FAMILY INFLUENCES: EARLY DEPRIVATION, ABUSE AND

MALTREATMENT, NEGLECT, TRAUMA, ATTACHMENT, ADEQUATE AND

INADEQUATE PARENTING STYLES

PARENTING STYLES

Historically, Wet Nursing was common. Medicines used to be administered to the wet nurse
so that the child would benefit from it. Bartholomew of England’s “Book on the Nature of
Things” asked children to be kept away from too much light to avoid damage to the eyes,
administering medicines to the wet nurse, swaddling of limbs of the baby with tight bandages
so that deformities would be prevented, corporal punishments (frequent)

16th to 17th centuries, children suffered from notions such as child marriage, nunnery,
children needed to be strengthened and improved through humiliation and physical discipline,
etc. A Dutchman named Batty even formed a theory saying that human buttocks were
developed in such a way that it could be beaten repeatedly without any serious injury.

Slowly parents realised the importance of raising the child by themselves rather than sending
them away to stangers to contaminate them. By 17th century parents started pushing children
away from home and educational institutions were seen as the primary place of growth.

Early Theories

20th century- Psychoanalytic and Behaviorism

Psychoanalysis believes that the child would go through 5 stages of development and
believed to exert a strong and irreversible influence on later personality. Competent parents,
accordingly, were the ones who brought children’s sexual impulses under social control,
resisted the sexual impusles towards parents , channelized the associated anger. They
understood that children loved them and feared the loss of this love while rejecting the sexual
impulses, resolved this concept by making them identify with the same sex parent. This
identification formed the basis of rudimentary conscience or primary value system.
(Superego)

Behavioristic Theory focused on contingencies, reinforcement schedules, conditioned and

unconditioned stimuli and extinction. Children are amenable to contingencies and are
capable of shaping parental behaviors themselves

Parenting Style and aggression (Sears et.all, 1957)

Two dimensions: Punitiveness and Permissiveness,

Punitiveness: is the physical discipline or the severe restriction of activities.

Permissiveness: Tolerance to child’s transgressions

Study and Results: High punitiveness and high permissiveness: additive to child’s aggression,
as it communicated that aggression is acceptable, and punitiveness would have already
frustrated the child.

Low punitiveness and low permissiveness: communicated that aggression is unacceptable,

but response was not frustrating.

Parenting Style in terms of Control and Democracy (Baldwin, 1948,1955)

Pros Cons

Control Lower levels of disobedience Lacks curiosity,

Less quarrels Assertiveness
Originality
Democracy Fearlessness, Planfulness, Aggression, Disobedience,
Curiosity cruelty

Best combination was found to be high control and high democracy lead to planful,
curious,engaging and cooperative children.

Baumrind (1991)

Defined parenting styles to describe the normal variations in parents’ attempts to control and
socialize their children.

Although parents may differ in the method of parenting, it is assumed that the primary role of
parenting is to teach, influence and control children.

There are two elements of parenting- Parental responsiveness and Parental demandingness.

Responsiveness- also referred to as parental warmth and parental supportiveness- defined as

the extent to which parents intentionally foster individuality, self-regulation and self-assertion
by being attuned supportive and acquiescent to children’s special needs and demands.

Parental demandingness- also referred to as behavioural control- claims parents make to their
children to integrate children to the family whole, through their maturity demands ,
supervision, disciplinary efforts, and willingness to confront the child who disobeyes.

She was the first to use the term instrumental competence Behavior which is Socially
Responsible and Independent. Some characteristics include

a. Friendly rather than hostile

 b. Achievement oriented
c. Dominant
d. Purposive

Baumrind talked about 4 dimensions-

Maturity
Control Demandingness
Demands

Clarity in
Nurturance Communicatio Responsiveness
n

Four parenting styles-

4 types of Demandingness Demandingness

parenting High Low

Responsivenes Authoritative Indulgent

s (Maximum (Permissive)
High Instrumental
Competence)
Responsivenes Authoritarian Uninvolved
s Low (Least (Least
Instrumental Instrumental
Competence Competence,
according to according to
Baumrind, Maccoby and
1973) Martin, 1983)
Authoritative- Authoritative parents are both demanding and responsive. "They monitor and
impart clear standards for their children’s conduct. They are assertive, but not intrusive and
restrictive. Their disciplinary methods are supportive, rather than punitive. They want their
children to be assertive as well as socially responsible, and self-regulated as well as
cooperative"

Indulgent- (also referred to as "permissive" or "nondirective") "are more responsive than

they are demanding. They are non-traditional and lenient, do not require mature behaviour,
allow considerable self-regulation, and avoid confrontation" (Baumrind, 1991, p. 62).
Indulgent parents may be further divided into two types: democratic parents, who, though
lenient, are more conscientious, engaged, and committed to the child, and nondirective
parents.

