Description
Assignment # 1
The Expectation: Answer the prompt using the textbook to support your perspective. Your response has to be one complete paragraph, five complete sentences.
Prompt: Short-term effects of CPM occur in three main areas. What are they? Use examples from the textbook and cite the book.
Source: Miller, C. L., Perrin, R. D., Renzetti, C. M. (2020) Violence and Maltreatment in Intimate Relationships, Second Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.
Assignment # 2
The Expectation: Answer the prompt using the video(s) to support your perspective. Your response has to be one complete paragraph, five complete sentences.
Prompt: Is child psychological maltreatment a threat to a healthy human? How can loving parenting avoid CPM? Explain and use the video to support your perspective.
Source:
Assignment # 3
1. Reflect about your language history. Explain your own language history and how that has changed over time. Include your family’s linguistic history (as far back in time as possible) and your language experiences in multiple settings (e.g., with family, friends, neighborhood, academic settings). Has your language experience changed based on where you lived or what you were doing? (Your response should be approximately 150 words)
2. Reflect about fears of multilingualism. Pick one of the myths or concerns described in this week’s readings about bilingualism. Describe the myth/concern and then use concrete information from this week’s lectures to argue against the myth or address the concern. Why do you think there are so many concerns and myths surrounding the decision to speak multiple languages? (Your response should be approximately 200 words)
Unformatted Attachment Preview
reflection
Multilingual
parenting: Common
concerns and how
to address them
By Suzanne Grasso
In 2021-22 I observed 11 Victorian Maternal and
Child Health consultations and conducted
follow up interviews with 13 parents, 10 nurses
and six team leaders as part of my PhD research.
Both consultations and interviews revealed an overwhelmingly supportive attitude towards raising children in their home languages.
Parents I interviewed were very grateful for their nurse’s encouragement, but they also expressed a wish for more proactive, nuanced and
evidence-based discussion around their multilingual parenting concerns.
COMMON LANGUAGE CONCERNS
The messaging I observed around home
language use from nurses and team
leaders was always ‘be consistent’, as per
the government issued posters in MCH
consultation rooms urging parents to
‘Speak in the language you know best’1 to
their children. However, it is not always that
simple, and my participants commonly
wondered if they should avoid speaking a
home language to their child if:
• Their child seems to have language delay
in either their home language or English.
• Their child refuses to respond in the
home language/only wants to speak
in English.
• They mix languages with a child,
especially if they have atypical
development, so as not to confuse them.
22 Oct–Dec 2023 Volume 28, No. 2
• Their partner or extended family don’t
understand the language, so as not to
exclude them.
• They or their child receive unwanted
attention/feel uncomfortable
for standing out amongst their
monolingual peers.
INFORMATION AND
RECOMMENDED STRATEGIES TO
ADDRESS THESE CONCERNS ARE
AS FOLLOWS:
CONFUSION AND
LANGUAGE DELAY
Health professionals in my study reported
varying beliefs around language delay. A
systemic review of research on the topic
revealed that multilingual children may
progress at a different rate and demonstrate
a distinct pattern of language development
from their monolingual peers, but there is
no evidence to suggest that multilingual
children will definitely experience language
delay, nor are there set timeframes around
how long it might take multilingual
children to acquire language.2 Additionally,
children with atypical development such
as autism are not adversely affected by
being raised multilingually.3 Therefore,
there is no need to dissuade parents
from raising their children in their home
language for fear of creating confusion or
contributing to language delay. In contrast,
providing evidence-based reassurance can
allay parents’ concerns, which is what my
participants were looking for.
reflection
MIXING LANGUAGES
References
Mixing languages, also known as code-switching, has
traditionally been discouraged in favour of speaking
in one language at all times. However, mixing is a
legitimate strategy that can address and alleviate
communication barriers and promote harmonious
bilingualism.5 Contemporary research argues for
mixing to be recognised as a practice that reflects
and celebrates multilingual families, rather than
discouraged as a mistake to be avoided.6
1. State Government Victoria.
2022. Speak to your child in the
language you know best. https://
www.vic.gov.au/speak-yourchild-language-you-know-best
This is particularly true for multilingual parents who
speak more than one home language, where the One
Parent, One Language strategy, also referred to as
OPOL* is not practical. As my participants attested,
if parents routinely mix or code-switch between
languages when they are with their co-parent,
extended family, or with other social networks in the
community, instructing them to exclusively speak one
language with their children is unrealistic.
