- Email: [email protected]
The elusive “crime” of emotional abuse
01452134/78/0901-0089$02.00/
Child Abuse and Neglect, Vol. 2, pp. 89 - 99. @ Pergamon Press Ltd, 1978. Printed in Great Britain.
The Elusive
“Crime*
of Emotional
James Garbarino,
Boys Town Center
for
Abuse
Ph.D.
the Study of Youth Development
Boys Town, Nebraska
68101
U.S.A.
Theorists and practitioners alike believe that emotional abuse exists. Despite this belief, we have made little progress in conceptually and We can make progress in this area operationally defining emotional abuse. In this view, emotional abuse is by adopting a developmental approach. deliberate behavior that seriously undermines the development of competence. Operationally, this means punishing an infant’s operant social behavior (including attachment), punishing a child’s manifestations of self-esteem and punishing the behaviors needed for normal interaction in extra-familial settings. To apply these standards to specific cases, we must have reliable and valid information about interaction patterns with the family.
The author expresses his appreciation to his colleague Susan Collins who made many helpful suggestions for the development this paper. 89
of
J.
90
The Elusive I.
Garbarino
“Crime”
of Emotional
Abuse
Introduction
Emotional abuse has been discussed and debated, but it has not been operationally defined. Nor have appropriate intervention strategies been designed. It well deserves to be called “the elusive crime.” Professionals in the fields of social work, psychology, psychiatry and even law enforcement seem to believe that emotional abuse does exist, even if they are unable to reach consensus in defining it. Emotional abuse (or “psychological abuse” as it is often called) has been addressed in child abuse legislation (cf., Katz et al., 1976)) in formal discussions by students of child maltreatment (National Conference on Child Abuse and Neglect, 1977) and by child protective services practitioners in the “trenches” (e.g., National Association of Social Workers, 1977). The goal of this paper is to improve upon past efforts and define emotional abuse. This will provide a basis for further research and interventive action. A recent “state of the art” panel on the topic of emotional abuse brought together a multi-disciplinary group of experts for a serious attempt to make some progress in this frustrating and difficult area (Laurie and Kent, 1977). The results were disappointing. Very little that was substantive, and virtually nothing conclusive emerged. To quote from the summary of this panel’s report: “Although a precise definition of emotional abuse and a process by which the definition would be implemented were not formulated, it was generally agreed that emotional abuse and neglect have not been adequately defined in current law and regulations, but that they are definable .‘I These results are similar to what has been produced in informal brainstorming sessions by child protective service practitioners in workshop programs sponsored by the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect and by other such groups around the country. One such session (Nebraska Association of Social Workers, 19771, presumably typical of most others, was a particularly poignant illustration of the problem. The following descriptions were supplied by participants in response to the leader’s call for associations with the term “psychological or emotional abuse :‘I “put downs” “labelling” “unrealistic expectations” “humiliation” 11scapegoating81 “name calling” “excessive responsibility”
“seductive behaviors” “fear inducing techniques” “extreme inconsistency” “ignoring” “rejection” “lying”
All these terms ring true intuitively. Each one evokes an image of psychological damage to the target child. The participating child protective service workers were responding to the leader’s request as best they could, from their day-to-day experiences with psychologically
The Elusive "Crime" of Emotional Abuse
91
unhealthy parent-childrelations. Each of the behaviors noted above has clear clinical relevance as a pathogenic influence (cf., Millon, 1969). Moreover, these behaviors are among those discouragedin a variety of preventiveand remedial parent education programs. While this list of behaviors does have a measure of validity as a composite indicator of psychologicalabuse, it lacks conceptualorganization and a clear developmentalperspective. The issue of emotional abuse is manifest in these behaviorsbut it cannot be understood through them alone. The conclusion that practitionersand researchersalike are stumbling around in the dark on this issue is all but inescapable. Emotional abuse is truly an elusive crime. It's definitely there in the lives of children, but it's very difficult to establish adequate conceptualand operational definitions that are linked to existing and potential child development research. What’s the problem here? Whenever a problem doesn't yield to sustained interdisciplinaryfrontal assault one is compelled to stand back from the issue and seek a reconceptualizationto break through the impasse. This, it seems, is what is needed to advance our understandingof what psychologicalor emotional abuse is, and how we can best deal with it in theory and practice. As a society we need such an advance, and if this necessity is mother to our invention,growing encouragementby professional colleagues is the father.