Authoritarian- Highly demanding and directive, but not responsive. "They are obedience-
and status-oriented, and expect their orders to be obeyed without explanation" (Baumrind,
1991, p. 62). These parents provide well-ordered and structured environments with clearly
stated rules. Authoritarian parents can be divided into two types: nonauthoritarian-directive,
who are directive, but not intrusive or autocratic in their use of power, and authoritarian-
directive, who are highly intrusive.

Uninvolved- Low in both responsiveness and demandingness. In extreme cases, this

parenting style might encompass both rejecting–neglecting and neglectful parents, although
most parents of this type fall within the normal range.

(Maccoby and Martin (1983) renamed this dimension as Permissive-Neglectful, found it to be

more maladaptive than authoritarian)

Similarity between Indulgent and Authoritarian parenting is that they minimize the
opportunities for children to deal with stress. In indulgent- gives free reigns and fails to
establish conduct. In Authoritarian- Curtails the child’s pursuits and initiatives.

Criticism

Baumrind herself conducted comparative studies between African American girls and
European American girls, both groups from a very authoritarian background. African
Americans girls were found to be more independent and domineering than European
American.

Dornbush, Ritter, Leiderman, Roberts, and Fraleigh (1987) found authoritative style as a
predictor for school grades in European American girls but not among African American
girls. Baldwin, Baldwin and Cole (1990) also found higher intelligence and grades among
high-risk minority adolescents but not with authoritative parenting. Hence, Authoritarian
parenting could serve a purpose in highly stressed and dangerous setting
(Steinberg,1991).

Radziszewska (1996) found that authoritative parenting leads to lower chance of depressive
symptoms to develop and also leads to higher grades.
The concept of warmth differs according to the setting. Norms on manifestations of
warmth could be different in different settings.

Why Authoritative Parenting is the most suited?

1. Warm, responsive parenting promotes secure attachments and protects kids from
developing internalizing problems.

2. Parents who enforce limits are less likely to have kids engaged in drug and alcohol use,
juvenile delinquency, or other antisocial behavior(e.g., Lamborn et al 1991; Steinberg et al
1992; Querido et al 2002; Benchaya et al 2011; Luyckx et al 2011).

3. Talking with kids about thoughts and feelings may strengthen attachment relationships and
make kids into better “mind readers."

4. Parents who avoid reprimanding kids for academic mistakes (e.g., “I’m disappointed in
you") may have kids who are more resilient problem-solvers and better learners (Kamins and
Dweck 1999; Schmittmann et al 2006; van Duijvenvoorde et al 2008).

5. Encouraging independence in kids is linked with more self-reliance, better problem

solving, and improved emotional health (e.g., Turkel and Tezer 2008; Rothrauff et al 2009;
Lamborn et al 1991; Pratt et al 1988; Kamins and Dweck 1999; Luyckx et al 2011).

6. Authoritative parenting may help prevent aggression and reduce peer problems in
preschoolers (e.g., Choe et al 2013; Yamagata 2013).

7. Encouraging independence and showing warmth are also linked with more helpful, kind,
and popular kids.

Assessment

G-POS (General Parenting Observational Scale)

Based on work by Baumrind , Maccoby and Martin, Barber, and Slater and Power, several
dimensions of parenting were selected for this direct observational scale. These included
traditional dimensions of warmth and support, behavioral control, and demands for maturity,
but also included newer concepts like psychological control and structure. Similar to how
Maccoby and Martin operationalized parenting, these were then divided into two categories
of parenting, one that characterizes the emotional climate of the parent–child interaction and
one that characterizes the behavioral aspects of parenting.

Emotional Climate of the parent- Dimensions

Warmth and Parent expresses warmth and affection towards the child by saying “I love
affection you” or other words of affection, praising the child, or showing that they care
 about the child. This affection can be reflected in the parent’s tone of voice,
facial expressions, physical signs (like hugging, patting on the back, or gentle
touching), or other affectionate acts. Parent may also provide positive
reinforcement for child behaviors. Overall, parent shows genuine affection,
care and attachment towards their child.

Support and Parent provides support and helps the child in some manner. Parent can listen
sensitivity to the child’s ideas; shows physical, emotional, or intellectual support and
understanding of the child’s behaviors, thoughts, or emotions; appreciates the
child’s ideas and behaviors; helps child to problem solve; and helps child
through difficulties. Parent is sensitive to the child’s needs and goals.
Ultimately, parent is aware of what the child is doing and adjusting his/her
own behavior to take the child’s behaviors and needs into consideration.

