UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The effects of ontogenic, microsystem and mesosystem variables on the outcome of child abuse Papatola, Kathleen Joan 1982

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1982_A1 P36.pdf [ 7.85MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0076969.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0076969-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0076969-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0076969-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0076969-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0076969-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0076969-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0076969-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0076969.ris

Full Text

<r.f THE EFFECTS OF ONTOGENIC, MICROSYSTEM AND MESOSYSTEM VARIABLES ON THE OUTCOME OF CHILD ABUSE by KATHLEEN JOAN PAPATOLA A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR IN PHILOSOPHY in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES INTERDISCIPLINARY STUDIES We accept t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA February 1 5 , 1 9 8 2 (c) Kathleen Joan Papatola, 1 9 8 2 In presenting t h i s thesis i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of t h i s thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. I t i s understood that copying or pub l i c a t i o n of t h i s thesis for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission. Department of ^ n^~W~A's-c.,' j)\t'Vyq.u^  <^ ^^ WUio The University of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date (j/)H\ (o DE-6 (2/79) Abstract The purpose of t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n was to empirically test an ecological model^of c h i l d abuse. The orientation of t h i s model i s to address the contexts i n which individuals function. The three contexts p i v o t a l to the current i n v e s t i g a t i o n are the ontogenic system, representing personality t r a i t s and the qua l i t y of care received by the mother i n her childhood j the microsystem, representing the dyadic relationships between the mother and her c h i l d , and the mother and the rest of her family; the microsystem, representing the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the mother and her s o c i a l network as well as the impact of l i f e s tress. A prospective method of investigation was used. One hundred seven women were selected from a larger pool of women previously i d e n t i f i e d as high r i s k . Half of these women were c l e a r l y abusing t h e i r c h i l d r e n while the other half were providing adequate care. Discriminant function analyses were employed to determine the rates of prediction into abusing and nonabu-sing groups, f i r s t f o r in d i v i d u a l systems, then f o r a l l three systems simultaneously. The hypotheses predicted a higher percentage of correct c l a s s i f i c a t i o n when a l l systems were con-sidered together, rather than i n d i v i d u a l l y . These hypotheses were supported. An 86% rate of correct c l a s s i f i c a t i o n was obtained when ontogenic, microsystem and mesosystem variables were entered together. This i s i n contrast to a 76% rate of correct c l a s s i f i c a t i o n f o r ontogenic, 69% f o r microsystem and i 76% f o r the mesosystem. The most powerful predictors were the qu a l i t y of care the mother received i n her own childhood, family continuity and l i f e stress. Results from additional descriptive analyses suggest that women who abuse t h e i r c h i l d r e n are not more s o c i a l l y i s o l a t e d than those who do not abuse, nor are they more impulsive or h o s t i l e . Stress appeared to be an important variable only f o r those women who had, themselves, been victims of abuse. The r e s u l t s of t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n suggest that multivariate methods are a f r u i t f u l d i r e c t i o n f o r future inquiry into abuse etiology. tt TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES iv LIST OF FIGURES v Chapter 1. Introduction 1 Statement of the Problem 2 Purpose of Present Investigation 19 Operational Definitions 22 2. Review of Literature 26 Ontogenic 29 Microsystem 35 Mesosystem 41 3. Methods 54 Sample 55 Data Gathering Procedures 56 Instrumentation 59 Data Analysis 66 4. Results 72 Ontogenic 72 Microsystem 80 Mesosystem 90 Integration 97 Descriptive Analysis 106 5. Discussion 117 Directions for Future Research 129 REFERENCES 136 APPENDIX A: RESULTS OF ANOVA 146 APPENDIX B: INSTRUMENTATION 150 Summary of Authors, Instruments