 1977) was designed to examine the

"psychological symptom patterns of psychiatric and medical patients (p.3)."

36
This is a 90-item self-report scale in which the respondents are asked to

endorse the degree to which they were distressed by a particular symptom or
problem (during the last seven days) on a 5-point Likert scale of distress
ranging from "not at all = 0" to "extremely = 4." In an analysis of the factor
structure of the SCL—90 it was found that the total score on the instrument was
correlated with each of the factors (Depression, Somatization, Phobic Anxiety,
Functional Impairment, and Hostile Suspiciousness), suggesting that a single
global score (i.e., Global Severity Index) could be utilized as an "index of
psychopathology or psychological discomfort." (Hoffman & Overall, 1978,
p.1189L

Appendix E lists the nine symptom dimensions in terms of which the
SCL—90-R is scored (Somatization, Obsessive-Compulsive, Interpersonal
Sensitivity, Depression, Anxiety, Hostility, Phobic Anxiety, Paranoid Ideation,
Psychoticism) and three global indices of distress (Global Severity Index,
Positive Symptom Distress Index, and Positive Symptom Total). Coefficient
alphas for the symptom dimensions range from .77 to .90 and test-retest
reliabilities range from .78-.90 (Derogatis, 1977). (See Appendix D for the SCL-

90-R questionnaire).

Measuring Global Symptomatology
The Global Severity Index is computed by dividing the total scores on all

items endorsed by 90. This index was utilized by the current study as a measure
of general psychological functioning. The Global Severity Index is the best

single summary of the depth of an individual's distress.

 

37
Measuring Internalizing and Externalizing Symptomatology

For the purposes of analyses, the Somatization, Depression and Anxiety
scales of the SCL-90-R were combined by the investigator to form an
Internalizing scale, and the Hostility and Paranoid Ideation scales were
combined to form an Externalizing scale. The theoretical basis for utilizing
the internalizing and externalizing dichotomy was to explore the relationship
between the quality of interaction between parents and their children in
instances of neglect and physical abuse, and the child's style of engaging or
withdrawing from his/her environment. The rationale for combining these
scales on the SCL-90-R was based upon a content analysis of the SCL-90—R
scales, as well as an analysis of Achenbach's (1991) categorization of items on
the Child Behavior Checklist related to withdrawal, somatic complaints, and
anxiety/ depression into an internalizing scale, and categorization of items

related to aggressive and delinquent behavior into an externalizing scale.

B. ATTACHMENT STYLES
Adult Attachment Scale (AAS) (Modified version)

The Adult Attachment Scale (Collins & Read, 1990) was developed to
improve upon earlier discrete measures of attachment in which single
descriptions might not capture the individual's feelings on all the dimensions
( i.e., Hazan & Shaver's 1987 3-item scale). Three dimensions which seem to
underly attachment styles were derived from factor analysis of the AAS:

1) Close: how comfortable an individual is with closeness,

2) Depend: to what degree an individual feels he/ she can depend on others and
3) Anxiety: the extent to which an individual is afraid or anxious about being
unloved or abandoned. Cronbach's alpha for the three factors (Close, Depend,

Anxiety) were .69, .75, .72, respectively.

 

38
The AAS is an 18 item questionnaire that asks the respondents to rate

how characteristic the 18 statements (e.g., "I find it relatively easy to get close
to people") are of their feelings on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from "Not at
all characteristic" to "Very characteristic." Appendix F contains the AAS
questionnaire (Part 2 of the Relationships quesionnaire) and Appendix G
contains the modified AAS scale items used in the present study. Subjects
received scale scores for each of the three attachment styles measured by this
questionnaire; Secure, Anxious-Avoidant, and Anxious-Resistant. Collins and
Read describe the three attachment styles measured as follows:

"...a person with secure attachment style was comfortable with closeness, able
to depend on others and not worried about being abandoned or unloved.

An avoidant individual was uncomfortable with closeness and intimacy, not
confident in others' availability and not particularly worried about being
abandoned. An anxious (or resistant) person was comfortable with closeness,

fairly confident in the availability of others, but very worried about being
abandoned and unloved." (p. 648)

Relationships Questionnaire

The Relationships Questionnaire (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991) was
developed as a continuous and categorical measure of attachment styles.
Bartholomew and Horowitz developed four categories of attachment styles
derived by combining two levels of self-image (positive and negative) with
two levels of image of others (positive and negative). The four categories are
as follows: secure (a sense of worthiness and belief that others are accepting
and responsive), preoccupied (sense of unworthiness combined with a positive
evaluation of others), fearful (unworthiness combined with belief that others
are untrustworthy) and dismissing (sense of worthiness of love and a negative
evaluation of others).

Appendix F contains the four short paragraphs of the Relationships

Questionnaire (see Part 1) which describe different attachment styles.

 

39
Subjects are first asked to choose which style is most characteristic of how

they feel in relationships. Subjects are then asked to indicate on a seven-point
scale the extent to which each style corresponds to their general relationship
syle. The two avoidant types of attachment were combined into a single
avoidant category for the purposes of analysis. The three attachment styles
yielded in this categorical measure (i.e., the subject's choice of which
description is most characteristic of their style) were used as a validity check
for the attachment styles yielded from the Adult Attachment Scale. Appendix H

contains the Self-Report Attachment Style Prototypes used in the RQ.

RESULTS
Missing Data
Before beginning statistical analyses, files were screened for missing
data. Means, based upon sex of subject, were utilized to estimate individual data
points when only a few questions were missing from questionniares. When
entire protocols were missing (i.e., subjects failed to complete entire

questionnaires), these subjects were not used in comparative analyses.

Demographic Characteristics

Tables 1 and 1a present the demographic characteristics of the subjects
used in this study. 46.1% of the sample was male (N = 236) and 53.9% of the
sample was female (N = 276). The average age of subjetcs was 19, and ranged
from 17 to older than 24 years of age. The average age of the subjects was 19.
The sample was 85.9% Caucasian (N=440), 8% African American (N=41), and 6%
Asian American (N=31). Table 1 also presents family income, and parents'

educational and marital status.

Psychometric Examination of Scales

Reliability of Subscale_s

Tables 2, 3, and 4 contain reliability coefficients and mean subject
scores for the AE-III (Adaptation), the SCL—90-R, and the AAS, respectively. All
the subscales were found to have adequate internal consistency. The
Cronbach's alpha for the subscales of the AE-III (Adaptation) ranged from ,79
to .85. Cronbach's alpha for the scales on the SCL—90—R ranged from .78 to .89.
Cronbach's alpha for the scales on the AAS ranged from .73 to .84.

.40

41
Table l

Demogr_aphic Characteristics of the Sample (N = 512)

 

 

Total % of Sample
Sex
Males 236 46.1
Females 276 53.9
Age
17-18 176 34.4
19-20 249 48.7
21-22 61 11.9
23-24 10 2.0
> 24 15 2.9
Ethnicity
Caucasian 440 85.9
African American 41 8.0
Asian American 31 6.1
Number of Siblings
None 54 10.6
1 189 37.0
2 145 28.4
3 67 13.1
>3 56 11.0
Family Income
< $15,000 15 2.9
SIS-25,000 35 6.9
$25-50,000 142 27.9
$50-75,000 160 31.4

>$75,0000 157 30.8

 

42
Table la

Demogrpphic Characteristics of the Sample (N=512)

 

 

Total % of Sample
Father Education
Some high school 27 5.3
High school graduate 85 16.6
Some college/tech school 94 18.4
College/tech graduate 164 32.1
Graduate degree 141 27.6
Mother Education
Some high school 28 5.5
High school graduate 106 20.7
Some college/tech school 135 26.4
College/tech. graduate 154 30.1
Graduate degree 88 17.2
Parent's Marital Status
Married 362 71.1
Remarried 40 7.9
Separated 15 2.9
Divorced 77 15.1

Widowed 15 2.9

 

Table 2

Reliability Coefficients, Mean Subject Scores,and Standard Deviations for the AE-HI (Adaptation) Scales

 

 

 

 

 

Physical Physical Neglect by Neglect by
Abuse by Abuse by Mother Father
Mother Father
Alpha .79 .85 .80 .84
Mean 15.67 15.94 12.48 15.06
(SD) (3 .76) (4.66) (3.77) (5.27)
Rejection by Rejection by Nonresponse Nonresponse
Mother Father by Mother by Father
Alpha .81 .83 .85 .85
Mean 10.19 12.41 19.22 21.69
(SD) (3.76) (4.82) (5.67) (6.68)

 

44
Table 3

Reliabilig Coefficients, Mean Subject Scores, and Standard Deviations for the SCL-90-R Scales

 

 

Somatization Depression Anxiety Hostility Paranoid
Ideation
Alpha .83 .89 .84 .78 .80
Mean 18.81 25.82 16.86 9.08 11.12

(SD) (6.69) (9.02) (5.90) (3.86) (4.52)

 

45
Table 4

Reliabilig Coefficients, Mean Subject Scores,_and Standard Deviations for the AAS Scales

 

 

Secure Avoidant Resistant
Attachment Attachment Attachment
Alpha .74 .73 .84
Mean 15.97 13.54 14.87

(SD) (4.16) (4.33) (5.55)

 

46

Correlations between Mother and Father scales on the AE-III Ada tation
Table 5 lists correlations between the Mother and Father scales on the
AE—HI (Adapation). Analyses indicated that the Mother scales were
significantly positively correlated with the Father scales on the AE-III
(Adaptation). To simplify analyses, Mother and Father scales were combined
into overall Physical Abuse or Neglect scales. Correlations between Mother

and Father scales ranged from .42 to .47.

Correlations Between Subscales of the AE-III (Adaptation)

Table 6 contains correlations between the Neglect, Rejection, and

 

Nonresponsiveness subscales of the AE-III (Adaptation). Because these scales
all correlated significantly with one another, the scales were combined for
some of the analyses into an Overall Neglect scale. Correlations among the
three scales ranged from .76 to .83. Appendix H contains the results for the

Overall Neglect scale.

Validation of the Adult Attachment Scale

Table 7 contains the results of analyses comparing the categorical
attachment measure (RQ) with the continuous measure of attachment (AAS).
Planned contrasts indicated that as expected, the highest mean score for each
categorization on the AAS was in the congruent category on the RQ
(e.g., Secure attachment on the RQ and Secure attachment on the AAS). The
means for the congruent categories were significantly higher than the means
on the other two noncongruent categories. Unexpectedly, the two
nonrelevant categories also differed significantly at the .001 level of

significance. That is, for each AAS measure, the scores across the RQ

47
categorizations all differed significantly. Table 7 contains the means for

these categories.

48
Table 5

Correlations Between Mother and Father Subscales on the AE-Ill (Adaptation)

 

Neglect Physical Abuse Rejection Nonresponsiveness

 

"b

.47* .45* .42* .43"I

 

3 Pearson {'5 for correlation between Mother and Father subscales on the AE-III (Adaptation)

*p < .001

49
Table 6

Inter-Correlations Between Neglect, Rejectiop, and Nomgsmnsiveness Subscales of the AE-III
(Adaptation)

 

Rejection Nonresponsiveness
Neglect .7 6* 82*
Rejection ---------- 83*

 

*p < .001

 

50
Table 7

Validation of Continuous Attachment Measure (AAS) by Categorical Attachment Measure (fl)
Il_:(2,509)|

 

RQ Attachment Stylea
Secure Avoidant Resistant
AAS Attachment Stylebc
Secure
Mean 18.33 13.56 16.26
SD. (3.48) (3.40) (4.06)
Avoidant
Mean 10.99 16.07 13.37
SD. (3.48) (4.07) (3.31)
Resistant
Mean 11.69 16.12 18.41
SD. (4.21) (5.33) (5.11)

 

aSubjects chose the attachment style most characteristic of them on the Relationship Questionnaire in
order to categorize themselves as Secure, Avoidant or Resistant (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991).
bSubjects received scale scores for Secure, Avoidant, and Resistant Attachment on the Adult Attachment
Scale (Collins & Read, 1990).