Negative Parent shows anger, hostility, disdain, or disappointment towards the child.
Affect Parent may criticize, yell, make fun of child (mocking), belittle, make
sarcastic comments towards child, or be frustrated by what the child is saying
or doing. This attitude can be reflected in the tone of voice, facial expressions,
or hostile acts.

Detachment Parent is uninvolved or unresponsive towards the child. For example, the child
may do something nice for the parent, but the parent does not acknowledge it.
Parent can be distant or is “going through the motions”, but displays no feeling
of attachment with the child. There is an overall lack of connection with child.
Parent may be actively ignoring the child (e.g. child is trying to interact or get
the parent’s attention but is not getting a response, or the child is being
“boxed” out of conversation/interaction).

Behavioral Dimensions

Firm discipline This dimension captures how parents structure the environment to control
and structure or manage the child’s behaviors. Parents have adefined set of rules,
guidelines, and boundaries for behaviors that are somehow expressed on the
recording. For example, parent may enforce or remind the child about a rule
or expectation, explain reasons for a rule, allow discussion around arule,
provide warnings, or carry through with some disciplinary action or
consequence. Parent may demonstrate flexibility around certain rules but
usually has a limit which is not negotiable. Parent tries to be consistent
when disciplining andcarry through with the discipline or consequence.
 He/she expects the child to follow rules and structures the environment to
support these behaviors (Parents can be calm or angry when disciplining,
but if they are angry, using threats, raising their voice, or bullying, then also
code for negative affect.)

Demands for Parent expects certain behaviors from the child that demonstrate maturity
maturity and respect for others, like not interrupting, saying please and thank you,
using a napkin or silverware appropriately, etc. Parent also expects self-
control of behaviors, emotions, and attitudes. Parents may remind the child
of these expectations verbally or refer to these expectations through
physical acts, gestures, or facial expressions.

Psychological This type of control intrudes into the psychological and emotional
control development of the child, and typically includes guilt or coercion to
influence the child’s behaviors (guilt induction). Parents can show
disappointment in the child behaviors or tell the child about all the
sacrifices that were made for the child with the intention of guilting or
persuading him/her to execute or complete the desired behavior. Parent may
bring up previous bad behavior as a reminder to influence a new behavior.
Parent may also withdraw affection if the child does something bad (love
withdrawal), invalidate the child’s feelings, make a personal attack on the
child, and demonstrate erratic emotional behavior (change their emotional
reaction to suit their needs and goals). Parent can also be intrusive and push
his/her goals and agenda on the child without regard for what the child is
doing. Parent typically wants to control all of the child’s behaviors and
wants to tell the child what to do. Child has no autonomy in this situation.

Physical control Parent uses physical force to control the child’s behavior. Parent may
physically hurt the child, push or grab the child, or spank the child when
he/she disobeys.

Permissive In this situation, the child usually decides what to do and controls his/her
behaviors, actions, and daily schedule. The child can also determine the
rules, e.g. what to eat, how much to eat. There are typically no rules.
Parents are more laissez-faire. They may label the child’s misbehavior, but
provide no follow-through with discipline. Parents may be more concerned
with the child liking them and are therefore not as concerned about the
discipline. These parents usually cannot say no to the child.
Neglectful Parent does not provide support or respond to the child’s physical needs.
For example, if the child hurts him- or herself, parent does not respond or
show concern; or the parent does not provide more food or drink if the child
asks for it or looks hungry. This is different from detachment in that it does
not address the emotional needs of the child.

P-SOS (Parenting Style Observation Rating Scale)

Adds dimension of Auntonomy Grant along with warmth and responsiveness

The Parenting Style Observation Rating Scale (P-SOS) is a standardized coding scheme used
to quantify parent behaviors demonstrated in parent-child interactions. The coding scheme
was developed specifically for use based on conceptualizations of authoritative, authoritarian,
permissive, and neglectful parenting style as well as the parenting dimensions of warmth,
demandingness, and autonomy granting.

Other Measures

Child measures

Child’s Report of Parental Behavior Inventory (CRPBI) asks children to assess their parent’s
parenting behaviors, and can be completed by children aged eight years and older. It has been
used in pediatric weight control studies, as well as adapted to assess parent involvement and
strictness in relation to dietary and smoking behavior. The inventory assesses three
dimensions of parenting: acceptance vs. rejection, psychological control vs. autonomy, and
firm vs. lax control. The 30 item version (CRPBI-30), which is a shortened version of the
108-item scale, was used in this study and includes the top ten items with the highest
correlation within each dimension. Children rated each item on a 3-point Likert scale ranging
from “like”, “somewhat like”, or “not like” their parent’s behavior. Children completed this
measure for their mother and father’s parenting behaviors separately. Factor analysis
demonstrated that each of the items loaded significantly on a single principle axis with 96%,
94%, and 87% of the variance respectively. The alpha values for Acceptance, Psychological
control, and Firm control have been previously reported as 0.75-0.73, 0.72-0.63, and 0.65-
0.63 respectively. The test-retest correlations ranged from 0.79-0.89. This inventory has been
reported to have strong discriminative validity.