3. Bodea Hategan C, & Tala D. 2014.
Issues in bilingualism in the
context of autism spectrum
disorders: Case study report.
Romanian Journal of Experimental
Applied Psychology, 5(3), 1–14.
Parents may choose to mix languages so as not to
exclude others from conversation when they don’t
understand the home language.7 Parents may also mix
languages for expedience or ease of communication
when engaging children in time critical tasks, such
as finding their shoes to get out the door to school on
time, which takes precedence over creating teachable
moments in a home language that children may
struggle to understand or respond to in a timely way.
TIME AND PLACE
HOME LANGUAGE USE
My participants reported fear around their child’s
anticipated rejection of their home language and
refusal to respond in languages other than English.
Below are some time-honoured strategies4 that nurses
can suggest to parents:
Minimal
grasp
Adult indicates no
comprehension of the
child’s language choice
Expressed
guess
Adult asks a yes/no question
using the home language
Repetition
Adult repeats the content of
the child’s utterance, using
the home language
Move
on
Adult continues the
conversation in the
home language
Code
switch (Mix)
Adult code
switches/mixes languages
Language choice can be emotionally rather than
linguistically motivated,8 and is not always as
straightforward as simply speaking consistently in
a home language and avoiding English altogether.
My participants reported that there were situations
where their family’s harmony, wellbeing or safety is at
stake, which is where Time and Place based language
decisions are recommended.5
Time and Place involves using languages at specific
times and places rather than just when at home/
outside the home. This strategy could be used
during activities such as mealtimes, storytime, at
the playground, in early childhood education, when
visiting extended family, shopping, or attending
places of worship, so that children associate a specific
time or place with a language.
This strategy is especially useful for multilingual
families who speak more than one home language;
when grandparents or the extended family live with
or have frequent contact with the family;9 or when
parents or their children would rather use English
when in public because they feel self-conscious,
threatened, experience outright racism, or just want
to fit in.10
2. Hambly H, Wren Y, McLeod S, &
Roulstone S. 2013. The influence
of bilingualism on speech
production: A systematic
review. International Journal
of Language & Communication
Disorders, 48(1), 1–24.
4. Lanza E. 1992. Can bilingual twoyear-olds code-switch? Journal of
Child Language, 19, 633–658.
5. De Houwer A. 2020. Harmonious
bilingualism: Well-being for
families in bilingual settings. In
A. C. Schalley & S. A. Eisenchlas
(Eds.), Handbook of Home
Language Maintenance and
Development (pp. 63–83). De
Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.
org/10.1515/9781501510175-004
6. Lanza E, & Lomeu Gomes R.
2020. Family language policy:
Foundations, theoretical
perspectives and critical
approaches. In A. C. Schalley & S.
A. Eisenchlas (Eds.), Handbook
of home language maintenance
and development (pp. 153–173).
Mouton de Gruyter.
7. Yagmur K, & Bohnacker U. 2022.
It is not the ideology but the
resources: Family language
policy in a comparative
perspective. Journal of
Multilingual and Multicultural
Development, 43(9), 817–820.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632
.2022.2053139
8. Sevinç Y, & Dewaele JM. 2018.
Heritage language anxiety
and majority language anxiety
among Turkish immigrants in
the Netherlands. International
Journal of Bilingualism, 22(2),
159–179.
9. Smith-Christmas C. 2014. Being
socialised into language shift:
The impact of extended family
members on family language
policy. Journal of Multilingual and
Multicultural Development, 35(5),
511–526. https://doi.org/10.1080/0
1434632.2014.882930
10. Pascual y Cabo D, & RiveraMarín G. 2021. Understanding
and addressing linguistic
aggressions in the Spanish
heritage language classroom.
Estudios Del Observatorio/
Observatorio Studies, 73, 1–30.
Author:
Suzanne Grasso,
Grasso BA (Hons),
MA, PhD Candidate at Monash
University.
* One parent speaks to the child exclusively in the majority
language (the native or more fluent speaker) and one parent
speaks to the child exclusively in the home language
Oct–Dec 2023 Volume 28, No. 2 23
Copyright of Australian Nursing & Midwifery Journal is the property of Australian Nursing
& Midwifery Federation and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or
posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users
may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
170 Violence and Maltreatment in Intimate Relationships
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
1. Describe the definition and scope of child psychological maltreatment, including problems
inherent in measuring this form of abuse.