°For each AAS measure, scores across the RQ categorizations all differed significantly ( p < .001).

51
Subject Characteristics

Relationship Between Demographic Variables and Indices of Neglect and
Physical Abuse

Tables 8 and 8a contain the results of analyses which were used to
analyze subject characteristics. ANOVAs were performed using Neglect and
Physical Abuse as continuous variables. There were nonsignificant
differences between males and females on reported Neglect, F(1, 510) = 1.98,

p < .2. There were, however, significant differences between males and
females on reported Physical Abuse, F( 1, 510) = 1 1.98, p < .001. Males reported
more Physical Abuse than females.

There were significant differences between Caucasians, African
Americans, and Asian Americans in reports of Neglect, F(1, 510) = 5.89, p < .001
and Physical Abuse, F( 1, 510) = 2.93, p < .05 . It should be noted that there were
significantly more Caucasians (N = 440) in the sample than African Americans
(N = 41) or Asian Americans (N = 31). African Americans reported more
Neglect than Asian Americans and Caucasians. Caucasians reported the least
Neglect of all three groups. Asian Americans reported more Physical Abuse
than African Americans and Caucasians. Caucasians reported the least
Physical Abuse of all three groups.

Correlational analyses using demographic variables and Neglect and
Physical Abuse as continuous variables indicated that there were significant
differences between different age groups on reports of Neglect, p( N = 511) =
.14, p < .001, and on reports of Physical Abuse, 1; = .15, p < .001. Older subjects
reported more Neglect and Physical Abuse than younger subjects. Appendix 1
contains the results of analyses for the other demographic variables of family
income, educational level of mothers and fathers, marital status of parents, and

number of siblings.

52
Effects of Demographic Variables on the Dependent Variables

Because significant differences were found between subjects on the
demographic variables of sex, ethnicity, age of subject, family income,
parent's education, and parent's marital status, analyses of variance were
performed using these variables as factors. However, analysis of variance
revealed nonsignificant effects for sex of subject on the dependent variables:
Global Severity Index, lj(1, 510) = 2.73, p < .1, Secure Attachment, F(1, 510) = .00,
p < .95, Avoidant Attachment, F(1, 510) = .19, p < .66, and Resistant Attachment,
£(1, 510), = 3.24, p < .072).

Analysis of variance also revealed a nonsignificant effect for ethnicity
of subject on the Global Severity Index, E(1, 510) = .97, p < .38, and on Resistant
Attachment, £(1, 510) = 1.98, p < .14. However, there was a significant effect of
ethnicity of subject on Avoidant Attachment, F(1, 510), = 3.14, p < .04, and
Secure Attachment F(1, 510) = 4.50, p < .01.

Analysis of variance also revealed a nonsignificant effect for age of
subject on the Global Severity Index, £( 1, 5 10) = .86, p < .49, on Secure
Attachment, F (1, 510) =1.47, p < .21, and on Resistant Attachment, F (1,510) = .45,
p < .77. However, there was a significant effect of age of subject on Avoidant
Attachment, E( 1,510) = 2.51, p < .04. Appendix I contains results of analyses
variance on educational level of mothers and fathers, family income, marital

status of parents.

 

 

53
Table 8

Relationshi Between Sex , Ethnicity, and Parents' Marital Status and Indices of Neglect and Physical
Abuse on the AE-III (Adaptation)

 

 

Neglect Physical Abuse
Sex
(Mean scores)

Males 28.07 32.78
Females 27.10 3061
£0,510) 1.98 11.98“
Ethnicity

(Mean scores)
Caucasians 27.11 31.31
African Americans 31.22 32.85
Asian Americans 28.94 34.13
£0,509) 5.89“ 293*

Parent's Marital Status

(Mean Scores)
Married 25.91 31.54
Remanied 30.00 30.68
Separated 30.80 31.33
Divorced 34.01 32.69
Widowed 24.73 30.47

E(4, 504) 22.87“ .71

 

*p < .05 **p < .001

 

 

 

Table 8a

Relationshi Between Age. Income, Parents' Education Number of Siblings and Indices of Neglect and

 

 

 

 

Physical Abuse on the AE-III (.A ’ ' (Pearson's r (N = 511)
Neglect Physical Abuse
Age . 14* .15*
Incomea -.28* -.16*
Father Education -. 14* -.13*
Mother Education -.18* -.15*
Number of Siblings -.03 -.02

 

aIncome refers to the income of the respondent's family of origin

*1) < .001

 

55
Tests of Hypotheses

To test hypotheses, planned comparisons were performed within the
framework of omnibus ANOVAs. Tables 9 and 9a contain the results of
preliminary analyses of variance (i.e., high Physical Abuse and/or Neglect vs.
low Physical Abuse and/ or Neglect). These analyses revealed a significant
effect for experiencing any type of abuse on Global Symptomatology (i.e.,
Global Severity Index ), F(1,410) = 34.62, p < .001. Analysis of variance revealed
a significant effect for any type of abuse on Secure Attachment, F (1,410) =
22.12, p < .001, on Avoidant Attachment, F (1,410) = 40.07, p < .001, and Resistant
Attachment Styles, F(1, 410) = 23.42, p < .001.

Planned Comparisons: Neglect versus Physical Abuse

Table 10 contains the cell means for the Neglect and Physical abuse
groups on the Global Severity Index and on Internalizing and Externalizing
Symptomatology. 2X2 analyses of variance (high vs. low Physical Abuse X
high vs. low Neglect) revealed a significant effect for Neglect on the Global
Severity Index, li( 1,159) = 12.37, p < .001. No effect was found for Physical
Abuse, F(1,159) = 1.54, p < .22, and no interaction was found between Physical
Abuse and Neglect. likewise, when the Neglect, Rejection, and
Nonresponsiveness scales were combined, the results were similar. Appendix J
contains the results for the combined scale titled Overall Neglect.

Analyses revealed a significant effect for Neglect on reported
Internalizing Symptomatology, F(1,159) = 8.95, p < .003, and no effect for
Physical Abuse, £(1,159) = .66, p < .42. No interaction effects were found
between Neglect and Physical Abuse. Analysis of variance revealed a

significant effect for Neglect on reported Externalizing Symptomatology,

 

56
F(1,159) = 7.54, p < .007, and for Physical Abuse on reported Externalizing

Symptomatology, F(1,159) = 4.98, p < .03, with a stronger effect for Neglect.

Table 11 contains the cell means for the Neglect and Physical Abuse
groups on Attachment Styles. Analysis of variance revealed a significant
effect for Neglect on Avoidant Attachment, F( 1, 159) = 10.47, p < .001, and for
Physical Abuse on Avoidant Attachment, F(1,159) = 6.29, p < .01, with a stronger
effect for Neglect. No interaction effects were found between Neglect and
Physical Abuse. Analysis of variance also revealed a significant effect for
Neglect on Resistant Attachment, F(1,159) = 12.33, p < .001, and Secure
Attachment, F(1,159) = 7.62, p < .006. No significant effect was found for
Physical Abuse on Resistant Attachment, F (1,159) = 3.43, p < .07, or Secure
Attachment, F(1,159) = 1.43, p < .23.

Table 12 contains a summary of the main effects of Neglect and Physical
Abuse on Symptomatology and Attachment Styles. In summary, main effects
indicate that Neglect was significantly related to all the dependent measures
(in the predicted direction), while Physical Abuse was found to be
significantly related to only Avoidant Attachment and Externalizing
symptomatology. It is important to note that additional analyses did not
support potential methodological explanations for the differential results
found between Neglect and Physical Abuse. For example, we found that the
Neglect and Physical Abuse subscales had comparable reliabilities (coefficient
alpha = .82, .82, respectively). And, the variability of respondents' scores on
the two scales also was equivalent, F = 1.18, suggesting that results were not due

to restriction of range in one of the measures of maltreatment.

S7

Planned Contrasts between Neglect and Physical Abuse Groups

Planned contrasts revealed a marginally significant effect for the
hypothesis that the High Neglect — Low Physical Abuse category would be a
stronger predictor of the dependent variables than the Low Neglect - High
Physical Abuse category for Global Symptomatology, t (1,159) 1.30, p < .1 (one-
tailed). However, there was no support for this hypothesis for the other three
dependent variables: Secure Attachment, t = -.90, p < .37, Avoidant Attachment, t

= .42, p < .68; Resistant Attachment, t = .95, p < .34.

 

 

58
Table 9

Relationships Between Reptn'ts of Any Abuflnd Global Symptomatology (681), and Internalizing and
Externalizing Symptomatology

Any Abusea Any Abuse

 

Low High
(3511’
Mean 1.68 2.00
(SD) (.45) (.63)
[E (1,410)] 3462*
Internalizing
Symptomsc
Mean 59.35 69.37
(SD) (16.84) (22.59)
E 2610*
Externalizing
Symptomsd
Mean 18.66 23.53
(SD) (5.96) (9.28)
F 4187*

 

3"Subjects were categorized in the Any Abuse group based upon scores in the top third
of the Physical Abuse and/or Neglect subscales of the AE-III (adaptation)

e Global Severity index is a measure of overall symptomatology computed by summing the total score
of the 90 items on the SCL-90-R and dividing by 90.
cInternalizing symptomatology was derived by summing the Depression, Somatization, and Anxiety
subscales of the SCL-90-R
dExternalizing symptomatology was derived by summing the Hostility and Paranoid Ideation Subscales of
the SCL-90-R

*p < .001

59
Table 9a

Relationships Between Reports of Any Abuflnd Attachment Sgles (AAS)

Any Abusea Any Abuse

 

Low High
Secure
Attachmentb
Mean 16.68 14.69
(SD) (4.10) (4.18)
E 22. 12*
Avoidant
Attachment
Mean 12.49 15.24
(SD) (3.87) (4.78)
E 4007*
Resistant
Attachment
Mean 13.80 16.48
(SD) (5.12) (5.81)
F 2342*

 

aSubjects were categorized in the Any Abuse group based upon scores in the top third
of the Physical Abuse and/or Neglect subscales of the AE-III (Adaptation)
bSecure, Avoidant and Resistant Attachment Styles on the Adult Attachment Scale (modified)

*p< .001

Table 10

60

Cell Means for Global Smtomatologv (G81). and Internalizing and Externalizing Smtomatology for
the Neglect and Physical Abfiuse Groups [F (1,159)]

 

 

 

 

Physical Abuse Neglect
Low High
GSIa
Low
Mean 1.59 1.87
(SD) (.36) (.49)
High
Mean 1.65 2.04
(SD) (.46) (.67)
Internalizing Symptomsb
Mean 57.02 65.32
(SD) (.68) (18.99)
Mean 57.64 70.43
(SD) (17.09) (23.20)
Externalizing Symptomsc
Mean 17.54 20.46
(SD) (5.44) (5.59)
Mean 19.71 24.81
(SD) (7.96) (10.73)

 

aSubjects were categorized into High and Low Physical Abuse and Neglect groups based upon scores in
the top or bottom third of the distribution of scores.