“Getting Along with My Parent” is a 38-item questionnaire (19 items relating to the mother
and 19 items for the father) that assesses the child’s ratings of the caregiver’s behaviors. The
items map onto 2 dimensions, warmth/support and hostility. Examples of the warmth/support
items include: “When you and your mother spend time talking or doing things together, how
often does your mother: let you know she really cares about you; listens carefully to your
point of view; acts supportive and understanding towards you; helps you do something that is
important to you?” Examples of the hostility items include: “When you and your mother
spend time talking or doing things together, how often does your mother: get angry at you;
criticize your ideas; shout or yell because she is mad at you; insult or swear at you?” Four-
point scales were used to assess parent behaviors from “a lot” to “not at all”. The items have
been previously reported to have an internal consistency of 0.78 for the warmth scale and
0.79 for the hostility scale.

Parent measures

Parent Report of Parental Behavior Inventory (PRPBI) is a 30-item measure that parallels the
CRPBI-30 and was used to assess parent’s views of their own parenting behaviors towards
the index child. This measure assesses the same three dimensions of parenting as the CRPBI,
has the same scoring system, and has been used successfully in previous studies.

Raising Children Checklist (RCC) is a simplified revision of Greenberger’s Raising Children

Checklist, a standardized measure of parenting strategies that was based on Baumrind’s
concepts of responsiveness and disciplinary control. This measure has been used in NICHD’s
Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development and was chosen for its brevity and
apparent face validity with Baumrind’s dimensions of parenting. Three dimensions of
parenting are obtained with this survey – firm (authoritative), harsh (authoritarian), and lax
(permissive) parenting. These dimensions have been found to differentiate children based on
school adjustment, academic achievement, and behavioral problems. Cronbach’s alpha for
each of these dimensions were reported as 0.67, 0.75, and 0.73 respectively.

Parenting Disciplinary Techniques and its influence: Processes of induction and

internalization

Parental disciplinary techniques facilitate children’s ability to internalize the parent’s

message underlying the discipline. That is, competent parents are those that successfully
enable children to attend to the socialization process and incorporate their parents’ messages
as their own.

Grusec and Goodnow (1994) defined internalization as the “taking over the values and
attitudes of society as one’s own so that socially acceptable behavior is motivated not by
anticipation of external consequences but by intrinsic or internal factors.” Arguably,
having children develop internalized societal standards of conduct and an appropriate
understanding of right and wrong (i.e., developing a conscience) is the ultimate goal of
socialization (Kochanska, 1993). Internalizing happens with a minimum level of threshold
that needs to be reached by the child to pay attention to the message being communicated.

Sears et al.’s work paved the way for further theorizing and empirical work on the efficacy,
both singly and in combination, of three major parental disciplinary techniques:

1. Power assertion refers to the threat of or actual use of force, physical punishment, or
withdrawal of privileges.
2. Love withdrawal involves ignoring the child or expressing disappointment or
disapproval.
3. Reasoning/explanation involves calling attention to the nature of the misdeed and how
it infringes on the rights and feelings of others, a process that is termed induction or
other-oriented induction.

Power assertion and Love Withdrawal will serve the purpose of raising the threshold
so that the child attends to the message. Too much of arousal could lead to the child
paying attention to the technique itself, and thus affection and love becomes
contingent on the behavior. This is unhealthy for the child.

Hoffman and Saltzstein proposed that the efficacy of inductive techniques was due to
their tendency to arouse empathy, which they defined as the vicarious experience of
discomfort from the knowledge that the child’s act hurt someone else, either
emotionally or physically, and to communicate to the child that she or he was the
cause of that hurt. That knowledge, coincidental with the vicarious experience of
discomfort, serves as a strong motivator to keep one’s impulses under control
(Hoffman, 1983, 1986, 1988)
 ATTACHMENT AND DEVELOPMENTAL THEORIES

Attachment is a deep and enduring emotional bond that connects one person to another across
time and space (Ainsworth 1973, Bowlby 1969).

Bowlby (1969)

Bowlby viewed infants’ propensity to attach to a caregiver as an outcome of natural selection,

functioning to promote infant survival and that of the species as a whole, since attachment
behavior would facilitate the infant's survival in the face of dangers such as predation or exposure to
the elements. He acknowledged that the quality of infant–caregiver attachment related to the
quality of the caregiving environment. Attachment is characterized by specific behaviors in
children, such as seeking proximity with the attachment figure when upset or threatened.
According to Bowlby, attachment is an adaptive mechanism- more the attachment, more the
likelihood of survival.