II. A PersnectiveFrom Which to View PSVChOlORiCal
Abuse
Archimedesmaintained that if given an appropriateplace to set his fulcrum he could move the world. In the intellectualrealm we often lose sight of the power of a theoreticalfulcrum to permit progress in solving social problems. Our characteristicorientationis, of course, the pragmatic, positivisticstance reflected in that most American of maxims, "Don't just stand there, do something!" This approach has served us well in many ways in many areas, but it does have its limitations,as is illustrated by our present quandry over the meaning of emotional abuse. Perhaps at this point, having been stymied in the positivistmode, we can profitably turn to another tradition. In his efforts to redirect the thinking and behavior of developmental psychologists,Bronfenbrenner(1977a, 1977b) has argued for a return to the tradition exemplifiedby Kurt Lewin's maxim "There is nothing so practical as a good theory." In the present case this statement is particularly appropriate. What is lacking in our attempts to understand emotional and practice, is a suitable theoretical abuse, and thus define it in policy perspective (in the Lewinian sense). A previous general analysis of child maltreatment(Garbarino, 1977) identified scme basic necessary and sufficientconditions for abuse as a psychosocialphenomenon. That review reconceptualizedmaltreatmentas a problem of inadequatetiming and sequencingof important events in family development. Early students of child abuse adopted a model dominant in
Adopclinical work that focused primarily on “defective persorP theories. tion of this model may have impaired our understanding of maltreatment as a develonmental and social problem (cf., Friedman, 1976). This state of
92
J. Garbarino
affairs has only recently begun to be rectified in theoreticaland empirical work (cf., Friedman, 1976; Garbarino, Crouter and Sherman, 1978; Parke and Collmer, 1975). To understand the phenomenon of emotional abuse it is likewise necessary to move away from the limitationsof a narrow clinical orientation. It is necessary to adopt a perspective emphasizingboth developmentaland social aspects of the issue. What does this mean in specific terms? When placed in a broad developmentaland social perspective,emotional ab use is the willful destruction or significantimnairmentof a child's comnetence. The theoreticalunderpinningsfor competence as a unifying theme in studying human developmenthave emerged sporadicallyin recent decades, but have increasinglycome together into an integratedapproach (e.g., Goldberg, 1977; White, 1959). It is to this tradition that we can turn for a developmentalperspectiveon emotional abuse. The general elements of human competence go beyond "adaptivity,"as intelligenceis conceptualizedby Caldwell (19671, Piaget (19521, Binet and Simon (1916) and others. McClelland (1973) has set forth a suggestive analysis suitable for the present purpose. In his view, competence (i.e., successfulperformancein specific social contexts) typically consists of the following abilities. 1. CommunicationSkills - I* ...a person be able to communicate accuratelyby word, look, or gesture just what he intends or what he wants done" 2.
Patience - "response delay"
in most life situations it is 3. Moderate Goal Setting - 'I... distinctly preferable to setting goals either too high or too low, which leads more often to failure" 4.
Ego Development- "a general kind of competence" (McClelland,1973, p. 10).
McClelland'sdefinition of competence suggests a fulcrum with which to move the problem of emotional abuse. It permits us to evaluate parental behavior (or parent-childrelations,or teacher-studentrelations) in light of a developmentalcriterion, namely, its contributionto the development of competence. It sets goals for the socializationprocess, as Inkeles (1966) and others have argued is necessary. To evaluate socialization practices we must know what will be demanded through the life course. The general goal of socializationis, of course, competence (as McClelland defines it). This is the key to understandingemotional abuse. If we start with this conceptionof competence as the ncurrency'l of development, we can proceed toward an understandingof emotional abuse as both a scientific issue and a problem for practice. III. Emotional Abuse in the Lives of Children The overall issue of child abuse pushes our scientificcredibilityto its extreme limits. By any common language usage, child abuse is not simply "less than optimal" childrearing. It is a pattern of behavior that
The Elusive
“Crime”
of Emotional
Abuse
93
drastically violates both moral and scientific norms concerning child care. In the United States a parent is free to engage in any and all forms of child care up to the point at which a “clear and present danger” to the child’s welfare arises. In the opinion of many observers (e.g., Gil, 1970; Zigler, 1976), these lower limits are generally very low indeed. It should be noted at the outset that adults must be held accountable for behaviors that are developmentally damaging if these behaviors are engaged in willfully. Just as it is no excuse for a parent to maintain that he or she was “simply disciplining” a child by burning him with cigarettes, it is no adequate defense to argue that one is only “toughening the child up” when engaging in emotionally destructive behavior. What this does, however, is to highlight the responsibility of educational, health care, and other service institutions to make sure that lower limit norms of child When care are clearly communicated to everyone who cares for children. this responsibility is not met these institututions become accomplices in the abusive pattern. In law and custom it is the task of society’s institutions to guard against violations of the norms concerning minimal child care. Whatever we may think of this “lower limitt’ approach to parental autonomy, it does obtain in fact, in law and in cultural practice. How can we set some lower limits as criteria for “actionable” psychological abuse? How can we operationally define a “clear and present danger” to a child’s developing competence? This is a pressing task for progress in producing a policy science of child development (Wald, 1976) . If we return directly to tence the task becomes one of patience, moderate goal setting like it or not, the operational the trenches of family life--i.e., police, social work and legal will “stand up in court”-- the (Wald, 1976)?*
McClelland’s suggested components of compespecifying dangers to communication skills, Whether VVscientists” and ego development. decisions in these matters will be made in by a variety of medical, child care, personnel. Can we offer them something that overarching criterion for people in the field
We can certainly direct their attention to specific outcomes--a child an impatient youngster who cannot with a nonorganic colnmunication disorder, a student who is wildly inappropriate in cope with everyday frustrations, a child with drastically inadequate self-esteem. There his goal setting, are two problems with such an approach, of course. First, we must be able to specify when a parent is culpable for the psychologically damaged child, i.e., when there is evidence that the parent is directly and willfully contributing to the maladaptive condition of the child. There are many nonparental and non-culpable causes for the conditions mentioned earlier. In fact, it is common for a child’s aversive idiosyncratic behavior to act as a stimulus for abnormal parental behavior, as in the case of a colicky
*The author expresses his appreciation tion Team at the University of Nebraska at the Univeristy of Nebraska School of this point home to him in the course of
to members of the Child ProtecMedical Center and his students Social Work who have brought consultation and teaching.
94
J.