2. Identify the various risk factors associated with child psychological maltreatment.
3. Summarize the consequences of child psychological maltreatment, including both short- and
long-term outcomes.
4. Discuss the various intervention and prevention efforts that have been developed to address
child psychological maltreatment, including evidence of their effectiveness.
CASE HISTORY
TOUGH LOVE OR CHILD PSYCHOLOGICAL MALTREATMENT?
By most outward appearances, the Machnicks
were a typical all-American family. Grady
Machnick was a sergeant with the Los Angeles
County Sheriff’s Department, and Deborah
Machnick was an elementary school principal.
They were raising three children, one of whom
was a 14-year-old boy, Grady Machnick’s
biological son and Deborah Machnick’s stepson.
The Machnicks lived in a two-story home in a
well-kept Southern California neighborhood.
By all accounts they were a “normal” upperclass family, hardly fitting the stereotype of
an abusive family. And indeed, there was no
indication that the Machnicks ever physically
or sexually abused their son. But they were
in fact arrested for child abuse, in a case that
can be most accurately described as child
psychological maltreatment (CPM). At the time
the charges were filed, Grady Machnick denied
any inappropriate mistreatment of his son, and
his attorney stated that “any actions that were
taken were appropriate to the circumstances
of disciplining a teenager.” The allegations
included the following:
• The parents required the teenage
boy to spend nights outside, sleeping
on a dog mat, as punishment for
not completing his homework.
• The parents did not allow the teen to use
the bathroom located in the home, instead
requiring him to use a public restroom at a
nearby park.
• The parents poured water on the teen to
wake him from sleep.
• The parents sent the teen to school with dog
feces in his backpack as punishment for not
cleaning up after the family dog.
• The parents forced the teen to strip and
be photographed naked as a form of
punishment.
• The parents forced the teen out of the house
at 3:30 a.m. when the parents needed to
go out because, they said, he could not be
trusted in the home alone.
• The parents confiscated the teen’s
belongings (e.g., clean clothing) and required
Chapter 6
that he earn the items back through good
behavior.
• The parents withheld the teen’s lunch money.
At trial, Grady and Deborah Machnick testified
that they employed the parenting practices they
did because they were attempting to discipline
their defiant son. The teen reportedly earned poor
grades in school, refused to help with chores at
home, and was often caught lying and stealing.
Grady Machnick summed up his son’s behavior by
testifying that his son “reminded him of inmates.”
Throughout their trial, the Machnicks insisted
that their efforts at discipline were designed to
keep their son from continuing to engage in questionable behavior.
The Machnicks were ultimately acquitted on
felony charges of conspiring to abuse their teenage
son. The jurors agreed that the parents’ discipline
D
■
Child Psychological Maltreatment 171
was inappropriate and inconsistent with their own
parenting practices, but they were reluctant to
condemn the Machnicks’ behavior as criminal or to
judge the couple based on their own value systems.
Although the jurors agreed that the Machnicks’
behavior did not rise to the level of a felony, they
could not agree on whether to convict the Machnicks
of the lesser charge of misdemeanor child abuse.
One juror who voted to convict both parents stated
in an interview, “Breaking someone down mentally,
that’s what they tried to do. There were no bruises,
but the whole behavior of Grady and Deborah was
to break him down mentally.”
In his closing argument, one of the Machnicks’
attorneys described the couple’s parenting
behavior as follows: “It’s not a great parenting
technique. If you’re grading, A, B, C, D, or F, maybe
it’s an F. But it’s not a crime” (“Judge OKs Retrial
in Alleged Abuse Case,” 2003; see also Leonard,
2001; Pfeifer, 2002; Pfeifer & Anton, 2002).
espite the lack of overt physical aggression, sexual behavior, or physical signs of maltreatment in the case history just described, many observers would agree that the
parents’ behavior was abusive. Cases such as this have led researchers to address CPM,
a form of child maltreatment that differs from the other forms already discussed in
this book.