Phase 1(0-8 weeks).

Smile, Babble, Cry, to attract
attention of potential caregivers,
directed to anyone in the vicinity

Phase 2(2-6 months).

Discriminates familiar and
Attachment Development unfamiliar people, clinging behavior
and following behavior to the
caregiver begins

Phase 3 (6 months-2 years)

Behavior towards the caregiver
becomes organized, on a goal
directed basis, to attain the
conditions that makes it feel secure

Monotropy: Early steps of attachment takes place easily with a single caregiver. Though it
might seem like there are many people the child might be attached to, there is a strong bias
for the child to direct behavior towards one. This is called Monotropy.

Recent researches show that this differs qualitatively rather than quantitatively.

Sensitive Period: Bowlby claimed that there exist a sensitive or critical period of time when
the attachment develops, and he claimed it to be between 6 months to three years.
Recent researches show that this period is broader and effect of this period is not as fixed and
pronounced.

Ainsworth (1973, 1982); Ainsworth and Bell, (1970); Ainsworth, Bell, and Stayton
(1971, 1974)

Claimed that three major styles of attachment is formed by the first year of the child. 4
characteristics represent attachment- Those are

1. Proximity Maintenance
2. Safe Haven (A place for the child to return back in case of threat or danger)
3. Separation Distress (Anxiety caused when adequately dependent child is separated
from the caregiver)
4. Secure base (A platform for the child to explore the world from)

Strange Situation

Episode 1: Mother (or other familiar caregiver), Baby, Experimenter (30 seconds)

Episode 2: Mother, Baby (3 mins)

Episode 3: Mother, Baby, Stranger (3 mins)

Episode 4: Stranger, Baby (3 mins or less)

Episode 5: Mother, Baby (3 mins)

Episode 6: Baby Alone (3 mins or less)

Episode 7: Stranger, Baby (3 mins or less)

Episode 8: Mother, Baby (3 mins)

A large literature documents relations between early security and later success in peer and
sibling relationships (Elicker,Englund,andSroufe,1992;Kerns,1994; LaFreniere and Sroufe,
1985; Teti and Ablard, 1989) and relationships with teachers (e.g., Sroufe, Fox, and Pancake,
1983) and unfamiliar adults (e.g., Easterbrooks and Lamb, 1979). Early security has also been
predictive of indicators of emotional well-being, such as self-confidence, ego-resiliency, and
play competence (Elickeretal.,1992;LondervilleandMain,1981;Sroufe,1983)

Kochanska (1997b; Kochanska and Thompson, 1997; Kochanska and Aksan, 1995)

- Studied emergence of conscience with the emotional responses.

- Willingness to introject or induct parental messages depended on secure attachment.

- Study of 26-to41-month-old infants observed with their mothers in three separate

control contexts. Children and mothers were observed in two “Do” tasks (one toy
cleanup session at home and one in the laboratory), in which mothers were instructed
 to get their children to put the toys away after a period of free play, and one “Don’t”
task, in which mothers were asked to prohibit their children from touching some very
attractive toys on a shelf in the laboratory for a period of 2 hours.

- Two qualitatively distinct forms of compliance.

1. Committed compliance was coded when the child willfully committed to the task
at hand and to the mother’s agenda, with little if any prompting from the mother.

2. Situational compliance was coded when the child’s cooperation was dependent
on maternal prompting.

- Three forms of noncompliance

1. Passive noncompliance was identified when the child ignored maternal bids to
comply but without overt resistance to the mother.

2. Refusal/negotiation was coded when the child openly refused maternal directives
but without strong oppositional behavior.

3. Defiance was used to describe overt noncompliance accompanied by strong

opposition (e.g., temper tantrums and kicking toys) in response to maternal bids.
 Secure Infants
-Identify caregiver as a secure base
- Seeks proximity of the caregiver

Attachment Styles according to Ainsworth

-Soothes easily when picked up
- Explores the world with occasional checks
- Balances atttachment and exploratory
behavior

Insecure Avoidant
-Ignore the caregiver, no balance between
attachment and exploration.
-Explores in the presence oof the caregiver in
a compulsive fashion, no real interest shown
to the caregiver

Insecure Resistant or Insecure Ambivalent

-Petulance, clinginess and overdependancy
on the caregiver
-Can not be consoled easily
-Less exploring, more dependant

Insecure- Disorganized (Main and Solomon,

1986,1990)

Infant–mother reunions elicit expressions of fear

and/or apparent confusion about how to gain access
 EARLY DEPRIVATION

Deprivation can be defined as ‘The inability for individuals or households to afford those
consumption goods and activities that are typical in a society at a given point in time,
irrespective of people’s preferences with respect to these items’ OECD (2007).