Garbarino
infant, or a preschooler’s oppositional tantrums (Patterson and Reid, Second, we need to be able to intervene before the damage is done, 1970). or at least before it is permanently debilitating. These issues exactly parallel those faced in working with physical abuse, where both unequivocal diagnosis of risk and preventive intervention are often impossibly difficult tasks (cf ., Friedman, 1976). As others have recognized (e.g., Lourie and Kent, 1977, with respect to the issue of emotional abuse) there are always two interests to be served by the process of diagnosis in cases of child maltreatment. First and foremost, ideally and in practice, diagnosis serves the function of identifying a need for service. Second, diagnosis provides a basis for invoking the coercive resources of the State when the provision of service cannot meet the protective needs of the child or the parent refuses to accept services offered. Both aspects of diagnosis are designed to produce “actionable” evidence of maltreatment. Because of the adversary nature of the legal proceedings involved in bringing to bear the coercive resources of the State (e.g., court-ordered participation in parent education programs, removal of the child-victim to foster care, etc.) the criteria for diagnostic proof in this latter case are much more procedurally stringent and require more extensive documentation than when providing service is the goal. While prevention is always preferable to treatment in dealing with child maltreatment (cf., Gray, et.al., 1977), we must make progress in defining actionable criteria for psychological abuse to ensure that families are restored to healthy functioning and children are protected. One last caveat is necessary before plunging into the task of specifying actionable criteria for emotional abuse. This is the necessity to recognize the importance of individual differences--e.g., the impact of the child’s “temperament” in shaping the outcome of parent-child relations. While in the case of physical abuse there are at least some universals--a broken bone is a broken bone is a broken bone--in the matter of emotional abuse there are few, if any. As developmental psychology has grudgingly recognized, the impact of any specific parental behavior is to some degree dependent upon the child towards whom it is directed. Temperament and experience produce a context in which parental behavior acts upon development (Bronfenbrenner, 1976b; Bronson, 1972; Kagan, 1971; Thomas, Chess and Birch, 1970). How then can we hope to define actionable emotional abuse? We must specify some transcontextual standards for parental behavior. While this is difficult, we can suggest some principles to be applied contextually by people “inside” the family system, people with detailed personal knowledge of the context and its meanings. This suggestion presupposes a view of “information” and its relation to parent-child relations (Garbarino, 1977). First, t’information’l consist of both regular feedback on parent-child relations and general knowledge of appropriate norms, expectations and Second, adequate information depends techniques concerning child rearing. upon the presence of the following three factors: 1) day-to-day, regularized observation and discussion of parent-child relations; 2) informal
The Elusive "Crime" of Emotional Abuse
95
folk-wisdom based on extensive historically validated first-hand experience; and, 3) fowal, "professional" expertise, particularly in the areas of solving behavior problems. Third, the need for information is a direct function of situational demands that are both internal and external to the parent-child relationship. As these demands increase so does the need for information. Fourth, formal institutions can become effective sources of information, insofar as they are actively linked to the family's social network--either directly (through the parent) or indirectly (through the parent's relationship with some other person who, in turn, links him with formal institutions). This conception leads directly to the conclusion that actionable evidence of emotional abuse is necessarily the result of applying general principles concerning the development of competence to specific family systems. This requires a source of information from as well as &Q the family. To advance our understanding of emotional abuse we need to study these mechanisms. Applying a set of general principles concerning child care to specific children requires observation and evaluation by both lay family, neighbors, friends) and professional family support systems. (e.g., Furthermore, investigators must be able to study these processes. In light of the model of competence noted earlier, four principles can be suggested. Each of them refers to a significant aspect of emotional abuse because it can be presumed to present a "clear and present danger" to the child's developing competence. It thus represents actionable behavior--first as a basis for initiating service, and second as a basis for legal coercion. Four Asoects of Psvcholonical Abuse INFANCY: Principle I: Punishment of positive, operant behaviors such as smiling, mobility, exploration, vocalization and manipulation of objects is emotional abuse. Research from a variety of contexts has demonstrated that caregiver behavior can have a direct impact on the performance of these "building blocks" of human development (cf., Brackbill, 1958; Foss, 1965). There is an operant drive to mastery or motive for effectance (Goldberg, 1977; White, 1959). To punish this drive and its accompanying behaviors is a clear and present danger to the child's development of competence. Princinle II: emotional abuse.
Discouraging caregiver-infant bonding is
Caregiver-infant bonding has emerged as one of the central issues in child development (Kennel1 and Klaus, 1976). Disruptions of bonding have been linked to physical abuse (Kennell, Voos, and Klaus, 19761, failure to thrive (Spitz, 1945) and a variety of competence deficits (Bronfenbrenner, 1972). Systematic efforts to discourage bonding therefore pose a direct threat to adequate development. They can be treated as actionable grounds for diagnosing emotional abuse.
96
J. Garbarino CHILDHOOD AND ADOLESCENCE: Princinle III: Punishment of self-esteemis emotional abuse. Self-esteem is the positive valuing of one's characteristics, a positive identity. Self-esteem rises and falls in response to the behavior of others, and it is linked to a variety of prosocial characteristics(Coopersmith,1967). To discourage selfesteem is to attack a fundamentalcomponent of competent development. It is thus emotionallyabusive. Princible IV: Punishing interpersonalskills necessary for adequate performance in nonfamilial contexts such as schools, peer groups, etc. is emotional abuse. Burgess and Conger (1977) observe that families involved in child maltreatment do not provide positive reinforcementfor key interpersonalbehaviors. Others have noted that abusive parents typically discourage normal social relations among their children--e.g., the formation of friendshipsoutside the home (cf., Friedman, 1976; Garbarino, 1977; Parke and Collmer, 1975). In developing a set of actionable components,therefore,we must include systematicallydiscouragingbehaviors needed for competence in non-familialsettings. This pattern correspondsto what has been called the "World of Abnormal Rearing." To create such a world and force the child to live in it is emotionallyabusive.