bThe Global Severity index is a measure of overall symptomatology computed by summing the total score
of the 90 items on the SCL-90-R and dividing by 90.

cInternalizing symptomatology was derived by summing the Depression, Somatization, and Anxiety

subscales of the SCL-90-R

dExternalizing symptomatology was derived by summing the Hostility and Paranoid Ideation Subscales of
the SCL-90-R

61
Table 11

Cell Means for Attachment Styles of Neglect and Physi_cal Abuse Groupst (1,159)]

 

 

 

Physical Abuse Neglect
Lowa High
Secure Attachmentb
Low
Mean 17.24 14.64
(SD) (4.47) (4.47)
High
Mean 15.93 13.98
(SD) (3.77) (4.47)
Low High
Avoidant Attachment
Low
Mean 11.82 14.42
(SD) (3.51) (4.17)
High
Mean 13.86 16.34
(SD) (4.64) (4.84)
Low High
Resistant Attachment
Low
Mean 12.47 15.54
(SD) (3.97) (5.65)
High
Mean 13.92 17.66
(SD) (6.67) (5.77)

 

aSubjects were categorized into Low and High Physical Abuse and Neglect groups based upon scores in
the top or bottom third of the distribution of scores.
bSecure, Avoidant, and Resistant Attachment Styles on the Adult Attachment Scale (AAS)

62
Table 12

Main Efi‘ects of Neglect and Physical Abu_se on Symptomatology and Attachment Sgles

Neglect Physical
Abuse

 

GSIa
E 12.37*** 1.54
[F (1,410)]

Internalizing
Symptomsb
E 8.95" .66
Externalizing
Symptomsc
E 7 .54" 498*
Secure
Attachment(1
E 7 .62** 1.43
Avoidant
Attachment
E 10.47*** 6.29"
Resistant
Attachment
F 12.33 *** 3.43

 

aThe Global Severity index is a measure of overall symptomatology computed by summing the total score
of the 90 items on the SCL-90-R and dividing by 90.

bInternalizing symptomatology was derived by summing the Depression, Somatization, and Anxiety
subscales of the SCL-90-R.

cExternalizing symptomatology was derived by summing the Hostility and Paranoid Ideation Subscales of
the SCL-90-R
dSecure, Avoidant and Resistant Attachment Styles on the Adult Attachment Scale ( modified)

*9 < .05 "p < .01 "*9 < .001

 

DISCUSSION

Implications of Findings for Understanding Neglect and Physical Abuse

The finding that reports of neglectful childhood experiences more
strongly predicted psychological dysfunction in young adults than did
recollections of physical abuse suggests that it is important to focus both
empirically and theoretically on the impact of parental omissions in
childrearing, as well as on actively physically abusive acts (Egeland &
Erickson, 1987; Petitt & Bates, 1989). It is important, then, to examine the
impact of childhood neglect experiences in young adults more than has been
done in the past. The finding that neglect is uniquely related to certain
negative outcomes is consistent with the work of Egeland et a1 (1983) who
found that children who had been neglected and not physically abused, had
the highest mean scores on apathy, withdrawal, and negative affect, and the
lowest scores on flexibility, creativity, agency, and positive affect of all groups
during a 42-month barrier-box task. It is notable that the current study
obtained results similar to these using a non-clinical sample of college
undergraduates.

When more specific contrasts were done to examine the effects of
neglect under conditions of low physical abuse the results were mixed. This
reiterates the difficulties that past studies have had with isolating the effects
of different types of maltreatment because they often cooccur (Aber et a1,
1989). However, some studies have been able to separate out the effects of

different types of abuse. Briere and Runtz (1990), for example, found that

63

64
retrospective reports of different types of abusive experiences were related to

unique types of psychosocial difficulties in university undergraduates.

It appears that while neglect may be more correlated with certain
indices of psychological dysfunction, there may be additive effects of physical
abuse and neglect. An examination of the cell means for global
symptomatology reveals an interesting pattern. The group with the lowest
scores on the Global Severity Index (symptomatology) was the low Neglect/low
Physical Abuse group, followed by the low Neglect/ high Physical Abuse
group. Notably, the two highest cells means were the high Neglect/ low
Physical Abuse group and the high Neglect/ high Physical Abuse group. This
indicates that while there are additive effects of neglect and abuse, that
reports of neglect without physical abuse are associated with greater
psychological dysfunction than reports of physical abuse without neglect. .

While the overall hypothesis that neglect would be more strongly
related to indices of psychological dysfunction than physical abuse was
confirmed, the more focused hypotheses that neglect would be associated with
more avoidant attachment while physical abuse would be associated with
greater resistant attachment was not wholly supported. Neglect significantly
predicted all attachment styles in the expected direction, while physical abuse
only predicted avoidant attachment. It is possible that the relationship
between abuse and anxious attachment in general is more robust than the
relationship between different types of abuse and specific types of anxious
attachment styles. It may be that the two anxious attachment styles (avoidant
and resistant) are more similar conceptually than was originally thought.
There may also be methodological difficulty in neatly separating these two

attachment styles via self-report measures. It is clear, however, that these

65
types of maltreatment, especially neglect, are correlated with reports of

difficulties in relationships.

The finding that neglect was related to reported internalizing
symptomatology, while physical abuse was not, coincides with evidence which
indicates that children who are neglected show more internalizing behaviors
(such as depression and withdrawal) than do physically abused children
(Egeland et al, 1983; Conaway & Hansen, 1989; Kent, 1976; Kinard, 1979). While
it was predicted that there would be a stronger effect for physical abuse on
reported externalizing symptomatology, there was an effect for both neglect
and physical abuse on externalizing symptomatology, with a stronger effect
for neglect (p_ < .007 for Neglect and p <. 03 for Physical Abuse). While neglect
may have a more robust link to all types of symptomatology, physical abuse
may be uniquely related to externalizing types of behavior.

This pattern points to several possibilities. First, it indicates that
children who are experiencing neglect may also be exposed to overt conflict
in the home and other types of abuse. It is also possible that there is not a
clear one-to-one relationship between omissions of behavior and
internalizing styles in children, and commissions of violent acts and
externalizing styles of behavior. Such a relationship may be too simplistic.
Temperamental and personality characteristics of children may make them
prone to displaying internalizing or externalizing behaviors, regardless of
degree of parental involvement in their lives.

However, it is notable that reported Physical Abuse was significantly
related to reports of externalizing but not internalizing symptomatology,
suggesting that children who are physically abused may learn from violent
role models to act out and be aggressive in order to get what they need from

others. Physically abused children may learn that the only option of

66
interaction with others is through aversive, attention-seeking behavior,

while children who are neglected may be more prone to withdraw from their

environment.

Theoretical Implications

Physical abuse and neglect may have differential effects because of
the nature of interactions which occur in these two types of maltreatment.
Because physical abuse by its nature must involve some parental intrusion
into a child's life, while neglect is characterized by a lack of parental »
involvement, neglect (especially chronic, persistent neglect) may have a
more deleterious long-term impact on individual psychological development
even in individuals skilled enough to attend college.

Neglect may have a very different psychological meaning for a child
than the experience of physical abuse. Neglect is the equivalent of complete
psychological abandonment, whereas physical abuse may not be. If parents
who physically abuse their children do so in response to a child's misbehavior,
this may allow children to see a contingency between their own behavior and
their parent's response (e.g., "Dad hit me because I broke the lamp“).
Neglected children may feel that their parents fail to interact with them
regardless of how they behave. This might make it very difficult for
chronically neglected children to separate their parents' rejection of them
from their self-image. Such psychological abandonment may have a powerful
impact on an individual's sense of themselves and their ability to form
attachments with others. Pervasive neglect may communicate a message to a
children that they are unworthy of attention and energy, whereas physical
abuse may communicate to children that they are at least worthy of some

attention, even if negative. Feeling unworthy and abandoned is likely to have

 

67
pervasive effects on an individual's ability to become close to others as well as

on their psychological functioning.

If developing a sense of self and establishing secure relationships with
others is dependent upon interactions with significant others, than being
denied such interactions might greatly impede normal psychological
development. According to Bowlby (1969) a primary goal of the attachment
relationship is to allow a child to develop a sense of security. This idea implies
that if there is little or no interaction with significant others (e.g., in cases of
chronic neglect), that there would be no foundation for a secure attachment
relationship.

Individuals who are physically abused may interact enough with
others to be able to construct working models (Bowlby, 1969) of others and of
themselves in relationships. If working models or "evoked companions"
(Stern, 1985), provide the child with predictions about what others will do,
then a child who does not have the basis for developing such models lives in
an unpredictable (and probably anxiety-producing) environment, and hence
may experience a sense of learned helplessness, a feeling of total loss of
control (Abramson et al, 1980). These working models or evoked companions
allow exploration of the environment when the caregiver is not present. A
neglected child with a caregiver who is physically but not psychologically
present may have little opportunity to develop evoked companions because
they do not have "real" companions upon which to form them.

Secure attachment with others and psychological development may be
compromised in maltreated children; they may be reluctant to explore and to
learn from the environment because they do not experience the safety of a
nurturing caregiver to whom they can return (Houck & King, 1989). Children

who are chronically neglected may experience even less of a self-regulating

68
caregiver (Stern, 1985) than children who are physically abused. This is a

critical distinction between neglect and physical abuse because neglected
children may not learn self-regulation or how to interact skillquy in the
environment, because they have not been engaged in interactions with their
caregiver. The greater degree of parental engagement in cases of physical
abuse might account for findings that physically abused children are more
adept at discriminating emotions in others than neglected children (Frodi &
Smetana, 1984), and that neglect was found to be the only factor significantly
related to difficulties with language development (Allen & Oliver, 1982). This
indicates that physically abused children who interact more with their
environment may also be able to develop some skills through those
interactions, whereas neglected children may not have the opportunity to
develop such skills.

Also, it is possible that neglect is so harmful to children because it may
be a more chronic pattern within families while certain kinds of physical
abuse may occur more sporadically (Lutzker, 1990). Physical abuse may also
have more obvious physical manifestations which are noticeable by others
outside the family, than neglect. Because of this, the child who is physically
abused may be more likely to be connected with support systems outside the

family (e.g., teacher, social worker), and receive benefits from that.

Definitional Issues

While the current study combined neglect, rejection, and
nonresponsiveness into one construct because of the high correlations
between these scales, it nevertheless needs to be acknowledged that these
constructs may not be as similar as they appear on the surface. Rejection may

be a more active form of disengagement than neglect or nonresponsiveness.

 

69
It would be important to explore these distinctions in the future. An

exploration of the psychological meaning (not just the quality) of different
types of maltreatment is critical to understanding individual outcomes

following the experience of different types of abuse.

Limitations of Study

It is possible that the results of this study were affected by certain
methodological limitations. First, there is difficulty with relying on
retrospective accounts as valid reports of childhood experiences, particularly
when the experiences are of a highly personal nature. It is probable that
there is some denial of negative experiences and distortion (e.g., due to a social
desirability bias) by subjects responding to questionnaires (Paulhus, 1991).
However, as Berger et a1 (1988) found in their study using the AE-III with
university undergraduates, many individuals report highly punitive and
abusive childhood experiences.