Children Act 1989: ‘A child is deprived if they are unlikely to achieve or maintain, or to have
the opportunity of achieving or maintaining, the standards of health, housing, environment,
access to services, safety, education and employment enjoyed by those living above 60 per
cent of median income.’

Maternal Deprivation

Maternal deprivation hypothesis (Bowlby, 1953)

“Prolonged deprivation of a young child of maternal care may have grave and far-reaching
effects on his character similar in form to deprivation of vitamins in infancy.”

Results:

- Of the 14 children from the main group identified as affectionless psychopaths, 12 had
experienced prolonged separation of more than six months from their mothers in their first
two years of life

- Only 5 of the 30 delinquent children not classified as affectionless psychopaths had

experienced separations

- Of the 44 people in the non-delinquent control group, only 2 had experienced prolonged
separations and none of them were affectionless psychopaths.
Conclusion: The young criminals who had a prolonged separation in their first two years of
life were several times more likely to exhibit affectionless psychopathy than those who had
no such separation. This provides strong support for Bowlby’s deprivation hypothesis.

Plomin and Daniels (1987)

Claimed that non-shared environment has a significant impact on the childs mental health
than the shared ones. Different children from same families processed experiences
differently, so the same experiences might be appraised cognitively and affectively different
by children.

Rutter et.al (2000)

Several children from Romanian orphanages, placed during their first few weeks of birth,
were adopted by families in UK. Behavioral changes were observed and dramatic

developmental gains were noticed, almost equivalent to 40 IQ points.

Roy,Rutter and Pickles (2000)

Compared institutionally reared children, admitted around 3 months of age with chidren
reared at home. Institutionally reared children showed more inattentiveness, overactivity and
selective attachments and social relationships. These may have been a consequence of the
relative lack of opportunities for forming selective social attachments with caregivers when
they were young.

Duyme,Dumaret,andTomkiewicz(1999)

They examined the within-individual change over time. They sorted out a sample of children
who had been removed from their parents because of abuse or neglect, who had been adopted
between the ages of 4 and 6 and 1/2 years, and for whom there was a preadoption IQ. The
group was followed up into adolescence. In addition to the focus on within-individual
change, the other crucial innovation concerned the study of the extent to which changes over
time were a function of the qualities of the adoptive family. The findings were striking in
three main respects. First, the group as a whole showed a substantial rise in IQ from pre-
adoption to adolescence. The implication was that the change in family of rearing, from a
disadvantageous one to a higher quality one, was followed by important IQ gains. Second,
the extent of these gains was related in a systematic way to the
socioeconomic/educational qualities of the adoptive parents. This finding is particularly
important because it was the first to provide direct evidence of the impact of variations in
family qualities within the normal range, using a genetically sensitive design. The effects
were substantial, the mean rise in the upper group of adoptive families being 20 points, and
that in the lower group being 8 points. The third point was different but equally important.
That is, the correlation between the preadoption IQ and the IQ in adolescence was
substantial and did not differ among the three groups that varied in qualities of the
adoptive family. The implication is that it is possible for a change in environment to have a
substantial impact on the overall levels of a trait without it making much difference to
individual variation.

Initially, parental loss was seen as a risk factor. However, studies by Rutter (1971) showed
that parental death had lesser risk factors than family break up- poor parenting mediated
pathologies such as adult depression (Brown and Harris, 1986).

There is a lack of ongoing, harmonious, selective, committed relationships when there is a

lack of such relationships (as may be the case in most forms of institutional rearing), when
the relationships are profoundly negative (as with rejection, scapegoating, and neglect), and
when relationships are of a kind that engender uncertainty and insecurity. (Rutter, 2000a)

Maternal Deprivation and Psychopathology

Common effects of maternal deprivation is usually manifested in forms of Delinquency:

Conduct that is out of accord with accepted behaviour or the law, Reduced intelligence,
Increased aggression, Depression, Affectionless psychopathy

Specificity is often questioned because psychopathology is often preceded and strengthened

by a number of specific effects.

Rutter et.al (2000) showed that not only was cognitive impairment substantially more
frequent in the children who had experienced severe institutional privation in Romania and in
the non-deprived within-U.K. comparison group, but the degree of cognitive deficit showed a
strong dose-response relation with the duration of institutional privation. The key mediating
variables are likely to lie in the qualities of conversational interchange, the availability of
play materials, and the provision of a range of active experiences that tap children’s curiosity
and which allow them to explore and learn from their environment.