Relative to other forms of child maltreatment, CPM has received considerably less
attention. One explanation for the relative neglect of the topic is that the other forms
of child maltreatment are more likely to result in immediate and observable harm. The
negative consequences of CPM, while more elusive, are no less insidious. Research has
shown that the negative effects of CPM are just as serious, if not more so, as those related
to physical and sexual abuse (Cecil, Viding, Fearon, Glaser, & McCrory, 2017; Fung,
Chung, & Ross, 2020; Hodgdon et al., 2018; Spinazzola et al., 2014). Indeed, CPM
may be the most destructive form of child abuse. In addition to possibly being the most
harmful form of child maltreatment, CPM may be the most pervasive, based on a variety of different forms of reporting as we will discuss in this chapter. One of the unique
characteristics of CPM is that it often co-occurs with other forms of child maltreatment
(K. Kim, Mennen, & Trickett, 2017; Pynoos et al., 2014; Vachon, Krueger, Rogosch, &
Cicchetti, 2015) and, as some have argued, exists as a component of all forms of child
maltreatment (e.g., Garbarino, 2011; S. Hart & Brassard, 2019; S. Hart et al., 2011).
172 Violence and Maltreatment in Intimate Relationships
To illustrate these points, let’s return to the case of Adrian Peterson discussed in
Chapter 1. Recall that Peterson’s abuse was discovered when medical personnel found
cuts and bruises on his son’s legs. Let’s imagine, for the sake of argument, that other than
physically hurting his child, Peterson was a model parent. He loved, nurtured, respected,
protected, and cared for his child. Let’s also assume that Peterson’s son likewise understood his father to be a model parent, and that he accepted that his father was hitting him
“for his own good.” CPM experts would suggest that these circumstances could cause
harm to the child because once the physical pain subsides, and the physical injuries heal,
the potential psychological damage to the child might not heal as easily. In addition, it
is hard to imagine that a parent could create welts and cuts without also demeaning and
belittling the child.
Scholars have thus increasingly come to understand CPM as a discrete form of
child maltreatment worthy of scientific study (see Brassard, Hart, Baker, & Chiel,
2019). The realization that CPM may be the most pervasive and damaging form
of child maltreatment has spurred research interest in the topic. In the following
sections, we address the current state of knowledge regarding CPM. Much of the
literature to date aims at clarifying definitional issues, and our discussion reflects
that emphasis. We also attempt to address what the research so far reveals about
children who experience CPM, the characteristics of maltreating parents, and the
consequences associated with CPM. We conclude the chapter with descriptions of
various prevention and intervention strategies that scholars have proposed to address
the problem.
SCOPE OF THE PROBLEM
CPM has received less attention than other forms of abuse, in part, because it is so
difficult to define. Where should we draw the line between less-than-adequate parenting, or parental error, or parental frustrations, and psychological maltreatment?
Many, if not most, parents ignore, criticize, or are unsupportive of their children
from time to time. Under what circumstances do these behaviors constitute psychological maltreatment?
What Is Child Psychological Maltreatment?
Would you characterize the following behaviors as abusive? Why or why not?
A mother locks her 3-year-old son in a dark attic as a method of punishment.
A father shackles his 7-year-old son to his bed at night to prevent him from getting
out of bed repeatedly.
Chapter 6
■
Child Psychological Maltreatment 173
A mother says to her daughter, “You are the stupidest, laziest kid on Earth.
I can’t believe you’re my child. They must have switched babies on me at the
hospital.”
A father tells his daughter that he will kill her new puppy if she or the puppy
misbehaves.
A father repeatedly states to one of his children, “I don’t love you.”
A mother refuses to look at or touch her child.
The difficulty in determining what behaviors constitute CPM may contribute to
the idea that it is the most ambiguous form of child abuse. It is likely that nearly all
parents, to some degree, treat their children in inappropriate ways at some time or
another by saying or doing hurtful things they later regret. Such mistakes are a characteristic of most intimate relationships. Few assert, however, that most children are
victims of CPM. Indeed, parenting occurs on a continuum that ranges from healthy
parenting to poor or dysfunctional parenting to psychological maltreatment (Wolfe
& McIsaac, 2011).