Given that the subjects in the present study have sufficient resources to
attend college, among these resources might be an absense of extreme
repression. In the current study, a fairly large number of subjects were
willing to report experiences of physical abuse and neglect. For example, 28%
(N = 144) of subjects were categorized in the high Neglect group, and 20.5%

(N = 105) were categorized in the high Physical Abuse group. 10.4% (N = 53) of
the subjects were categorized in the high Neglect/ high Physical Abuse Group.
This finding is similar to that of Berger et a1 (1988) who found that in a
questionnaire survey of 4,695 university students, approximately 9% reported
a large number of severely punitive childhood experiences that could be
categorized as abusive. It is assumed that if there was a problem with

underreporting, this would affect both the physical abuse and neglect scales

7O
equally. The variability of respondents' scores on the two scales also was

equivalent, suggesting that the results were not due to restriction of range in
one of the measures of abuse type.

Another methodological difficulty lies in the measurement of the
occurrence of physical abuse and neglect. Because we utilized retrospective
accounts, there is no way to substantiate that physical abuse or neglect
actually occurred. Because of this, we had to rely on individuals' perceptions
that they had experienced certain events in childhood. We utilized the top
third of the distribution of subjects as the high Physical Abuse or Neglect
groups. Yet it is possible that many subjects in these groups did not view their
parents as having been abusive or neglectful. Such perceptions might greatly
affect an individual's sense of self and perception of psychological
functioning. However, perceptions of having been abused or neglected were
not central to the hypotheses of this study. The finding that absolute levels of
reported neglect led to greater psychological problems than levels of reported
physical abuse is the critical point.

The validity of the measures used to assess physical abuse and neglect
was addressed indirectly by analyses of the relationship between these
measures and demographic variables. These analyses revealed findings
similar to those in the literature on child abuse: high neglect and physical
abuse scores correlated with factors such as lower socioeconomic status and
parent's education (Kinard, 1979). However, subsequent analyses indicated
that these demographic variables were not accounting for the differential
results found between neglect and abuse. While these demographic variables
were clearly contributing to recollections of abuse and neglect, in general
they were not uniquely related (at least as measured by the current study)

with symptomatology and attachment styles. Also, the Neglect scale used in the

71
current study was found to be highly correlated with the Rejection scale of the

AE-III, which speaks to the validity of this scale.

Another methodological limitation of the current study was the type of
sample used; university undergraduates. It is assumed that this is a fairly high
functioning population and that this sample attribute may have limited the
range of negative experiences and outcomes that subjects reported. It is
possible that the relationship found between neglect, physical abuse and
symptomatology would have been different in a different (e.g., clinical)
population. The types of physically abusive and neglectful experiences which
this population may have experienced in childhood may have been much less
severe (and hence, less predictive of psychological dysfunction) than would
be reported in a more dysfunctional sample. However, examination of the
norms for the SCL-90-R indicate that the subjects in the current study reported
a fairly high degree of global symptomatology. This sample had higher GSI
scores than a sample of psychiatric outpatients reported by Derogatis (1977)
[mean = 1.77 (SD. = .52), 1.26 (SD. = .68) respectively].

The sample was also largely Caucasian. Analyses indicated that there
were differences among Caucasians, African Americans, and Asian Americans
in reports of Neglect and Physical Abuse, with more African Americans
reporting high Neglect and more Caucasians reporting low Neglect, as well as
more Caucasians reporting low Physical Abuse and more Asian Americans
reporting high Physical Abuse. These differences might have had a stronger
effect on the study outcomes if the minority sample was larger. It is also
possible that different ethnic minorities may have differing attitudes about
what "normal" discipline is and when discipline becomes abusive. Because of
this, it is difficult to generalize these results beyond white, middle class college

undergraduates.

 

72
Finally, the use of physical abuse and neglect as independent variables

could be criticized as simplistic. The current study acknowledges that certain
temperamental and personality characteristics of children may impact the
likelihood that they will be physically abused or neglected. In fact, children
with certain personalities may evoke not only abuse, but particular types of
abuse. Factors such as low birth weight, premature birth, and difficult infant
temperaments may all predispose children to elicit abuse (Gaines et al, 1979;
Green et al, 1974). However, determining the child's role is problematic
because it is difficult to assess a child's functioning prior to the abuse or
neglect. The theoretical focus of the current study was on the relationship
between abuse, neglect and functioning, and examining the impact of
personality and temperament would be possible only in a longitudinal study
and is beyond the scope of the current study. Such a study would also need to
examine closely when abuse or neglect began and whether or not they were

recurring.

Future Directions

The limitations of the current study suggest future studies that might be
conducted to examine the impact of neglect and abuse. First, it would be useful
to conduct interviews with subjects following their completion of certain
questionnaires to understand their perceptions and definitions of abuse. Two
individuals may report the same absolute amounts of abuse, but if one
perceives him/ herself as having been abused while the other does not,
psychogical outcomes might be different. It would also be useful to examine
the defensive styles of individuals that affect the manner in which subjects
respond to questionnaires as a control for reporting bias. The use of other

measures of symptomatology would also be useful as well as obtaining

 

73
confirmation from roommates, friends (with subjects' permission) about

relationship styles and psychological functioning.

It would also be critical to conduct a longitudinal study to examine how
temperamental characteristics, styles of attachment and physically abusive or
neglectful experiences in childhood interact to influence psychological

development.

Summary and Conclusions

Research has documented the detrimental effects of abusive
experiences in childhood on subsequent psychological functioning (Cicchetti,
1989; Egeland et al, 1983; Egeland & Erickson, 1987). However, for a variety of
reasons, much of this work has not recognized a potentially important
distinction among types of abuse--active physical maltreatment (i.e., physical
abuse) versus more passive lack of appropriate care (neglect). While it is very
likely that both types of abusive experiences are destructive, we reasoned that
neglect and physical abuse would adversely affect psychological development
somewhat differently. In contrast to physical abuse, which by its nature must
involve some parental intrusion into a child's life, neglect is characterized by
a lack of any parental involvement. As such, we hypothesized that childhood
neglect would be more related to certain psychological problems (e.g.,
dysfunctional attachment styles) in young adults than would physical abuse.
Results indicated support for the hypothesis. Neglect was found to be
significantly related to all the indices of psychological dysfunction while
physical abuse was related to only one.

The results of the current study indicate that it is useful to examine the
impact of neglect and physical abuse in non-clinical populations. The current
study also emphasizes the importance of attempting to understand the specific

effects of certain types of abuse, and the need to further examine the additive

 

 

74
effects of different types of abuse. The findings indicate that future work on

negative childhood experiences and their psychological consequences would
profit from examining types of abuse in a more complex manner than past

work has.

 

REFERENCES

References

Aber, J. L., Allen, J. P., & Cicchetti, D. (1989). The effects of maltreatment on
development during early childhood: Recent studies and their
theoretical, clinical, and policy implications. In D. Cicchetti and V.
Carlson (Eds.) , Child Maltreatment. England: Cambridge University

Press.

Abramson, L. Y., Garber, J., & Seligman, M. E. P. (1980). learned helplessness
in humans: An attributional analysis. In Garber, J. & Seligman, (Eds.) ,
Human Helplessness: Theory and Applications. New York: Academic

Press.

Achenbach, T. M. (1978). Psychopathology of childhood: Research

problems and issues. lournal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
46(4), 759-776.

Achenbach, TM. (1991). Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist/4-18 and 1991
Profile. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont Department of
Psychiatry.

Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, 8. (1978). Patterns of

Attachment: A Psychological Study of the Strange Situation. New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Allen, R. E., & Oliver, J. M. (1982). The effects of child maltreatment on
language development. Child Abuse and Neglect, E, 299-305.

Ammerman, R. T., Cassissi, J. 15., Hersen, M., & Van Hassett, V. B. (1986).
Consequences of physical abuse and neglect in children. Clinical

Psychology Review, 6, 291-310.

Augoustinos, M. (1987). Developmental effects of child abuse: recent
findings. Child Abuse and Neglect, 1_1_, 15-27.

Azar, S. T., & Wolfe, D. A. (1989). Child abuse and neglect. In E. Mash and R.
Barkley, Treatment of Childhood Disorders. New York: The Guilford

Press.

Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young

adults: A test of a four category model. loumal of Personalig and Social
Psychology, 6_1_(2), 226-244.

Berger, A. M., & Knutsen, J. F. (1984). The Assessing Environments III: A
questionnaire for assessing punitive and abuse—related childhood
histories. Department of Psychology, University of Iowa, Iowa City,
Iowa.

75

76

Berger, A. M., Knutsen, J. F., Mehm, J. G., & Perkins, K. A. (1988). The self-
report of punitive childhood experiences of young adults and
adolescents. Child Abuse and Neglect, 12, 251-262.

 

Bowers, L. B. (1990). Traumas precipitating female delinquency: Implications
for assessment, practice and policy. Child and A_dolescent Social Work,

1(5), 389-402.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and Loss. New York: BaSic Books.

Brassard, M. R., Germain, R., & Hart, S. N. (Eds.). (1987). The challenge to
better understand and combat the psychological maltreatment of
children and youth. Psychological Maltreatment of Children and
Youth. New York: Pergamon Press.

Briere, J., & Runtz, M. (1988). Multivariate correlates of childhood
psychological and physical maltreatment among university
women. Child Abuse and Neglect, 12, 331-341.

Briere, J., & Runtz, M. (1990). Differential adult symptomatology
associated with three types of child abuse histories. Child Abuse and

Neglect, fl, 3 57-3 64.

Carlson, V., Cicchetti, D., Barnett, D., & Braunwald, K. G. (1989). Finding order in
disorganization: Lessons from research on maltreated infants'
attachments to their caregivers. In D. Cicchetti and V. Carlson (Eds.),
Child Maltreatment . England: Cambridge University Press.

( Cicchetti, D. (1989). How research on child maltreatment has informed the
study of child development: Perspectives from developmental
psychopathology. In D. Cicchetti and V. Carlson (Eds.) , Child
mltreatment . England: Cambridge University Press.

Collins, N. L., & Read, S. J. (1990). Adult attachment, working models, and

relationship quality in dating couples. lournal of Personaligg and
Social Psychology , _5_9_(4), 644-663.

Conaway, L. P., & Hansen, D. J. (1989). Social behavior of physically
abused and neglected children: A critical review. Clinical Psychology
Review , 9 , 627-652.

 

Conte, J. R., & Schuerman, J. R. (1987). Factors associated with an increased
impact of child sexual abuse. Child Abuse and Neglect , _1_1 , 201-211.

Crittenden, P. M. (1985). Maltreated infants: Vulnerablility and resiliance.

lournal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry , Q , 85-96.

Crittenden, P. M., & Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1989). Child maltreatment and
attachment theory. In D. Cicchetti and V. Carlson (Eds. ), Child

Maltreatment . England: Cambridge University Press.

 

77

Dean, A. L., Malik, M. M., Richards, W., & Stringer, S.A. (1986). Effects of
parental maltreatment on children's conceptions of interpersonal
relationships. Developmental Psychology , 22(5), 617-626.

Derogatis, L. R. (1977). SCL-90-R (Symptoms Checklist-90, Revised).

Downey, G., & Walker, E. (1989). Social cognition and adjustment in
children at risk for psychopathology. Developmental Psychology, 5(5),
835-845.

Egeland, B., & Erikson, M. F. (1987). Psychologically unavailable caregiving.
In M. R. Brassard, R. Germain & S. N. Hart, Psychological Maltreatment
of Children and Youth . New York: Pergamon Press.