The limited evidence available suggests that the features are perhaps best considered in terms
of limitations in quality of selective social attachments, together with limitations in
appreciation of social cues and other people’s social responses. The implication is that it may
be that this is the relatively specific consequence of the severe limitations in opportunities for
selective social attachments with caregivers that is a feature of most forms of group style
residential care.

The findings on persistence raise important questions about the effects of early experiences
on the organism and on the processes by which effects are carried forward in time. Several
rather different sorts of mechanisms need to be considered (Rutter, 1989). The simplest, and
most straightforward, possibility is that the children have learned particular styles or habits of
behavior as a result of their experiences. Inevitably, there will be a neural substrate for such
learning, but the implication would be that there are no particular constraints with respect to
new learning or unlearning if experiences change.
 Child Maltreatment

Physical abuse involves parental use of aversive or inappropriate control strategies (e.g.,
beatings, consistent use of coercive responses). Neglect is an omission of actions by parents
that leads to harm or endangerment of children’s health or well-being and includes a
heterogenous set of events (e.g., from lack of supervision to poor hygiene). Contrary to
popular belief, the latter constitute the largest group of cases (53.5% versus 22.7% for abuse).

Complex and Flexible Rigid and straight

Parenting,Possible forward,quality of parenting is
consequences dealt with unequal to the task, and
optimal outcomes for child and maladaptive responses occur
society kept in mind.

What we define as maltreatment has changed over time. Role demands are set by the group
with which parents most identify, and it is this group that acts as the standard against which
they judge “acceptable” social behavior (Azar and Benjet, 1994). Sibling caregiving is valued
as a part of socialization in some cultures, but in some situations is labeled as neglect in U.S.
society. This may present problems for immigrant parents.

Cultural standards, parent’s adjustment with the group norms, parent’s perception of the
children’s vulnerability and response to the vulnerability (with or without care), all becomes a
part of labeling a behavior as neglect or abuse or, maltreatment. Initial definitions were legal
or medical, and aimed at identification and prosecution (determining intent or validating the
occurrence of abuse). Although determination of culpability is useful for courts, it is not as
helpful as a basis for science.

Zuravin (1991)

1. Supervisory neglect,
2. Refusal or delay in providing health or mental health care,
3. Custody refusal or related neglect,
4. Abandonment/desertion,
5. Failure to provide a home,
6. Personal hygiene neglect,
7. Housing hazards or sanitation problems,
8. Nutritional neglect,
 9. Educational neglect

Theories

Another sociological model focused on societal values. This view argued that as long as
society condones the use of physical punishment, abuse will occur (Straus, 1994).

Green (1976)

Intergenerational Transmission model Child abusers were subjected to abuse from their
caregivers which has lead to two identification processes- One of the punitive harsh parent
and the other of the unlovable and unworthy child. When the individual emerges into
adulthood and starts confronting parenting situation, anxiety of being the unworthy child re
emerge, and once this anxiety becomes intolerable, it is projected on to the child hence
leading to the identification of the harsh punitive parent.

Belsky’s social ecological model (1980; BelskyandVondra,1989)

Individual characteristics (eg. Parental IQ)

Aspects within family (eg. Marital satisfaction)

Forces within the community (eg. Poverty)

Cultural factors (eg. Values)

Azarand Twentyman (1986)

Developed a model which gives priority to social cognitive influences in child abuse.
Expectancies, misattributions, problem solving deficits, lack of cognitive
complexity/flexibility are the common cognitive errors

 Social cognitive disturbances,

 Skills deficits in parenting,
 Stress management,
 Social skills (lack of peer support, poor marital reltns, poorer adjustment, negative
state arousal)
 Anger regulation

Social-cognitive theorizing argues that individuals develop cognitive structures to aid them in
handling the thousands of pieces of information that bombard them each moment of each
day, including those involved in making parenting decisions. Indeed, role specific schema
develop that ideally reflect societal social constructions. For example, in today’s society
adults need to have a “parent” role schema that defines it as requiring caregiving and
protection where authority, resources, and responsibility are distributed unevenly and where,
at least in the early years, a lot of the relationship “work” is done by the adult. (Reciprocally,
the “young child” role schema is one of lower capacities.) The complexity, flexibility, and
 content of the adult’s schema can either facilitate or destabilize their functioning both within
the family and outside of it. Difficulties at this fundamental level would short-circuit all
subsequent responses parents would make. That is, if one misperceives or misinterprets child
or situational cues, then responses that follow would be maladaptive or asynchronous with
children’s needs and would lead to fewer opportunities for adults to “develop” into the role.

The schema are flexible enough to act as frameworks for the variety of parenting tasks
required across development and the special needs certain children may have. Such
expectancies have been linked to more appropriate parenting responses, and inaccurate
perceptions have characterized maltreater.