One of the most significant areas of confusion is related to the inconsistency of
terms used to describe this form of child maltreatment. Various researchers use the
word psychological while others use the term emotional. Although these two terms
seem to be used interchangeably, the lack of consistency creates confusion. In addition, there is confusion about whether or not this form of child maltreatment refers
only to acts of commission that a parent might engage in against a child or whether
acts of omission should also be included (e.g., Baker & Festinger, 2011). A mother
who tells her child that she is “the stupidest, laziest kid on Earth,” as in the third
scenario, is committing an act of commission (commonly identified as verbal abuse)
while, as in the last scenario, a mom who “refuses to look at or touch her child” is
engaging in an act of omission (failing to nurture her child, typically referred to,
as discussed in Chapter 5, as emotional neglect). The terms used for these various
forms of child maltreatment vary across studies and among researchers. These are
important matters to resolve, as they can significantly impact methods of estimation
and measurement and hamper understanding about the problem. In this chapter,
we use the broader term psychological maltreatment to refer to acts of both omission
and commission to include all forms of psychological and/or emotional abuse and
neglect.
A second conceptual dilemma is whether to include child outcomes as well as parental behaviors in definitions of CPM. Notice that all of the scenarios listed earlier focus
exclusively on parental behavior. Some researchers have argued, however, that child
outcomes such as mental injury or impaired psychological functioning and development
174 Violence and Maltreatment in Intimate Relationships
should be included in our definitions of CPM (Hamarman, Pope, & Czaja, 2002;
S. Hart, Brassard, Binggeli, & Davidson, 2002). This approach is problematic for
several reasons. One problem is that a definition requiring demonstration of harm
precludes the possibility of preventing the harm before it occurs (Glaser, 2002). In
addition, the harm associated with psychological maltreatment may not be evident
immediately; it could take months or even years to develop. Measurable problems
might, in fact, never appear. But if a father repeatedly says to his daughter, “I don’t
love you,” is he not engaged in psychologically abusive behavior, even if his behavior
does not demonstrably harm the daughter?
The American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children (APSAC) in
2017 defined CPM, primarily based on parent behaviors, as “a repeated pattern or
extreme incident(s) of caretaker behavior that thwart the child’s basic psychological
development needs (e.g., safety, socialization, emotional and social support, cognitive
stimulation, respect) and convey a child is worthless, defective, damaged, unloved,
unwanted, endangered, primarily useful in meeting another’s needs, and/or expendable” (p. 3). APSAC (2017) and others have also identified several major subtypes of
CPM, which we review later in this chapter (Glaser, 2011; Kairys & Johnson, 2002;
Wolfe & McIsaac, 2011). According to most researchers and practitioners, one of the
primary factors that distinguishes CPM from nonabusive dysfunctional parenting is
the fact that patterns of CPM are typically chronic, severe, and escalating (Wolfe &
McIsaac, 2011).
Whether CPM refers to behavior on the part of parents or to the consequences
that result for the child is related to the core conceptual problem concerning the
meaning of the term psychological in CPM. The key area of confusion has to do
with whether psychological refers to parental behavior and/or child outcomes that are
nonphysical (or psychological/emotional) in nature. McGee and Wolfe (1991) have
constructed a matrix to explain the multiple conceptual perspectives from which
scholars view CPM. In this model, CPM can be defined based on both child outcomes and parental behaviors. Table 6.1 displays a modified version of this matrix,
which shows various combinations and possibilities for understanding the concept
of CPM. As this matrix shows, parent behaviors can be physical or nonphysical
and can result in either physical or nonphysical (e.g., psychological or emotional)
consequences to the child. Parent behaviors that are physical and result in physical
consequences (e.g., touching a child with a cigarette that results in a burn) fit the
commonly accepted view of child physical abuse. According to McGee and Wolfe,
researchers have defined CPM using the remaining combinations of parenting
behaviors and psychological outcomes. Some would classify a situation in which
a parent engages in physical behavior (e.g., touching a child with a cigarette) that
Chapter 6
TABLE 6.1
■
Child Psychological Maltreatment 175
■ Conceptual Perspectives on Psychological Maltreatment
Parent Behaviors
Consequences
to the Child
Physical
Nonphysical
Physical
Physical abuse
Psychological maltreatment
Example: Choking a child
results in injury to the child’s
trachea.
Example: A parent’s lack of
supervision results in a child’s
being poisoned.
Psychological maltreatment
Psychological maltreatment
Example: Repeatedly beating
a child leads to low selfesteem in the child.
Example: Repeatedly yelling and
screaming at a child leads to low
self-esteem in the child.