Egeland, B., Sroufe, L. A., & Erickson, M. (1983). The developmental
consequences of different patterns of maltreatment. Child Abuse and
Neglect, Z, 45 9-469. ‘

 

Elmer, E. (1977). A follow-up study of traumatized children. Pediatrics 59, 273-
279. ~

Elmer, E. (1979). Child abuse and family stress. lournal of Social Issues, ._3_5_(2),
60-71.

Erickson, M. F., Egeland, B., & Pianta, R. (1989). The effects of
maltreatment on the development of young children. In D.
Cicchetti and V. Carlson (Eds.) , Child Maltreatment. England:

Cambridge University Press.

Erickson, E. H. (1950). Childhood and Sociegy. New York: W.W. Norton and
Co.

Erikson, E. H. (1980). Identig and the Life Cycle. NewYork: W.W.
Norton and Co.

Friedrich, W. N., & Einbender, A. J. (1983). The abused Child: A

psychological review. lournal of Clinical Child Psychology, _1_2(3),
244-256.

Frodi, A., & Smetana, J. (1984). Abused, neglected and nonmaltreated
preschoolers' ability to discriminate emotions in others: The effects of

IQ, Child Abuse and Neglect, 8, 459-465.

Gaines, R., Sandgrund, A., Green, A. H., & Power, E. (1978). Etiological factors
in child maltreatment: A multivarite study of abusing, neglecting, and
normal mothers. lournal of Abnormal Psychology, 8_7(5), 531-540.

Garbarino, J., Guttrnan, E., & Seeley, J. W. (1986). What is psychological
maltreatment? The Psychologically Battered Child (pp. 1-24). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

78

Garmezy, N., & Rutter, M. (Eds.) . (1983). Stress and Coping in Children. New
York: McGraw Hill Book Co.

Gelles, R. J. (1973). Child abuse as psychopathology: A sociological

critique and reformulation. American lournal of Orthopsychiafl, 43,
611—62 1.

George, C., & Main, M. (1979). Social interactions of young abused
children: Approach, avoidance, and aggression. Child
Development, 50, 306-318.

Giblin, P. T., Starr, R. H., & Agronow, S. W. (1984). Affective behavior of
abused and control children: Comparisons of parent-child interactions
and the influence of home environment variables. Journal of Genetic

Psychology, 13$ 69-82.

Goodwin, J. (1988). Post-traumatic symptoms in abused children.

lournal of Traumatic Stress, 1 (4), 475-488.

Gray, J. D., Cutler, C. A., Dean, J. G., & Kempe, H. (1979). Prediction and
prevention of child abuse and neglect. lournal of Social Issues, 3_5_
(2), 127-139.

Green, A. (1978). Self-destructive behavior in battered children.

American lournal of Psychiatry, 135(5), 579-582.

Hart, 8. N., & Brassard, M. R. (1987, Feb). A major threat to children's mental
health: Psychological maltreatment. Americg Psychologist.

Harter, S. (1983). Developmental perspectives on the self-system. In Paul
Mussen (Ed.). Handbook of Child Psychology (Pp. 296-372). New York:
Wiley and Sons.

Haugaard, J. J., & Emery, R. E. (1989). Methodological issues in child sexual
abuse research. Child Abuse and Neglect, Q, 89-100.

Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an
attachment process. lournal of Personalig and Social Psychology, g
(3), 511—524.

Hoffman, N. G., & Overall, P. B. ( 1978). Factor structure of the SCL-9O in a

psychiatric population. lournal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
4_6(6), 1187-1191.

Houck, G. M., & King, M. C. (1989). Child maltreatment: Family
characteristics and developmental consequences. Issues in

Mental Health Nursing, 1_()_, 193-208.

Jacobson, R. S., & Straker, G. (1982). Selected methodological problems in
research in child abuse: A developmental perspective. Child care.

Health, and Development, 8_, 219-225.

79

Kaplan, S. J., & Pelcovitz, D. (1982). Child abuse and neglect and sexual abuse.
Psychiatric Clinics of North America. 5(2), 321-332.

Kempe, C. K., & Helfer, R. E. (Eds.) . (1972). Helping the Battered Child and His
Family. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Co.

Kendall, P. C., Chansky, T. E., Friedman, M., Kim, R., Kortlander, E., Sessa,
F.M., & Siqueland. (1991). Treating anxiey disorders in children and
adolescents. In P.C. Kendall (Ed.), Child and Adolescent Therapy;
Cognitive-Behavioral Procedures. New York: The Guilford Press.

 

Kent, J. (1976). A follow-up study of abused children. Journal of Pediatric
Psychology, 1, 25—31.

Kinard, E. M. (1979). The psychological consequences of abuse for the child.
Journal of Social Issues, 3_5(2), 82-99.

Kinard, E. M. (1982). Child abuse and depression: Cause or consequence?
Child Welfare, fl, 403-413.

Koski, M. A., & Ingram, E. M. (1977). Child abuse and neglect: Effects on
Bayley Scale Scores. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, E, 79-91.

Kratcoski, P. C. (1982). Child abuse and violence against the family. Child
Welfare, fl, 435-444.

Lewis, D. O., Mallouh, C. & Webb, V. (1989). Child abuse, delinquency, and
violent criminality. In D. Cicchetti and V. Carlson (Eds. ), Child
Maltreatment. England: Cambridge University Press.

Libbey, P., & Bybee, R. (1979). The physical abuse of adolescents. lournal
of Social Issues. 35(2), 101-126.

Loevinger, J. (1976). Ego Development. San Fransisco: Jossey Bash,
Publishers.

Lutzker, J. R. (1990). Behavioral treatment of child neglect. Behavior
Modification, 14(3), 301-315.

Lynch, M. A., & Roberts, J. (1982). Consequences of Child Abuse. London:
Academic Press.

Main, M., & George, C. (1985). Responses of abused and disadvantaged
toddlers to distress in agemates: A study in the day care setting.

Developmental Psychology, 2_1( 3), 407-412.

Ounsted, C., Oppenheimer, R., & Lindsay, J. (1974). Aspects of bonding
failure: The psychopathology and psychotherapeutic treatment of
families of battered children. Developmental Medicine and Child
Neurology, 1_(;, 447-456.

 

8O

Paulhus, D. L. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In J. P.
Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.) . Measures of
Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes (Vol. 1). California:
Academic Press.

Perry, M. A., Doran, L. D. & Wells, E. A. (1983). Developmental and
behavioral characteristics of the physically abused child. lournal of
Clinical Child Psychology, 2(3), 320—324.

Pettit, G. S., & Bates, J. E. (1989). Family interaction patterns and children's
behavior problems from infancy to 4 years. Developmental Psychology,
2_5 (3), 413-420.

Pfeffer, C. R., & Trad, P. V. (1988). Sadness and suicidal tendencies in
preschool children. Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 9(2),
86-88.

Rausch, K., & Knutsen, J. F. (1991). The self-report of personal punitive
childhood experiences and those of siblings. Child Abuse and Neglect,
g, 29-36.

Reidy, T. J. (1977). The aggressive characteristics of abused and neglected
children. Journal of Clinical Psychology, QM), 1140-1145.

Renken, B., Egeland, B., Marvinney, D., Mangelsdorf, S., & Sroufe, L. A. (in
press). Early childhood antecedents of aggression and passive
withdrawal in early elementary school.

Resick, P. A., & Sweet, J. J . (1979). Child maltreatment intervention:
Directions and issues. lournal of Social Issues, 35(2), 140-159.

Rivera, B., & Widom, C. S. (1990). Childhood victimization and violent
offending. Violence and Victims _S_ (1), 19-35.

 

Rosenbaum, A., & O'Leary, K. D. ( 1981). Children: The unintended

victims of marital violence. American lournal of Orthopsychiat_ry, fl
(4), 692-699.

Rosenbloom, L. (1985). The outcome of abuse for children. Adoption and
Fostering, 9(2), 36-38.

Russell, A. B., & Trainor, C. M. (1984). Trends in Child Abuse and Neglect: A
National Perspective. Denver: American Humane Association.

Rutter, M. (1972). Maternal Deprivation Reassessed. Middlesex, England:
Penguin Books.

Salzinger, S., Feldman, R. 8., Hammer, M., & Rosario, M. (1991). Risk for
physical abuse and the personal consequences for its victims.

Criminal lustice and Behavior, 18(1), 64—81.

 

81

Saunders, E. A., & Arnold, F. (1991). Borderline personality disorder and
childhood abuse: Revisions in clinical drinking and treatment
approach. Work in Progress. Stone Center, Wellesley College,
Wellesley, MA.

Shek, D. T. (1989). Perceptions of parental treatment styles and
psychological well-being in Chinese adolescents. lournal of Genetic

Psychology, QQM), 403-415.

Sroufe, L. A. (1979). The coherence of individual development. American
Psychologist.

Sroufe, L. A., & Waters, E. (1977). Attachment as an organizational
construct. Child Development, fl, 1184-1199.

Steele, B. F. (1980). Psychodynamic factors in child abuse. In C. Kempe & R.
Helfer (Eds.). The Battered Child (3rd Ed., pp. 49-85).

Stern, D. N. (1985). The Intetpersonal World of the Infant. New York: Basic
Books.

Sweet, J. J., & Resick, P. A. (1979). The maltreatment of children: A review of
theories and research. lournal of Social Issues, 35(2), 40—59.

Taylor, S. (1983). Adjustment to threatening events. American Psychologist,
M11), 1161-1173.

Tzeng, O. C. S., & Jacobsen, J. J. (1988). Sourcebook for Child Abuse and
Neglect. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas.

Valentine, D. P. (1990). Double jeopardy: Child maltreatment and mental
retardation. Childpapnd Adolescent Social Work, 1( 6), 487-499.

Vissing, Y. M., Straus, M. A., Gelles, R. J., & Harrop, J. W. (1991). Verbal
aggression by parents and psychosocial problems of children. Child
Abuse and Neglect. fi, 223-238.

Weiss, B., Didge, K. A., Bates, J. E., & Petit, G. S. (1992). Some consequences of
early harsh discipline: Child aggression and aa maladaptive social
information processing style. Child Development, 53, 1321-1335.

Whitmore, E. W., Kramer, J. R., Knutsen, J. F. (in press). The association
between punitive childhood experiences and hyperactivity.

Widom, C. S. (1989). Child abuse, neglect, and adult behavior: Research design
and findings on criminality, violence, and child abuse. American

Ioumal of Orthopsychiap'y, 2(3), 355-367.

Widom, C. S. (1991). Childhood victimization: Risk factor for delinquency.
In M. Coltan and S. Gore (Eds.). A‘dolescent Stress: Causes and
Consequences. New York: Aldine DeGruyter.

 

APPENDICES

Appendix A

Experimenter Instructions for Data Collection

As subjects enter the testing room, have them pick up from a table the
necessary material; first, the "Instructions" sheet describing the study, then
the consent forms, and the following questionnaires in "random" order, the
Relationships Questionnaire (red scantron enclosed), and the SCL-90-R (yellow
scantron enclosed). The Demographics Questionnaire and the AE-III
questionnaire (answered on same brown, BOO-item scantron) (which will be
responded to last by all subjects), and a scoring pencil. Ask the subjects to
read the "Instructions" sheet and not to write on anything until instructed to
do so. After waiting for no more than two minutes, say "Hello, my name is

. Let's go over the "Instructions" sheet together.

"Thanks for volunteering to help in this project. We are interested in
understanding people's memories of childhood environments, as well as how
people view relationships and how they feel about themselves. The first step
in this research involves undergraduates, like yourselves, completing 3
different questionnaires that we anticipate will take approximately two hours
to complete. In a few moments we will go over the instructions for each
questionnaire and how to fill out the answer sheets for each of them. If you
wish to participate in this part of the larger project, you will them complete

the consent forms and then complete the questionnaires. If at any time you

82

 

83
have any questions about any of the questionnaires or about any item on any

of them, please raise your hand and I will do my best to answer the questions.