Appropriate schemas, adaptive attributions, and a wide repertoire of childrearing strategies

and problem-solving skills combine to produce a situation in which parents are attuned to the
developmental needs of their children, and can discriminate between situations when
intervention is required and when it is not and at what level to respond.

Adaptive Accurate perceptions of

child’s needs, abilities Successful
(Facilitate)
parenting
Problem Solving abilities
Schemas

Positive Bias
Maladaptive
Parenting failures
(Destabilize) Communication skills

Environmental
stressors
Violated needs, Failure to match up to Abuse/ Neglect
delay the expectations

Recent Research

Olsen and Holmes, 1986; Straus, Gelles, and Steinmetz, (1980)

Prevalence of abuse and maltreatment is found to be more prevalent in LSES. This does not
mean that majority of the families in LSES abuse their children. Reasons could be
 1. Lack of resources
2. Intrapersonal deficits within parents making other tasks of adult life more difficult
3. More amount of risks that require better skills

For these reasons, only very skilled parents might be able to provide the best parenting.

Kaufman and Zeigler (1987)

25-30 % of maltreaters grow up to be maltreaters. Criticisms say that this need not be a causal
function because abuse and maltreatment is usually associated with other forms of family
dysfunction. For instance,

Neglectful parents- chaotic home life disturbed relationship patternsrisk factor for
next generation

Studies showing psychological functions within maltreaters

• IQ- Borderline or mild (Schilling and Schincke, 1984).

• Lack of impulse control usually manifested in the form of substance use.

• Lack of integrated ego

• lower self-esteem and low perceived control in parenting (Culp, Culp, Soulis, and
Letts, 1989; Trickett and Susman, 1988)

Coercive and rigid

control techniques

Impaired Parenting
Lack of explanation
techniques and
while punishing
Family dynamics

Lack of interaction
or sensitive
responses

Abuse and pathology

Problem-solving difficulties and rigid thinking are linked to many adult adjustment problems.
Although not found consistently across studies, abusive parents and those at risk for abuse
also have been shown to make more negative attributions to children (Larrance and
Twentyman,1983;Plotkin,1983)
Neglect has been associated with heightened risk-taking behaviors (e.g., early sexual activity
and teenage parenthood; Kaplan, Pelcovitz, and La Bruna, 1999; Wright, 1994)

Maltreated adolescents exhibit behavior that label them as troubled (running away, truancy,
delinquency, and oppositional behavior

Poor nutrition and fatigue due to a lack of a structured routine may influence child school
performance and behavior

TRAUMA

Trauma is the emotional, psychological and physiological residue left over from heightened
stress that accompanies experience of threat, violence and life changing events (American
Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 2012)

Every child reacts to trauma differently, and their reaction will depend on:

 Developmental level
 Premorbid functioning
 Previous life experiences
 Level of exposure to the trauma
 Parental reactions
 Subsequent changes in living situation
 The majority of children are resilient

(Centre of National Research on Disability and Rehabilitation Medicine, 2011)

 Every child reacts to trauma differently

 Reaction will depend on:

 Developmental level

 Premorbid functioning

 Previous life experiences

 Level of exposure to the trauma

 Parental reactions

 Subsequent changes in living situation

 The majority of children are resilient

(Centre of National Research on Disability and Rehabilitation Medicine, 2011)

Types of Trauma as adapted from The National Child Traumatic Stress Network are as
follows

 Complex trauma

 Family violence

 Medical trauma

 Natural disasters

 Community and school violence

 Neglect

 Physical abuse

 Sexual abuse

 Traumatic grief

 Refugee and war zone trauma

Intergenerational impact (Child Welfare Association, 2012)

 Traumas reverberate down the generations  psychiatric disorders

 Often accompanied by poverty, isolation and physical illness

 Problems often found together and often make each other worse

(Mays & Bell, 2013)

Traumatic childhood experiences have been related to the following psychiatric disorders:

 PTSD

 Depression

 Anxiety

 Personality Disorders (ASPD/BPD)

 Generalized Anxiety Disorder

 Panic Disorder
  Eating Disorders

 Speech Disorders

Philip et al., (2006)

Effects of trauma are mediated by:

 Age of the child

 Time duration of trauma

 Support systems

 Education level

 Financial resources

 Personality factors

 Intelligence

 Coping skills

 External aid/ health services

Effects of Trauma

Can be divided into four- Mind, Body, Spirit, Context

Mind Body Spirit Context

Reduced Cognitive Health Spirituality Intergenrational
Capacity Trauma
Thinking Self Harm Spiritual beliefs Families and
Communities
Memory Difficulties Addiction Shame Environment
Language Difficulties Sleep Disturbance Identity Placement Disruption

Starrs, B.
(2014).
Contact and
despair: a
Gestalt
approach to
adolescent
trauma.