As a matter of primary prevention,parents should be steered away from each of these behavior patterns. When informed observation identifies grounds for suspecting that one or more of these conditions obtains, there is prima facie evidence that the child's competence is being undermined. These become "actionablefl grounds for offering services, and ultimately for initiating coercive action, if the offer of services is not successful. The key, of course, is having access to the family and thus being able to provide the necessary data. The pressing need, then, is to develop appropriate procedures for gaining valid lay and professional"testlmonywconcerning the character of parent-childinteraction. The task for research, then, is to better understand the flow of informationto and from the family. We need to learn how it operates, and how it can be modified to perform more effectivelyon behalf of children. The elusive crime of emotional abuse can only be grasped--both conceptuallyand practically--if this can be done.
97
The Elusive "Crime" of Emotional Abuse References
in children (Kite, Binet, A. and Simon, T. The de elobment of intuence E .S., Trans.) (Baltimore:"Williams and Wilkins, 1916.) Brackbill, Y. Extinctionof the smiling response in infants as a function of reinforcementschedule. mild Develooment, 1958, 2p, 114-124. Bronfenbrenner,U. Lewinian space and ecological substance. Paper presented at the 85th Annual Conventionof the American Psychological Association,San Francisco,California,August 26-31, 1977a. Bronfenbrenner,U. Towards an experimentalecology of human development. American Psvcholoaist,1977, 32, 513-531. Bronson, W.C. The role of enduring orientationsto the environmentin personalitydevelopment. Genetic Psvcholoav Mane, 1972, fi, 380. Burgess, R. and Conger, R. Family interactionpatterns related to child abuse and neglect. Child Abuse and Neglect, 1977, L, 269-278. Caldwell, B. What is the optimal learning environment for the young child? American Journal of OrthoosvchiatrY,1967 12, 8-21. Coopersmith,S. The antecedentsof self-esteem(San Francisco: Freeman, 1967). FOBS,
B.M. (Ed.) Determinants of infant behavior (London: Methuon, 1965).
Friedmann R. Child abuse: a review of the psychosocialresearch. In Herner and Company (Eds), Four Persoecti e on the Status of Child Abuse and Nenle t&es arch. (Washington:E.C.: National Center on Child Abuse andCNeglett,1976.) Garbarino, J. The human ecology of child maltreatment: a conceptualmodel for research. Journal of Marriane and the Familv, 1977, B, 721-736. Garbarino, J., Crouter, A., and Sherman, D. Screening neighborhoodsfor intervention:a research based model for child protective services. Journalof, 1978, in press. e Gil, D. [ b States. Cambridge,Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1970.
d
Goldberg, S. Social competence in infancy: a model of parent-infant interaction. -11 -Palmer Quarterlv, 1977, a, 164-177. Gray, J., Cutler, C., Dean, J., and Kempe, C.H. Prediction and prevention of child abuse and neglect. Child Abuse and Nealect, 1977, 1, 45-58. Inkeles, A. "Social structure and the socializationof competence." Harvard Education Review, 1966, 3, 279-285.
J. Garbarino
98
Kagan, J.
Change and continuitv in infancv (New York:
Wiley,
1971.)
Katz, S., Ambrosino, L., McGrath, M. and Sawitslsy, K. The laws on child abuse and neglect: a review of the research. In Herner and Co., (Eds), 3 Fo r Per ective Research. (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Technical Information Service, 1976.) Kennell, J., Voos, D. and Klaus, M. Parent-infant bonding. In R. Helfer and C.H. Kempe (Eds.) Child Abuse and Neglect: the Familv and the Communitv (Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger, 1976, pp. 25-54.) Klaus, M. and Kennell, J. Maternal-infant bonding (St. Louis, Missouri: C.U. Mosby Company, 1976.1 Lourie, I. and Kent, J. Defining emotional abuse. Symposium presented at the Second Annual National Conference on Child Abuse and Neglect, Houston, Texas, April 17-20, 1977. McClelland, D. Americ n a, Millon, T.
"Testing for competence rather than intelligence," 1973, 28, 1-14.
Modern DSvChODathOlORv, (Philadelphia:
Saunders, 1969).
National Conference on Child Abuse and Neglect, Proaram. Resource Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, 1977.)
(Houston, Texas:
Nebraska Association of Social Workers, Child abuse and neglect training project. Lincoln, Nebraska, May 18-20, 1977. Parke, R. and Collmer, C.W. Chile abuse an interdisciplinary analysis. In E.M. Hetherington (Ed.), Review of Child Develooment Research, Volume 5. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1975.) Patterson, G.R. and Reid, J.B. Reciprocity and coercion: two facets of social systems. In C. Neuringer and J. Michael (Eds.). Behavior Modification in Clinical Psvcholoa. (New York: Appleton-CenturyCrofts, 1970. pp. 133-177.1 Piaget, J. The origins of intellinence in children (Cook, M. trans.). (New York: International Universities Press, 1952.) Spitz, R. Hospitalism: the genesis of psychiatric conditions in early childhood. Psvchoanalvtic Studies of the Child. Volume 1 (New York: International Universities Press, 1945, pp. 53-24). Thomas, A., Chess, S., and Birch, H.G. The origin of personality. Scientific American, 1970, 223, 102-109. Wald, M. Legal policies affecting children: Child Develooment, 1976, Q, l-5. White,
R.
333.
The concept of competence.
A lawyer's request for aid.
Psvcholonical Review 1959, 66, 297-
The Elusive "Crime" of Emotional Abuse
99
Zigler, E. Controllingchild abuse in America: an effort doomed to failure. Mary Elaine Meyer O'Neal Award Lectureship,Meyer Children's RehabilitationInstitute,University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska, May 25, 1976.