Nonphysical
Source: Adapted from McGee & Wolfe, 1991.
results in physical as well as nonphysical outcomes (e.g., anxiety and fear) as CPM.
On the basis of this model, additional physical behaviors carried out by parents (such
as sexual abuse or physical neglect) that result in negative psychological outcomes
would also be considered CPM.
In contrast, some parental behaviors can be nonphysical in nature and still result
in either physical or nonphysical harm to the child. For example, insensitive parenting (e.g., not responding to a child’s needs for nurturance and attention), which
we described in Chapter 5 as a form of emotional neglect, has been linked to both
physical (e.g., malnutrition) and nonphysical (e.g., deficits in cognitive or emotional development) negative outcomes in children. Finally, the combination of
nonphysical parental behavior (e.g., swearing at a child) and nonphysical outcomes
(e.g., decreased self-esteem) reflects the conceptualization of CPM as a distinct or
pure form of child maltreatment (McGee & Wolfe, 1991).
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention define CPM as
intentional caregiver behavior that conveys to a child that he or she is worthless,
flawed, unloved, unwanted, endangered, or valued only in meeting another’s
needs. Psychologically maltreating behaviors may include blaming, belittling, degrading, intimidating, terrorizing, isolating, restraining, confining,
corrupting, exploiting, spurning, or otherwise behaving in a manner that is
harmful, potentially harmful, insensitive to the child’s developmental needs,
or can potentially damage the child psychologically or emotionally. (Leeb,
Paulozzi, Melanson, Simon, & Arias, 2008, p. 11)
176 Violence and Maltreatment in Intimate Relationships
The advantage of this definition is that it recognizes both parent behavior and child
outcomes and that in considering child outcomes, both harm and potential harm are
identified rather than evidence of actual harm (Wolfe & McIsaac, 2011). In addition,
this definition describes specific parental behaviors that constitute CPM. These specific
dimensions of parent behavior are described in the following section.
Proposed Subtypes of Child Psychological Maltreatment
There is much debate about the most appropriate organizational framework to accurately capture the multidimensional nature of CPM. As noted in the previous section of
this chapter, one definitional approach is to focus on specific parental behaviors that we
might deem abusive. Table 6.2 summarizes the subtypes and provides examples of CPM
commonly reported in the literature. It is important to note, however, that different
subtypes of CPM can overlap conceptually and can also co-occur (S. Brown, Rienks,
McCrae, & Watamura, 2019; Dubowitz, Pitts, & Black, 2012; Hodgdon et al., 2018).
Consider, for example, the Machnicks’ teen son from the opening case history. This teen
was clearly exposed to a number of forms of CPM consisting of being rejected, degraded,
and isolated, among others. Eight subtypes have been consistently reported: rejecting,
degrading (i.e., verbal abuse), terrorizing, isolating, missocializing (i.e., corrupting),
exploiting, denying emotional responsiveness (i.e., ignoring), and close confinement.
Other models have additionally suggested a ninth subtype—parental inconsistency
(Kairys & Johnson, 2002). Some frameworks simply list categories of parental behaviors
while others consider the developmental needs of the child; others focus on a continuum
of developmentally appropriate/inappropriate parent–child interactions.