After we score and analyze all of your answers on the questionnaires,
we will then select a small group of persons, from all of those who have
completed the questionnaires, and ask them to help us in several more
research activities during future terms. We will be paying each selected
person 5$ an hour or more for help in each of the future activities. Each of
these activities will be scheduled on a date and time convenient to all.

Again, we thank you for your help now, and we hope that you would be
willing to help us again in the future."

After reading the above, ask "Any questions?" Answer them to the best
of your ability.

State: "Now let's go through the instructions for each of the
questionnaires. Although you all have the same questionnaires, wee
distributed them to you in somewhat different orders. It is important that you
please keep and complete them in the order we gave them to you. But for no,
find and look at the questionnaire entitled "Relationships Questionnaire."
Please follow along as I read the instructions aloud... Any questions?... Please
write only your student number and sex where requested on the red computer
answer sheet."

"Let's turn now to the questionnaire entitled "SCL—90-R". Please follow
along as I read the instructions aloud... Any questions?... Please write only
your student number and sex where requested on the yellow computer answer
sheet

"Now let's turn to the demographics questionnaire and the "AE-III-R"
(Mother/ Father forms). (These are attached and answered on same scantron).

Please skim the demographics questionnaire... Now look at the AE—III-R. Please

 

84
follow along as I read the instructions aloud... Any questions?... Please write

only your student number and sex where requested on the brown (300 item)
computer answer sheet.

State: " Please turn to the consent forms. Please read them now. If after
reading them you are willing to complete the questionnaires, , now write your
Code Number next to where it says STUDENT NUMBER at the top let of the first
consent form. Please supply all of the other information requested on the
consent form. If you would like to help us in future studies, please write your
student number next to where it says student number on the second consent
form and supply all the information requested on that consent form. If you
have any questions, please raise your hand and I will do my best to answer
them. When you have finished completing the consent forms, put them aside."
(note: if a student chooses not to complete any of the questionnaires,, they are
to be given one credit.)

"When you have finished all the questionnaires, please bring all
material up, including the pencil, and place them in the appropriate boxes
here on the table." (Make sure that you bring separate boxes to the room to
receive each and every piece of material back from the undergraduate,
including the scoring pencil.) "Before leaving, make sure that I complete
your experiment cards so that you can receive appropriate credit for helping
us. We will be sending a copy of our analysis of your answers to these
questionnaires to all who have provided us with an address and we will be

calling some of you some time in the future to help us again."

 

Appendix B

A E - III-A
Demographic Information

Please respond to the following statements on the enclosed (BROWN) computer
scoring sheet using a Number Two pencil. Be sure to answer all items.

1) What is your sex?
A) Male
B) Female

2) What is your age?
A) 17-18 D) 23-24
B) 19-20 E) Over 24
C) 21-22

3) If you are a citizen of the United States, what is your ethnic background? If
you are not a United States citizen, please proceed to the next question.)

A) Caucasian D) Hispanic American

B) African American E) Native American

C) Asian American

4) If you are n_ot a citizen of the United States, how would you identify
yourself? (If you are a United States citizen, leave this question blank.)
A) African D) Hispanic
B) Asian B) Other
C) European

5) What is your current relationship status?
A) Single and not dating D) Engaged
B) Dating several people E) Married
C) Dating one person

6) What is your parents' marital status?
A) Married D) Divorced
B) Remarried E) Widowed
C) Separated

7) How many siblings do you have?
A) None D) 3 siblings
B) 1 sibling B) More than 3 siblings
C) 2 siblings

85

 

86

8) What is your estimated family income?
A) Less than $15,000 D) $50,000—$75,000
B) 815,000-825,000 E) Above $75,000
C) $25,000-$50,000

9) What is your father's education?
A) Some high school D) College or technical school graduate
B) High school graduate E) Professional/ Graduate degree
C) Some college or technical school

9) What is your mother's education?
A) Some high school D) College or technical school graduate
B) High school graduate E) Professional/ Graduate degree
C) Some college or technical school

 

87

Appendix B (continued)

AE-III-A/ Mother

This is a questionnaire about your childhood environment. Most of the
questions refer to experiences that occurred during your childhood (before
age 18, or before you left your parents' house --- whichever came first), in
particular involving your mother or step-mother. Many of the questions
refer to your perception of events or people so they have no right or wrong
answers. Please answer the questions as accurately and honestly as you can,
but bear in mind that some of the questions ask for your opinion as opposed to
fact. Remember, your answers to this questionnaire are anonymous and
confidential.

NOTE:

**If you lived in more than one place, answer the questions in terms of the
place you lived longest.

**If you lived with both your natural mother and a step-mother, answer the
questions for the one with whom you lived for the longest period of time.

Please respond to all of the following statements on the enclosed computer
scoring sheet using a Number 2 pencil. Using the scale found below and on
top of each page, select the number of the response that you believe is most
appropriate. NOTE: some of the statements ask you to estimate the number of
times that an event has occurred (e.g., if "Rarely," then fill in #2) while others
ask for more general opinions (e.g. if "Strongly agree", then fill in #4).

Use the following guide when responding to each statement in this booklet.

1 2 3 4
NEVER RARELY OCCASIONALLY FREQUENTLY
(about 1-5 X) (about 6-20 X) (more than 20 X)
o r or or or
Strongly Moderately Moderately Strongly
disagree disagree agree ag ree

 

1. My family often did things together

 

I shared alot of activities with my mother.

 

When I was a child, if my mother had a problem, she would talk to me about it.

 

PEN!“

My mother was too strict with me.

 

5. My mother used physical discipline with me.

88

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6. My mother used to hug me when I was a child.

7. My mother used to give me piggyback rides when I was small.

8. My mother expected more from me than I was capable of doing.

9. I required medical attention for injuries caused by my mother.

10. At night, our family did things together such as playing cards or a
game, working on a project together, etc.

11. My mother was inconsistent in her discipline of me. I did not know
whether or not I would be punished for a particular behavior.

12. My mother did a good job of raising me.

13. My mother used to spank me.

14. My mother used to kiss me when I was a child.

15. My mother used to hold me on her lap.

16. My mother used to hit me with something other than her hands when I did
something wrong.

17. My mother used harsh discipline with me between the ages of five and ten.

18. When I was a child, my mother often found time to play with me.

19. My mother was very harsh with me.

20. When I was a young child, my mother used to leave me (and my young
brothers and sisters) alone when she went out.

21. When my mother was angry, she sometimes grabbed me by the throat and
started to choke me.

22. I never felt that my mother really loved me.

23. My mother's use of discipline was very reasonable.

24. I would describe my relationship with my mother as very close.

25. My mother was a very strict disciplinarian.

26. I received injuries from the discipline used by my mother.

27. Our family almost always ate supper together.

28. My mother took me along with her to visit friends or relatives.

29. I was punished when I was a child.

 

30.

89
My mother used to punch me when she got angry with me.

 

31.

My mother would complain to me about my father.

 

32.

My mother attempted to obtain information from me about schoolwork,
friends, activities in a genuinely caring manner.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

33. My mother used to hit me with her hands (other than spanking).

34. I felt rejected by my mother.

35. My parents were always very supportive of me.

36. My mother used harsh discipline with me before the age of five.

37. My parents seemed to agree on when I needed to be disciplined.

38. I was rejected by my mother when I was a child.

39. My mother was competent in managing day-to-day child care activities.

 

 

 

 

 

40. When I did something wrong, my mother sometimes tied me up.

41. I was mistreated by my mother.

42. My mother used harsh discipline with me during adolescence.

43. My mother touched me with warmth, caring, and affection. Her touches
were soothing and relaxing to me.

44. My mother would completely ignore me at times.

 

45.

My mother communicated her feelings and thoughts to me in a
non-threatening way.

 

46.

My mother yelled at me.

 

 

 

 

 

47. My mother smiled at me with warmth, caring, and affection.
48. My mother insulted me.

49. Our family got along very well.

50. I was severely beaten by my mother.

5 1. My mother ridiculed and humiliated me.

 

52.

My mother respected my opinions and encouraged me to express them.

 

53.

My mother embarassed me in front of others.

 

54.

My mother was easy going and relaxed with me, yet interested and
committed to my welfare and development.

9)

 

55. When I was bad, my mother used to lock me in a closet.

 

56. My mother was unresponsive to me.

 

57. My mother really did not take care of me.

 

58. I get/ got along pretty well with my mother.

 

59. My mother threatened me and told me I would get into trouble if I did
something wrong.

 

60. My mother encouraged me to talk about my problems.

 

61. My mother seemed to demand alot of emotional support from me when
I was a child.

 

62. My mother seemed to interact with me only when it was necessary.

 

63. When I was a young child, my mother provided consistent supervision
for me.

 

64. My mother used harsh discipline with me.

 

65. As a child, I could rely on my mother to meet my needs.

 

66. My mother was inconsistent in her responsiveness to me (i.e. sometimes
she would listen to me and other times she would not).

 

67. My mother seemed uninterested and bored when I talked to her or asked
her questions.

 

68. We had lots of arguments in our family.

 

69. I did not feel safe around my mother.

 

70. My family was pretty easygoing.

 

71. My parents used to call me bad names and/ or they used to insult me, tell me
I was a bad child and so forth.

 

72. My mother used to kick me when she got angry with me.

 

73. My mother criticized me.

 

74. I have very few quarrels with members of my family.

 

75. My mother was accessible and available to me (i.e. she was there for me).

Appendix C

Scale Membership of AE-III (Adaptation) Items

M=Mother/ F=Father
(Item numbers for Mother AE-III-A and Father AE-III-A)

Physical Punishment (12 items)
M
15/ 90) My mother/ father used physical discipline with me.
19/ 94) I required medical attention for injuries caused
by my mother/ father.
23/ 98) My mother/father used to spank me.
26/ 101) My mother/father used to hit me with something other
than her/ his hands when I did something wrong.
31/ 106) When my mother/ father was angry with me, s/ he
sometimes grabbed me by the throat and started to choke
me.
36/ 111) I received injuries from the discipline used by my
mother/ father.
40/ 115) My mother/father used to punch me when s/he got angry
with me.
43/ 118) My mother/father used to hit me with her/his hands
(other than spanking).
50/ 125) When I did something wrong, my mother/father
sometimes tied me up.
60/ 135) I was severely beaten by my mother/ father.
65/ 140) When I was bad my mother/ father used to lock me in a
closet.
82/ 157) My mother/father used to kick me when s/he got angry
with me.

MgLegt (9 items) (* = Item reverse scored)

*28/ 103) When I was a child, my mother/father often found
time to play with me.

30/ 105) When I was a young child, my mother/father used to
leave me (and my young brothers and sisters) alone
when s/ he went out.

*49/ 124) My mother/ father was competent in managing day-
to-day child-care activities.

*64/ 139) My mother/ father was easy going and relaxed with
me, yet interested and committed to my welfare and
development.

65/ 140) When I was bad, my mother/ father used to lock me
in a closet.

91

 

 

92

67/ 142) My mother/ father really did not take care of me.
*73/ 148) When I was a young child, my mother/father
provided consistent supervision for me.
*75/ 150) As a child, I could rely on my mother/father to
meet my needs.
79/ 154) I did not feel safe around my mother/ father.