Child Abuse and Neglect, Vol. 2, pp. 89 - 99. @ Pergamon Press Ltd, 1978. Printed in Great Britain.
The Elusive
“Crime*
of Emotional
James Garbarino,
Boys Town Center
for
Abuse
Ph.D.
the Study of Youth Development
Boys Town, Nebraska
68101
U.S.A.
Theorists and practitioners alike believe that emotional abuse exists. Despite this belief, we have made little progress in conceptually and We can make progress in this area operationally defining emotional abuse. In this view, emotional abuse is by adopting a developmental approach. deliberate behavior that seriously undermines the development of competence. Operationally, this means punishing an infant’s operant social behavior (including attachment), punishing a child’s manifestations of self-esteem and punishing the behaviors needed for normal interaction in extra-familial settings. To apply these standards to specific cases, we must have reliable and valid information about interaction patterns with the family.
The author expresses his appreciation to his colleague Susan Collins who made many helpful suggestions for the development this paper. 89
of
J.
90
The Elusive I.
Garbarino
“Crime”
of Emotional
Abuse
Introduction
Emotional abuse has been discussed and debated, but it has not been operationally defined. Nor have appropriate intervention strategies been designed. It well deserves to be called “the elusive crime.” Professionals in the fields of social work, psychology, psychiatry and even law enforcement seem to believe that emotional abuse does exist, even if they are unable to reach consensus in defining it. Emotional abuse (or “psychological abuse” as it is often called) has been addressed in child abuse legislation (cf., Katz et al., 1976)) in formal discussions by students of child maltreatment (National Conference on Child Abuse and Neglect, 1977) and by child protective services practitioners in the “trenches” (e.g., National Association of Social Workers, 1977). The goal of this paper is to improve upon past efforts and define emotional abuse. This will provide a basis for further research and interventive action. A recent “state of the art” panel on the topic of emotional abuse brought together a multi-disciplinary group of experts for a serious attempt to make some progress in this frustrating and difficult area (Laurie and Kent, 1977). The results were disappointing. Very little that was substantive, and virtually nothing conclusive emerged. To quote from the summary of this panel’s report: “Although a precise definition of emotional abuse and a process by which the definition would be implemented were not formulated, it was generally agreed that emotional abuse and neglect have not been adequately defined in current law and regulations, but that they are definable .‘I These results are similar to what has been produced in informal brainstorming sessions by child protective service practitioners in workshop programs sponsored by the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect and by other such groups around the country. One such session (Nebraska Association of Social Workers, 19771, presumably typical of most others, was a particularly poignant illustration of the problem. The following descriptions were supplied by participants in response to the leader’s call for associations with the term “psychological or emotional abuse :‘I “put downs” “labelling” “unrealistic expectations” “humiliation” 11scapegoating81 “name calling” “excessive responsibility”
“seductive behaviors” “fear inducing techniques” “extreme inconsistency” “ignoring” “rejection” “lying”
All these terms ring true intuitively. Each one evokes an image of psychological damage to the target child. The participating child protective service workers were responding to the leader’s request as best they could, from their day-to-day experiences with psychologically
The Elusive "Crime" of Emotional Abuse
91
unhealthy parent-childrelations. Each of the behaviors noted above has clear clinical relevance as a pathogenic influence (cf., Millon, 1969). Moreover, these behaviors are among those discouragedin a variety of preventiveand remedial parent education programs. While this list of behaviors does have a measure of validity as a composite indicator of psychologicalabuse, it lacks conceptualorganization and a clear developmentalperspective. The issue of emotional abuse is manifest in these behaviorsbut it cannot be understood through them alone. The conclusion that practitionersand researchersalike are stumbling around in the dark on this issue is all but inescapable. Emotional abuse is truly an elusive crime. It's definitely there in the lives of children, but it's very difficult to establish adequate conceptualand operational definitions that are linked to existing and potential child development research. What’s the problem here? Whenever a problem doesn't yield to sustained interdisciplinaryfrontal assault one is compelled to stand back from the issue and seek a reconceptualizationto break through the impasse. This, it seems, is what is needed to advance our understandingof what psychologicalor emotional abuse is, and how we can best deal with it in theory and practice. As a society we need such an advance, and if this necessity is mother to our invention,growing encouragementby professional colleagues is the father.