One of the most widely recognized frameworks was offered by APSAC in 1995 and
revised in its Guidelines for the Investigation and Determination of Suspected Psychological Maltreatment in Children and Adolescents (APSAC, 2017). These guidelines
list six categories of parental behaviors that constitute CPM:
Spurning (e.g., verbal and nonverbal hostile rejecting/degrading behaviors)
Terrorizing (e.g., caregiver behaviors that harm or threaten harm to a child or
child’s loved ones or possessions)
Exploiting/corrupting (e.g., encouraging inappropriate behaviors in a child)
Emotional unresponsiveness (e.g., ignoring a child’s needs or failing to express
positive affect toward a child)
Isolating (e.g., denying a child opportunities to interact/communicate with others)
Mental health/medical/educational neglect (e.g., failing to provide for a child’s
needs in these areas)
Chapter 6
■
Child Psychological Maltreatment 177
TABLE 6.2 ■ Subtypes of Child Psychological Maltreatment
Subtype
Description
Examples
Rejecting
Verbal or symbolic acts that
express feelings of rejection
toward the child
Singling out a specific child for
criticism and/or punishment
Refusing to help a child
Routinely rejecting a child’s ideas
Degrading
(i.e., verbally
abusing)
Actions that deprecate a
child
Insulting a child or calling a child
names
Publicly humiliating a child
Constantly criticizing a child
Terrorizing
Actions or threats that
cause extreme fear and/or
anxiety in a child
Continually yelling or swearing at
a child
Threatening to harm a child
Threatening to harm a child’s loved
one
Exposing a child to interpersonal
violence
Punishing a child by playing on
normal childhood fears
Threatening suicide or to leave a child
Using cruel or harsh control methods
Isolating
Preventing a child from
engaging in normal social
activities
Locking a child in a closet or room
Refusing to allow a child to interact
with individuals outside the family
Refusing to allow a child to interact
with other relatives
Missocializing
(i.e., corrupting)
Modeling, permitting, or
encouraging antisocial
behavior in a child
Encouraging delinquent behavior in
a child
Encouraging alcohol or substance
abuse in a child
Indoctrinating a child in racist values
Exploiting
Using a child for the needs,
advantages, or profits of the
caretaker
Treating a child as a surrogate parent
Using a child for child pornography or
prostitution
Using a child to pursue the
caretaker’s unfulfilled dreams
(Continued)
178 Violence and Maltreatment in Intimate Relationships
TABLE 6.2 ■ (Continued)
Subtype
Description
Examples
Denying
emotional
responsiveness
(i.e., ignoring)
Acts of omission whereby
the caretaker does not
provide a child with
necessary stimulation and
responsiveness
Behaving toward a child in a detached
and uninvolved manner
Interacting with a child only if
absolutely necessary
Failing to express affection, caring,
and love toward a child
Refusing to look at a child or call a
child by name
Close
confinement
Restricting a child’s
movement by binding limbs
Tying a child’s arms and legs together
Parental
inconsistency
Parent responds unreliably
and inconsistently to a child
Sporadic or capricious rule- or limitsetting
Tying a child to a chair, bed, or other
object
Responds unpredictably,
accompanied by emotional outburst
Other
Forms of psychological
maltreatment not specified
under other categories
Withholding food, shelter, sleep, or
other necessities from a child as a
form of punishment
Chronically applying developmentally
inappropriate expectations to a
child (sometimes referred to as
overpressuring)
Sources: A representative but not exhaustive list of sources for the information displayed in this table includes the following: APSAC, 2017; Baily & Baily, 1986; Brassard et al., 2019; Garbarino, Guttman, & Seeley,
1986; S. Hart & Brassard, 1991; S. Hart, Germain, & Brassard, 1987; R. Herrenkohl, 2005; Heyman & Smith
Slep, 2009; Kairys & Johnson, 2002; Potter, Nasserie, & Tonmyr, 2015; M. Schneider, Ross, Graham, &
Zielinksi, 2005; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1988; Wolfe & McIsaac, 2011.
Wolfe and McIsaac (2011) suggest that we imagine parental behavior on a continuum ranging from healthy parenting behavior to poor/dysfunctional (but nonabusive)
behavior to more extreme and potentially more harmful parental behaviors that would be
considered CPM. Based on this continuum model, CPM includes parenting deficiencies
in stimulation and emotional expression (e.g., expressing conditional love and ambivalent
feelings toward a child), interactions (e.g., emotionally or physically rejecting a child’s
attention), consistency and predictability (e.g., responding unpredictably, with emotional
discharge), rules and limits (e.g., rules and limits are sporadic or capricious), disciplinary
practices (e.g., cruel and harsh control methods that frighten a child), and emotional
Chapter 6
■
Child Psychological Maltreatment 179
delivery and tone (e.g., frightening, denigrating, threatening, or insulting a child). At
the healthy end of parenting behavior are appropriate and healthy forms of child-rearing
that are child-centered and promote child development, whereas the opposite end of the
continuum includes CPM parenting behaviors that violate children’s basic needs and
dependency status and represent harsh, insensitive, and ineffective forms of child-rearing.
The typologies displayed in Table 6.2 illustrate the subjective nature of definitions of
CPM. Definitions and typological systems represent compilations of the various behaviors and circumstances that researchers in the field have identified. As such, these conceptualizations reflect the values of those who created them, with various advocates and
researchers determining the types of parent–child interactions that should be considered
inappropriate. For example, one researcher m