Ear_e_n_tal_Rejac_ti_o_rt (7 items) (* = Item reverse scored)
*16/ 91) My mother/father used to hug me as a child.

21/ 96) My mother/father was inconsistent in her/ his discipline
of me. I never knew whether or not I would be punished
for a particular behavior.

*24/ 99) My mother/father used to kiss me when I was a child.
*25/ 100) My mother/ father used to hold me on his/ her lap.

32/ 107) I do not feel that my mother/father really loved me.
44/ 119) I felt rejected by my mother/father.

48/ 123) I was rejected by my mother/father when I was a child.

W (11 items) (* = Item reverse scored)
42/ 117) My mother/ father attempted to obtain information from
me about schoolwork, friends, activities in a genuinely
caring manner.
*5 3/ 128) My mother/ father touched me with warmth, caring, and
affection. Her/ his touches were soothing and relaxing to
me.

54/ 129) My mother/ father would completely ignore me at times.

*5 7/ 132) My mother/father smiled at me with warmth, caring,
and affection.

*62/ 137) My mother/ father respected my opinions and
encouraged me to express them.

66/ 141) My mother/father was unresponsive to me.

*70/ 145) My mother/ father encouraged me to talk about my
problems.

72/ 147) My mother/ father seemed to interact with me only
when it was necessary.

76/ 151) My mother/father was inconsistent in her/his
responsiveness to me (i.e. sometimes s/ he would listen
and othertimes s/ he would not).

77/ 152) My mother/ father seemed uninterested and bored

when I talked to her/ him or asked her/ him questions.
*85/ 160) My mother/ father was accessible and available to me.

MW (12 items) (* = Item reverse scored)
14/ 89) My mother/ father was too strict with me.

*22/ 97) My mother/father did a good job of raising me.

27/102) My mother/father used harsh discipline with me between
the ages of 5 and 10.

29/ 104) My mother/ father was very harsh with me.

*33/ 108) My mother's/father's use of discipline was reasonable.

35/ 110) My mother/father were very strict disciplinarians.

39/ 114) I was punished when I was a child.

46/ 121) My mother/ father used harsh discipline with me before
the age of five.

93

*47/ 122) My parents usually seemed to agree on when I needed to
be disciplined.

51/ 126) I was mistreated by my mother/ father.

52/ 127) My mother/father used harsh discipline with me during
adolescence.

74/ 149) My mother/ father used harsh discipline with me.

Age-Inappropriate Demands (5 items)
13/ 88) When I was a child, if my mother/ father had a problem,

s/ he would sometimes talk to me about it.
18/ 93) My mother/ father always expected more from me than I
was capable of doing.
30/ 105) When I was a young child, my mother/father used to leave
me (and my young brothers and sisters) alone when they
went out.
41/ 116) My mother/ father would complain to me about my
mother/ father.
7 1/ 146) My mother/ father seemed to demand alot of emotional
support from me when I was a child.

Negative Family Atmosphare (8 items) (* = Item reverse scored)

*37/ 112) Our family almost always ate supper together.

*45/ 120) My parents were always very supportive of me.

*59/ 134) Our family got along very well.

*68/ 143) I get/ got along pretty well with my mother/father.

78/ 153) We had lots of arguments in our family.

*80/ 155) My family was pretty easygoing.

81/ 156) My parents used to call me bad names and/ or they used
to insult me, tell me I was a bad child and so forth.

*84/ 159) I have very few quarrels with members of my family.

MW (10 items)
11/ 86) My family often did things together.
12/ 87) I shared alot of activities with my mother/father.
16/ 91) My mother used to hug me as a child.
17/ 92) My mother/ father used to give me piggyback rides when I
was small.
20/ 95) At night, our family often did things together such as
playing cards or a game, working on a project together, etc.
24/ 99) My mother/ father used to kiss me when I was a child.
25/ 100) My mother/ father used to hold me on her/ his lap.
28/ 103) When I was a child, my mother/father often found time to
play with me.
34/ 109) I would describe my relationship with my mother as very
close.
38/ 113) My mother/father took me along with her/him to visit
friends or relatives.

Verpal Abuse (7 items) (* = Item reverse scored)

*55/ 130) My mother/father communicated her/his feelings and
droughts to me in a non-threatening way.

56/ 13 1) My mother/ father yelled at me.

58/ 133) My mother/ father insulted me.

94

61/ 136) My mother/ father ridiculed and humiliated me.

63/ 138) My mother/father embarrassed me in front of others.

69/ 144) My mother/father threatened me and told me I would get
into trouble if I did something wrong.

83/ 158) My mother/ father criticized me.

Appendix D

SCL-90-R
Below is a list of problems and complaints that people sometimes have. Read
each one carefully. Using the guide below, answer the following statements
on the enclosed RED computer response sheet and indicate HOW MUCH
DISCOMFORT THAT PROBLEM HAS CAUSED YOU DURING THE PAST 7 DAYS
INCLUDING TODAY. Remember to use a # Two pencil and to answer all 90
questions.

 

HOW MUCH WERE YOU DISTRESSED BY: Descriptors
1 2 3 4 5
Not at all A little bit Moderately Quite a bit Extremely

EXAMPLE: Stomach aches (if you were moderately distressed by stomach aches,
fill in #3 for this question).

. Headaches

. Nervousness or shakiness inside

. Repeated unpleasant thoughts that won't leave your mind
. Faintness or dizziness

. Loss of sexual interest or pleasure

. Feeling critical of others

. The idea that someone else can control your thoughts

. Feeling others are to blame for most of your troubles

KOOONO‘MAWNt—t

. Trouble remembering things

H
O

. Worried about sloppiness or carelessness

H
H

. Feeling easily annoyed or irritated

H
N

. Pains in heart or chest

H
(A)

. Feeling afraid in open spaces or on the streets

H
4:.

. Feeling low in energy or slowed down

H
U]

. Thoughts of ending your life

H
G

. Hearing voices that other people do not hear

l—‘
\l

. Trembling

9S

18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.

96
Feeling that most people cannot be trusted
Poor appetite
Crying easily
Feeling shy or uneasy with the opposite sex
Feelings of being trapped or being caught
Suddenly scared for no reason
Temper outbursts that you could not control.
Feeling afraid to go out of your house alone
Blaming yourself for things
Pains in lower back
Feeling blocked in getting things done
Feeling lonely
Feeling blue
Worrying too much about things
Feeling no interest in things
Feeling fearful
Your feelings being easily hurt
Other people being aware of your private thoughts
Feeling others do not understand you or are unsympathetic
Feeling that people are friendly or dislike you
Having to do things very slowly to insure correctness
Heart pounding or racing
Nausea or upset stomach
Feeling inferior to others
Soreness of your muscles
Feeling that you are watched or talked about by others
Trouble falling asleep
Having to check and doublecheck what you do.
Difficulty making decisions
Feeling afraid to travel on buses, subways, or trains
Trouble getting your breath
Hot or cold spells
Having to avoid certain things, places, or activities that frighten you
Your mind going blank
Numbness or tingling in parts of your body
A lump in your throat

 

54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.

97
Feeling hopeless about the future
Trouble concentrating
Feeling weak in parts of your body
Feeling tense or keyed up
Heavy feelings in your arms or legs
Thoughts of death or dying
Overeating
Feeling uneasy when people are watching or talking about you
Having thoughts that are not your own
Having urges to beat, injure, or harm someone
Awakening in the early morning
Having to repeat the same actions such as touching, counting, or washing
Sleep that is restless or disturbed
Having urges to break or smash things
Having beliefs or ideas that others do not share
Feeling very self-conscious with others
Feeling uneasy in crowds, such as shopping or at a movie
Feeling everything is an effort
Spells of terror or panic
Feeling uncomfortable about eating or drinking in public
Getting into frequent arguments
Feeling nervous when you are left alone
Others not giving you proper credit for your achievement
Feeling lonely even when you are with people
Feeling so restless you couldn't sit still
Feelings of worthlessness
The feeling that something bad is going to happen to you
Shouting or throwing things
Feeling afraid that you will faint in public
Feeling that peOple wil take advantage of you if you let them
Having thoughts about sex that bother you alot
The idea that you should be punished for your sins
Thoughts and images of a frightening nature
The idea that something serious is wrong with your body
Never feeling close to another person
Feelings of guilt

98
90. The idea that something is wrong with "your mind

Appendix E

SCL-90—R Scale Items

Somatization (Internalizing)
1. Headaches
4. Faintness or dizziness

12.
27.
40.
42.
48.
49.
52.
53.
56.
58.

Pains in heart or chest
Pains in lower back
Nausea or upset stomach
Soreness of your muscles
Trouble getting your breath
Hot or cold spells
Numbness or tingling in parts of your body
A lump in your throat
Feeling weak in parts of your body
Feeling heavy in your arms or legs

Depression (Internalizing)
5. Loss of sexual interest or pleasure

14.
15.
20.
22.
26.
29.
30.
31.
32.
54.
71.
79.

Feeling low in energy or slowed down
Thoughts of ending your life
Crying easily
Feeling of being caught or trapped
Blaming yourself for things
Feeling lonely
Feeling blue
Worrying too much about things
Feeling no interest in things
Feeling hopeless about the future
Feeling everything is an effort
Feelings of worthlessness

Anxiety (Internalizing)
2. Nervousness or shakiness inside

17.
. Suddenly scared for no reason

. Feeling fearful

. Heart pounding or racing

. Feeling tense or keyed up

. Spells of terror or panic

. Feeling so restless you couldn't sit still

. The feeling that something bad is going to happen to you
. Thoughts and images of a frightening nature

Trembling

99

100

Hostility (Externalizing)

11. Feeling easily annoyed or irritated

24. Temper outbursts that you could not control
63. Having urges to beat injure or smash things
74. Getting into frequent arguments

81. Shouting or throwing things

Ear_anoid Ideation (Externalizing)

8. Feeling others are to blame for most of your troubles

18. Feeling that most people cannot be trusted

43. Feeling that you are watched or talked about by others

68. Having ideas or beliefs that others do not share

76. Others not giving you proper credit for your achievements
83. Feeling that people will take advantage of you if you let them

Obsessive Compulsive
3. Repeated unpleasant thoughts that won't leave your mind

10. Worried about sloppiness or carelessness

28. Feeling blocked in getting things done

38. Having to do things very slowly to ensure correctness

45. Having to check and double check what you do

46. Difficulty making decisions

51. Your mind going blank

55. Trouble concentrating

65. Having to repeat the same actions such as touching, counting, washing.

Interpersonal Sensitivity

6. Feeling critical of others

21. Feeling shy or uneasy with the opposite sex

34. Your feelings being easily hurt

36. Feeling others do not understand you or are unsympathetic

37. Feeling that people are unfriendly or dislike you

41. Feeling inferior to others

61. Feeling uneasy when people are watching you or talking about you
69. Feeling very self-conscious with others

73. Feeling uncomfortable about eating or drinking in public.

Phobic Anxieg;

13. Feeling afraid in open spaces or in the streets

25. Feeling afraid to go out of your house alone

47. Feeling afraid to travel on buses, subways, or trains

50. Having to avoid certain things, places, or activities because they frighten
you

70. Feeling uneasy in crowds, such as shopping or at a movie

75. Feeling nervous when you are left alone

82. Feeling afraid you will faint in public

Psychoticism

7. The idea that someone else can control your thoughts
16. Hearing voices that other people do not hear

35. Other people being aware of your private thoughts
62. Having droughts that are not your own

77. Feeling lonely even when you are with people

101

84. Having thoughts about sex that bother you alot

85. The idea that you should be punished for your sins

87. The idea that something serious is wrong with your body
88. Never feeling close to another person

90. The idea drat somedring is wrong with your mind

Ac_1_d_i_ti_o_n_a_l_1_tems

19. Poor appetite

60. Overeating

44. Trouble falling asleep

64. Awakening in the early morning
66. Sleep that is restless or disturbed
59. Thoughts of death or dying

89. Feelings of guilt

Appendix F

RELATIONSHIPS QUESTIONNAIRE (Part 1)

This questionnaire is concerned with your experiences in relationships.
Take a moment to drink about these experiences and answer the following
questions with them in mind.