II. A PersnectiveFrom Which to View PSVChOlORiCal
Abuse
Archimedesmaintained that if given an appropriateplace to set his fulcrum he could move the world. In the intellectualrealm we often lose sight of the power of a theoreticalfulcrum to permit progress in solving social problems. Our characteristicorientationis, of course, the pragmatic, positivisticstance reflected in that most American of maxims, "Don't just stand there, do something!" This approach has served us well in many ways in many areas, but it does have its limitations,as is illustrated by our present quandry over the meaning of emotional abuse. Perhaps at this point, having been stymied in the positivistmode, we can profitably turn to another tradition. In his efforts to redirect the thinking and behavior of developmental psychologists,Bronfenbrenner(1977a, 1977b) has argued for a return to the tradition exemplifiedby Kurt Lewin's maxim "There is nothing so practical as a good theory." In the present case this statement is particularly appropriate. What is lacking in our attempts to understand emotional and practice, is a suitable theoretical abuse, and thus define it in policy perspective (in the Lewinian sense). A previous general analysis of child maltreatment(Garbarino, 1977) identified scme basic necessary and sufficientconditions for abuse as a psychosocialphenomenon. That review reconceptualizedmaltreatmentas a problem of inadequatetiming and sequencingof important events in family development. Early students of child abuse adopted a model dominant in
Adopclinical work that focused primarily on “defective persorP theories. tion of this model may have impaired our understanding of maltreatment as a develonmental and social problem (cf., Friedman, 1976). This state of
92
J. Garbarino
affairs has only recently begun to be rectified in theoreticaland empirical work (cf., Friedman, 1976; Garbarino, Crouter and Sherman, 1978; Parke and Collmer, 1975). To understand the phenomenon of emotional abuse it is likewise necessary to move away from the limitationsof a narrow clinical orientation. It is necessary to adopt a perspective emphasizingboth developmentaland social aspects of the issue. What does this mean in specific terms? When placed in a broad developmentaland social perspective,emotional ab use is the willful destruction or significantimnairmentof a child's comnetence. The theoreticalunderpinningsfor competence as a unifying theme in studying human developmenthave emerged sporadicallyin recent decades, but have increasinglycome together into an integratedapproach (e.g., Goldberg, 1977; White, 1959). It is to this tradition that we can turn for a developmentalperspectiveon emotional abuse. The general elements of human competence go beyond "adaptivity,"as intelligenceis conceptualizedby Caldwell (19671, Piaget (19521, Binet and Simon (1916) and others. McClelland (1973) has set forth a suggestive analysis suitable for the present purpose. In his view, competence (i.e., successfulperformancein specific social contexts) typically consists of the following abilities. 1. CommunicationSkills - I* ...a person be able to communicate accuratelyby word, look, or gesture just what he intends or what he wants done" 2.
Patience - "response delay"
in most life situations it is 3. Moderate Goal Setting - 'I... distinctly preferable to setting goals either too high or too low, which leads more often to failure" 4.
Ego Development- "a general kind of competence" (McClelland,1973, p. 10).
McClelland'sdefinition of competence suggests a fulcrum with which to move the problem of emotional abuse. It permits us to evaluate parental behavior (or parent-childrelations,or teacher-studentrelations) in light of a developmentalcriterion, namely, its contributionto the development of competence. It sets goals for the socializationprocess, as Inkeles (1966) and others have argued is necessary. To evaluate socialization practices we must know what will be demanded through the life course. The general goal of socializationis, of course, competence (as McClelland defines it). This is the key to understandingemotional abuse. If we start with this conceptionof competence as the ncurrency'l of development, we can proceed toward an understandingof emotional abuse as both a scientific issue and a problem for practice. III. Emotional Abuse in the Lives of Children The overall issue of child abuse pushes our scientificcredibilityto its extreme limits. By any common language usage, child abuse is not simply "less than optimal" childrearing. It is a pattern of behavior that
The Elusive
“Crime”
of Emotional
Abuse
93
drastically violates both moral and scientific norms concerning child care. In the United States a parent is free to engage in any and all forms of child care up to the point at which a “clear and present danger” to the child’s welfare arises. In the opinion of many observers (e.g., Gil, 1970; Zigler, 1976), these lower limits are generally very low indeed. It should be noted at the outset that adults must be held accountable for behaviors that are developmentally damaging if these behaviors are engaged in willfully. Just as it is no excuse for a parent to maintain that he or she was “simply disciplining” a child by burning him with cigarettes, it is no adequate defense to argue that one is only “toughening the child up” when engaging in emotionally destructive behavior. What this does, however, is to highlight the responsibility of educational, health care, and other service institutions to make sure that lower limit norms of child When care are clearly communicated to everyone who cares for children. this responsibility is not met these institututions become accomplices in the abusive pattern. In law and custom it is the task of society’s institutions to guard against violations of the norms concerning minimal child care. Whatever we may think of this “lower limitt’ approach to parental autonomy, it does obtain in fact, in law and in cultural practice. How can we set some lower limits as criteria for “actionable” psychological abuse? How can we operationally define a “clear and present danger” to a child’s developing competence? This is a pressing task for progress in producing a policy science of child development (Wald, 1976) . If we return directly to tence the task becomes one of patience, moderate goal setting like it or not, the operational the trenches of family life--i.e., police, social work and legal will “stand up in court”-- the (Wald, 1976)?*
McClelland’s suggested components of compespecifying dangers to communication skills, Whether VVscientists” and ego development. decisions in these matters will be made in by a variety of medical, child care, personnel. Can we offer them something that overarching criterion for people in the field
We can certainly direct their attention to specific outcomes--a child an impatient youngster who cannot with a nonorganic colnmunication disorder, a student who is wildly inappropriate in cope with everyday frustrations, a child with drastically inadequate self-esteem. There his goal setting, are two problems with such an approach, of course. First, we must be able to specify when a parent is culpable for the psychologically damaged child, i.e., when there is evidence that the parent is directly and willfully contributing to the maladaptive condition of the child. There are many nonparental and non-culpable causes for the conditions mentioned earlier. In fact, it is common for a child’s aversive idiosyncratic behavior to act as a stimulus for abnormal parental behavior, as in the case of a colicky
*The author expresses his appreciation tion Team at the University of Nebraska at the Univeristy of Nebraska School of this point home to him in the course of
to members of the Child ProtecMedical Center and his students Social Work who have brought consultation and teaching.
94
J.