Question #1:

Read each of the four self-descriptions below (A, B, C, and D). Select the
choice that you feel best describes how you feel in relationships. Indicate
your choice by marking the appropriate response for question #1 on the
enclosed BLUE computer scantron sheet.

(Note: the words "close" and "intimate" refer to psychological or emotional
closeness, not necessarily to sexual intimacy.)

A) I am uncomfortable getting close to others. I want emotionally close
relationships, but I find it difficult to trust others completely, or to
depend on them. I worry that I will be hurt if I allow myself to become
too close to others.

B) I am comfortable without close emotional relationships. It is very
important to me to feel independent and self-sufficient, and I prefer not
to depend on others or have others depend on me.

C) I want to be completely emotionally intimate with others, but I often
find that odrers are reluctant to get as close as I would like. I am
uncomfortable being without close relationships, but I sometimes worry
that others don't value me as much as I value them.

D) It is easy for me to become emotionally close to others. I am

comfortable depending on others and having others depend on me. I
don't worry about being alone or having others not accept me.

102

103

(Questions # 2-5)

** Now please rate each of the relationship styles above according to the
extent to which you drink each description corresponds to your general
relationship style. Fill in the appropriate number on the scantron booklet for
questions 2-5.

 

 

Not at all Somewhat Very much
like me
Question #2:
Style A 1 2 3 4 5
Question #3:
Style B 1 2 3 4 5
Question #4:
Style C 1 2 3 4 5
Question #5:
Style D 1 2 3 4 5

 

RELATIONSHIPS QUESTIONNAIRE (Part 2)

Please read each of the following statements and rate the extent to which it
describes your feelings about romantic relationships. If you have never been
involved in a romantic relationship, answer in terms of how you think you
would feel.

Answer questions # 6 to 23 (continue on the BLUE scantron sheet) using the
scale below.

1 2 3 4 5
Not at all Somewhat Fairly Mostly V ery
characteristic
of me

6) I find it relatively easy to get close to people.

7) I find it difficult to allow myself to depend on others.

8) In relationships, I often worry drat my partner does not really love me.

9) I find that others are reluctant to get as close as I would like.

10) I am comfortable depending on others.

11) I do n_o_t_ worry about someone getting too close to me.

12) I find that peOple are never there when you need drem.

13) I am uncomfortable being close to people.

14) In relationships, I often worry that my partner will not want to stay with

104

me.

15) When I show my feelings for people, I'm afraid they will not feel the same
about me.

16) In relationships, I often wonder whether my partner really cares about
me.

17) I am comfortable developing close relationships with others.

18) I am nervous when anyone gets too close to me.

19) I know that people will be there when I need them.

20) I want to get close to people but I worry about being hurt by them.

21) I find it difficult to trust others completely.

22) Often, people want me to be closer than I feel comfortable being.

23) I am not sure that I can always depend on people to be drere when I need

them.

Appendix G

Adult Attachment Scale Items (Modified)

Secure

6) I find it relatively easy to get close to people.

10) I am comfortable depending on others.

11) I do n_ot worry about someone getting too close to me.

17) I am comfortable developing close relationships with others.
19) I know that people will be there when I need them.

Avoidant

7) I find it difficult to allow myself to depend on others.

12) I find that people are never there when you need them.

13) I am uncomfortable being close to people.

18) 1 am nervous when anyone gets close to me.

21) I find it difficult to trust others completely

22) Often, people want me to be closer than I feel comfortable being.

Resistant:

8) In relationships, I often worry that my partner does not really love me.

9) I find that Others are reluctant to get as close as I would like.

14) In relationships, I often worry that my partner will not want to stay with
me. '

16) In relationships, I often wonder whether my partner really cares about
me.

20) I want to get close to people but I worry about being hurt by them.

23) I am not sure that I can always depend on people to be there when I need
them.

Note: There were changes made from the original Collins and Read (1990)
version of the AAS in the wording of some items. Some items were also added
or eliminated from the original AAS for the AAS (modified) questionnaire used
in the current study. The changes were not made by the present investigator,
but had already been made on the version of the AAS used in the study. This
appendix explains the differences between drese two versions. It is possible
that there is a version of the AAS which the current investigator is unaware
of. See below alterations of the original questionnaire.

Secure

6) I find it relatively easy to get close to people. ("Others" in original version
changed to "people").

10) I am comfortable depending on others.

105

106

11) I do p_o_t worry about someone getting too close to me. ("Often" removed
from original)

17) I am comfortable developing close relationships with others. ("Having
others depend on me" changed to "developing close relationships with
others.")

19) I know that people will be there when I need them. ("Others" changed to
people)

(Items from original AAS Secure scale not used in Secure scale in the current
study:

I do not often worry about being abandoned.

I am comfortable having others depend on me).

Avoidant

7) I find it difficult to allow myself to depend on others. (Added on "to allow
myself")

12) I find that people are never there when you need them. (Original: "People
are never there when you need them.")

13) I am uncomfortable being close to people. ( Original: I am somewhat
uncomfortable being close to others.)

18) I am nervous when anyone gets close to me. (Added on "to me.")

21) I find it difficult to trust others completely

22) Often, people want me to be closer than I feel comfortable being. (Original:
"Often, love partners want me to be more intimate than I feel comfortable
being".

Resistant

8) In relationships, I often worry that my partner does not really love me.
(Added " In relationships")

9) I find that others are reluctant to get as close as I would like.

14) In relationships, I often worry that my partner will not want to stay widr
me. (Added "in relationships)

16) In relationships, I often wonder whether my partner really cares about
me. (Item added)

20) I want to get close to people but I worry about being hurt by them.

23) I am not sure that I can always depend on people to be there when I need
them. (Changed "others" to "pe0ple")

Appendix H.

Self-Report Attachment Style Prototypes (Bartholomew and Horowitz, 1991)

Secure

It is easy for me to become emotionally close to others. I am comfortable
depending on others and having others depend on me. I don't worry about
being alone or having others not accept me.

Dismissing (Avoidant)

I am comfortable without close emotional relationships. It is very important to
me to feel independent and self-sufficient, and I prefer not to depend on
others or have others depend on me.

Preoccupied (Resistant)

I want to be completely emotionally intimate with others, but I often find that
others are reluctant to get as close as I would like. I am uncomfortable being

widrout close relationships, but I sometimes worry that others don't value me

as much as I value them.

Fearful (Avoidant)

I am uncomfortable getting close to others. I want emotionally close
relationships, but I find it difficult to trust others completely, or to depend on
them. I worry that I will be hurt if I allow myself to become too close to others.

Note: for the purposes of analyses, the two Avoidant categories were recoded
into a single Avoidant dimension

107

Appendix I

Relationship between demographic variables and indices of neglect and
physical abuse

Correlational analyses using demographic variables and Neglect and
Physical Abuse as continuous variables indicated drat there was a significant
negative relationship between family income and reports of Neglect, E( N =
509) = .14, p < .001, and on reports of Physical Abuse, r = -.28, p < .001, and
Physical Abuse, t = -.16, p < .001. Subjects from lower income families reported
more Neglect and Physical Abuse than subjects from higher income families.

Analyses also indicated that drere was a significant negative
relationship between father's education and reports of Neglect, r( N = 511) =
-.14, p < .001, and reports of Physical Abuse, t = -.13, p < .001. There was also a
significant negative relationship found between mother's education and
Neglect, I. = -.18, p < .001, and Physical Abuse, r_= -.15, p < .001. Subjects with
less educated parents reported more Neglect and Physical Abuse than subjects
widr more educated parents. There was no significant relationship found
between number of siblings and reports of Neglect or Physical Abuse, ['5 = -.03
and -.02, respectively.

Analysis of variance using parent's marital status as a categorical
variable and Neglect and Physical Abuse as continuous variables indicated that

there was a signifnat effect for parents' marital status on reports of Neglect,

108

109
F (4, 504) = .22.87, p < .001, and no effect for marital status on reports of

Physical Abuse, E = .71. Subjects whose parents were married or remarried
reported less Neglect than subjects whose parents were divorced.

Analysis of variance revealed a nonsignificant effect for educational
level of fathers on all the dependent variables; Global Severity Index, (F [1,
510] = .40, p < .81), on Secure Attachment, (E [1, 510] =.32, p< .87), Avoidant
Attachment (F[1,510], = .37, p < .83), and on Resistant Attachment, (F [1,510], =
.43, p < .78). Analysis of variance also revealed a nonsignificant effect for
educational level of mothers on all the dependent variables; Global Severity
Index, (F [1, 510] = .52, p < .72), on Secure Attachment, (E [1, 510] =.81, p< .52),
Avoidant Attachment (F[1,510], = .42, p < ..80), and on Resistant Attachment, (F
[1,510], = .51, p < .73).

Analysis of variance revealed a nonsignificant effect for family income
on all the dependent variables; Global Severity Index, (F [1, 510] = .78, p < .54),
on Secure Attachment, (F [1, 510] =.51, p< .73), Avoidant Attachment (F[1,S 10], =
.58, p < .67), and on Resistant Attachment, (F [1,510], = .81, p < .52).

Finally, analysis of variance revealed a nonsignificant effect for
parents' marital status on Global Severity Index, (F [1, 510] = .34,
p < .85), on Secure Attachment, (E [1, 510] =.69, p < .60). A marginally
significant effect for parents' marital status was found for Avoidant
Attachment (F[1,510], = .2.23, p < .07), and on Resistant Attachment, (F [1,510], =

2.17, p < .07).

 

Appendix J

Results for the combined scale titled Overall Neglect

134 subjects were categorized in the high Overall Neglect group,
(combining Neglect, Rejection, and Nonresponsiveness scales), and 181
subjects were categorized in the low Overall Neglect group. Analysis of
variance revealed a significant effect for Overall Neglect (combined Neglect +
Rejection + Nonresponsiveness scales) on the Global Severity Index, E(1,162) =
15.93, p < .001). No effect was found for Physical Abuse, E(1,162) = 1.10, p < .30,
and no interaction was found between Physical Abuse and Neglect. Analysis
of Variance also revealed a significant effect for Overall Neglect on Secure
Attachment, F(1,162) = 13.32, p < .001, and Resistant Attachment, E(1,162) =14.69,
p < .001. Analyses revealed a significant effect for Overall Neglect, F(1,162) =
17.78, p < .001, and Physical Abuse, E(1,162) = 4.26, p < .04 on Avoidant
Attachment,, widr a stronger effect for Overall Neglect. There were non-
significant effects for Physical Abuse on the other three dependent measures:
GSI, F(1, 162) = 1.09, p <.30, Secure Attachment, F(1, 162) = 1.25, p < .30, and

Resistant Attachment, F(1, 162) = 1.48, p < .23.

110

 

 

IV. LIBRQRIES

111111111111

1111....