Garbarino
infant, or a preschooler’s oppositional tantrums (Patterson and Reid, Second, we need to be able to intervene before the damage is done, 1970). or at least before it is permanently debilitating. These issues exactly parallel those faced in working with physical abuse, where both unequivocal diagnosis of risk and preventive intervention are often impossibly difficult tasks (cf ., Friedman, 1976). As others have recognized (e.g., Lourie and Kent, 1977, with respect to the issue of emotional abuse) there are always two interests to be served by the process of diagnosis in cases of child maltreatment. First and foremost, ideally and in practice, diagnosis serves the function of identifying a need for service. Second, diagnosis provides a basis for invoking the coercive resources of the State when the provision of service cannot meet the protective needs of the child or the parent refuses to accept services offered. Both aspects of diagnosis are designed to produce “actionable” evidence of maltreatment. Because of the adversary nature of the legal proceedings involved in bringing to bear the coercive resources of the State (e.g., court-ordered participation in parent education programs, removal of the child-victim to foster care, etc.) the criteria for diagnostic proof in this latter case are much more procedurally stringent and require more extensive documentation than when providing service is the goal. While prevention is always preferable to treatment in dealing with child maltreatment (cf., Gray, et.al., 1977), we must make progress in defining actionable criteria for psychological abuse to ensure that families are restored to healthy functioning and children are protected. One last caveat is necessary before plunging into the task of specifying actionable criteria for emotional abuse. This is the necessity to recognize the importance of individual differences--e.g., the impact of the child’s “temperament” in shaping the outcome of parent-child relations. While in the case of physical abuse there are at least some universals--a broken bone is a broken bone is a broken bone--in the matter of emotional abuse there are few, if any. As developmental psychology has grudgingly recognized, the impact of any specific parental behavior is to some degree dependent upon the child towards whom it is directed. Temperament and experience produce a context in which parental behavior acts upon development (Bronfenbrenner, 1976b; Bronson, 1972; Kagan, 1971; Thomas, Chess and Birch, 1970). How then can we hope to define actionable emotional abuse? We must specify some transcontextual standards for parental behavior. While this is difficult, we can suggest some principles to be applied contextually by people “inside” the family system, people with detailed personal knowledge of the context and its meanings. This suggestion presupposes a view of “information” and its relation to parent-child relations (Garbarino, 1977). First, t’information’l consist of both regular feedback on parent-child relations and general knowledge of appropriate norms, expectations and Second, adequate information depends techniques concerning child rearing. upon the presence of the following three factors: 1) day-to-day, regularized observation and discussion of parent-child relations; 2) informal
The Elusive "Crime" of Emotional Abuse
95
folk-wisdom based on extensive historically validated first-hand experience; and, 3) fowal, "professional" expertise, particularly in the areas of solving behavior problems. Third, the need for information is a direct function of situational demands that are both internal and external to the parent-child relationship. As these demands increase so does the need for information. Fourth, formal institutions can become effective sources of information, insofar as they are actively linked to the family's social network--either directly (through the parent) or indirectly (through the parent's relationship with some other person who, in turn, links him with formal institutions). This conception leads directly to the conclusion that actionable evidence of emotional abuse is necessarily the result of applying general principles concerning the development of competence to specific family systems. This requires a source of information from as well as &Q the family. To advance our understanding of emotional abuse we need to study these mechanisms. Applying a set of general principles concerning child care to specific children requires observation and evaluation by both lay family, neighbors, friends) and professional family support systems. (e.g., Furthermore, investigators must be able to study these processes. In light of the model of competence noted earlier, four principles can be suggested. Each of them refers to a significant aspect of emotional abuse because it can be presumed to present a "clear and present danger" to the child's developing competence. It thus represents actionable behavior--first as a basis for initiating service, and second as a basis for legal coercion. Four Asoects of Psvcholonical Abuse INFANCY: Principle I: Punishment of positive, operant behaviors such as smiling, mobility, exploration, vocalization and manipulation of objects is emotional abuse. Research from a variety of contexts has demonstrated that caregiver behavior can have a direct impact on the performance of these "building blocks" of human development (cf., Brackbill, 1958; Foss, 1965). There is an operant drive to mastery or motive for effectance (Goldberg, 1977; White, 1959). To punish this drive and its accompanying behaviors is a clear and present danger to the child's development of competence. Princinle II: emotional abuse.
Discouraging caregiver-infant bonding is
Caregiver-infant bonding has emerged as one of the central issues in child development (Kennel1 and Klaus, 1976). Disruptions of bonding have been linked to physical abuse (Kennell, Voos, and Klaus, 19761, failure to thrive (Spitz, 1945) and a variety of competence deficits (Bronfenbrenner, 1972). Systematic efforts to discourage bonding therefore pose a direct threat to adequate development. They can be treated as actionable grounds for diagnosing emotional abuse.
96
J. Garbarino CHILDHOOD AND ADOLESCENCE: Princinle III: Punishment of self-esteemis emotional abuse. Self-esteem is the positive valuing of one's characteristics, a positive identity. Self-esteem rises and falls in response to the behavior of others, and it is linked to a variety of prosocial characteristics(Coopersmith,1967). To discourage selfesteem is to attack a fundamentalcomponent of competent development. It is thus emotionallyabusive. Princible IV: Punishing interpersonalskills necessary for adequate performance in nonfamilial contexts such as schools, peer groups, etc. is emotional abuse. Burgess and Conger (1977) observe that families involved in child maltreatment do not provide positive reinforcementfor key interpersonalbehaviors. Others have noted that abusive parents typically discourage normal social relations among their children--e.g., the formation of friendshipsoutside the home (cf., Friedman, 1976; Garbarino, 1977; Parke and Collmer, 1975). In developing a set of actionable components,therefore,we must include systematicallydiscouragingbehaviors needed for competence in non-familialsettings. This pattern correspondsto what has been called the "World of Abnormal Rearing." To create such a world and force the child to live in it is emotionallyabusive.
As a matter of primary prevention,parents should be steered away from each of these behavior patterns. When informed observation identifies grounds for suspecting that one or more of these conditions obtains, there is prima facie evidence that the child's competence is being undermined. These become "actionablefl grounds for offering services, and ultimately for initiating coercive action, if the offer of services is not successful. The key, of course, is having access to the family and thus being able to provide the necessary data. The pressing need, then, is to develop appropriate procedures for gaining valid lay and professional"testlmonywconcerning the character of parent-childinteraction. The task for research, then, is to better understand the flow of informationto and from the family. We need to learn how it operates, and how it can be modified to perform more effectivelyon behalf of children. The elusive crime of emotional abuse can only be grasped--both conceptuallyand practically--if this can be done.
97
The Elusive "Crime" of Emotional Abuse References
in children (Kite, Binet, A. and Simon, T. The de elobment of intuence E .S., Trans.) (Baltimore:"Williams and Wilkins, 1916.) Brackbill, Y. Extinctionof the smiling response in infants as a function of reinforcementschedule. mild Develooment, 1958, 2p, 114-124. Bronfenbrenner,U. Lewinian space and ecological substance. Paper presented at the 85th Annual Conventionof the American Psychological Association,San Francisco,California,August 26-31, 1977a. Bronfenbrenner,U. Towards an experimentalecology of human development. American Psvcholoaist,1977, 32, 513-531. Bronson, W.C. The role of enduring orientationsto the environmentin personalitydevelopment. Genetic Psvcholoav Mane, 1972, fi, 380. Burgess, R. and Conger, R. Family interactionpatterns related to child abuse and neglect. Child Abuse and Neglect, 1977, L, 269-278. Caldwell, B. What is the optimal learning environment for the young child? American Journal of OrthoosvchiatrY,1967 12, 8-21. Coopersmith,S. The antecedentsof self-esteem(San Francisco: Freeman, 1967). FOBS,
B.M. (Ed.) Determinants of infant behavior (London: Methuon, 1965).
Friedmann R. Child abuse: a review of the psychosocialresearch. In Herner and Company (Eds), Four Persoecti e on the Status of Child Abuse and Nenle t&es arch. (Washington:E.C.: National Center on Child Abuse andCNeglett,1976.) Garbarino, J. The human ecology of child maltreatment: a conceptualmodel for research. Journal of Marriane and the Familv, 1977, B, 721-736. Garbarino, J., Crouter, A., and Sherman, D. Screening neighborhoodsfor intervention:a research based model for child protective services. Journalof, 1978, in press. e Gil, D. [ b States. Cambridge,Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1970.
d
Goldberg, S. Social competence in infancy: a model of parent-infant interaction. -11 -Palmer Quarterlv, 1977, a, 164-177. Gray, J., Cutler, C., Dean, J., and Kempe, C.H. Prediction and prevention of child abuse and neglect. Child Abuse and Nealect, 1977, 1, 45-58. Inkeles, A. "Social structure and the socializationof competence." Harvard Education Review, 1966, 3, 279-285.
J. Garbarino
98
Kagan, J.
Change and continuitv in infancv (New York:
Wiley,
1971.)
Katz, S., Ambrosino, L., McGrath, M. and Sawitslsy, K. The laws on child abuse and neglect: a review of the research. In Herner and Co., (Eds), 3 Fo r Per ective Research. (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Technical Information Service, 1976.) Kennell, J., Voos, D. and Klaus, M. Parent-infant bonding. In R. Helfer and C.H. Kempe (Eds.) Child Abuse and Neglect: the Familv and the Communitv (Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger, 1976, pp. 25-54.) Klaus, M. and Kennell, J. Maternal-infant bonding (St. Louis, Missouri: C.U. Mosby Company, 1976.1 Lourie, I. and Kent, J. Defining emotional abuse. Symposium presented at the Second Annual National Conference on Child Abuse and Neglect, Houston, Texas, April 17-20, 1977. McClelland, D. Americ n a, Millon, T.
"Testing for competence rather than intelligence," 1973, 28, 1-14.
Modern DSvChODathOlORv, (Philadelphia:
Saunders, 1969).
National Conference on Child Abuse and Neglect, Proaram. Resource Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, 1977.)
(Houston, Texas:
Nebraska Association of Social Workers, Child abuse and neglect training project. Lincoln, Nebraska, May 18-20, 1977. Parke, R. and Collmer, C.W. Chile abuse an interdisciplinary analysis. In E.M. Hetherington (Ed.), Review of Child Develooment Research, Volume 5. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1975.) Patterson, G.R. and Reid, J.B. Reciprocity and coercion: two facets of social systems. In C. Neuringer and J. Michael (Eds.). Behavior Modification in Clinical Psvcholoa. (New York: Appleton-CenturyCrofts, 1970. pp. 133-177.1 Piaget, J. The origins of intellinence in children (Cook, M. trans.). (New York: International Universities Press, 1952.) Spitz, R. Hospitalism: the genesis of psychiatric conditions in early childhood. Psvchoanalvtic Studies of the Child. Volume 1 (New York: International Universities Press, 1945, pp. 53-24). Thomas, A., Chess, S., and Birch, H.G. The origin of personality. Scientific American, 1970, 223, 102-109. Wald, M. Legal policies affecting children: Child Develooment, 1976, Q, l-5. White,
R.
333.
The concept of competence.
A lawyer's request for aid.
Psvcholonical Review 1959, 66, 297-
The Elusive "Crime" of Emotional Abuse
99
Zigler, E. Controllingchild abuse in America: an effort doomed to failure. Mary Elaine Meyer O'Neal Award Lectureship,Meyer Children's RehabilitationInstitute,University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska, May 25, 1976.