and Dates of Administration i i i APPENDIX C: C o r r e l a t i o n Matrix of V a r i a b l e Set. i v LIST OF TABLES T a b l e Page 1 Item S t a t i s t i c s and F a c t o r Loading M a t r i x of Ontogenic Data 75 2 M u l t i p l e R e g r e s s i o n A n a l y s i s f o r Ontogenic V a r i a b l e s : P e r s o n a l i t y F a c t o r and M a t e r n a l Abuse 77 3 D i s c r i m i n a n t F u n c t i o n C l a s s i f i c a t i o n R e s u l t s : Ontogenic Domain 79 4 Item S t a t i s t i c s and F a c t o r Loading M a t r i x o f M i c r o s y s t e m Data 83 5 M u l t i p l e R e g r e s s i o n A n a l y s i s f o r M i c r o s y s t e m V a r i a b l e s , F a m i l y C o n t i n u i t y , R i g i d i t y , and Attachment 86 6 D i s c r i m i n a n t F u n c t i o n C l a s s i f i c a t i o n R e s u l t s : M i c r o s y s t e m Domain 88 7 D e s c r i p t i v e S t a t i s t i c s f o r M i c r o s y s t e m V a r -i a b l e s on T o t a l Group 91 8 M u l t i p l e R e g r e s s i o n A n a l y s i s f o r Mesosystem V a r i a b l e s : N e t w o r k S i z e , S u p p o r t , D e n s i t y and L i f e S t r e s s 93 9 D i s c r i m i n a n t F u n c t i o n C l a s s i f i c a t i o n R e s u l t s : Mesosystem Domain 95 10 M u l t i p l e R e g r e s s i o n A n a l y s i s : O n t o g e n i c , M i c r o s y s t e m , and Mesosystem Data 99 11 D i s c r i m i n a n t F u n c t i o n A n a l y s i s f o r O n t o g e n i c , M i c r o s y s t e m , and Mesosystem Data 103 12 D i s c r i m i n a n t F u n c t i o n C l a s s i f i c a t i o n R e s u l t s f o r O n t o g e n i c , M i c r o s y s t e m , and Mesosystem Data 105 13 Planned Comparisons Between Abused and Not Abused Mother Groups: Abusing and Not Abusing Mother Groups on O n t o g e n i c , M i c r o -system, and Mesosystem V a r i a b l e s 109 14 Planned Comparisons Between AA v s . AB and BA v s . BB Mother Groups f o r O n t o g e n i c , M i c r o s y s t e m and Mesosystem Data 112 v LIST OF FIGURES AND ILLUSTRATIONS Figu r e Page 1 Bronfenbrenner's Model of E c o l o g i c a l System 12 2 B e l s k y ' s Adaptation of B r o n f e n b r e n n e r 1 s Model 14 3 E c o l o g i c a l Model Serving as B a s i s f o r Current I n v e s t i g a t i o n 18 v i Acknowledgement I would f i r s t l i k e to thank each of my committee mem-bers for their encouragement and support of the i n i t i a l i n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y program of studies: Drs. Robert Conry, John Friesen, John Gossage, Sue Penfold, Jerry Wiggens and Richard Young. Their s p i r i t e d enthusiasm for this project, and willingness to come together as a group, continually served as a source of support. Their willingness to offer d i r e c t i o n and guidance and to answer a seemingly endless stream of questions, went far beyond their regular responsi-b i l i t i e s and academic duties. I deeply appreciate their consideration, time, and e f f o r t s . This research investigation would not have been possi-ble at a l l i f i t were not for Dr. Byron Egeland and his Mother-Child Project s t a f f at the University of Minnesota: Mary Breitenbucher, Les l i e Chricton, Michael Dodds, J u l i e Johnson, Anne Meyer, and Hunter Roe. Dr. Egeland's extreme generosity with data, materials, f i n a n c i a l resources and time was a tremendous support. The s t a f f ' s willingness to increase their workload and to c o l l e c t additional data went above and beyond the c a l l of duty. I am deeply indebted to him and his s t a f f for the kindness, consideration, and e f f o r t s towards the completion of t h i s project. And f i n a l l y , I wish to thank Tim Peterson, my husband, whose unceasing encouragement, support, love, and f a i t h in me and t h i s project, kept me going. N r v i i CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Some of them w i l l grow up to correctional i n s t i t u t i o n s , to mental hospitals, some to d r i f t i n g and economic dependence, some to create families l i k e those they knew as children. They are the children of neglect and abuse. (Young, 1964:2) Child abuse i s not a new problem. Those that have traced the history of parent-child relationships provide ample evidence for t h i s ( C o l l i n s , 1975; ten Bensel, 1976). What has changed most in the past 15 years i s the l e v e l of awareness by concerned professionals, and an increased rec-ognition of the growing need to d i r e c t l y confront maladap-tive parenting and i t s e f f e c t s . There i s l i t t l e doubt that the number of reported cases of c h i l d abuse has increased since the early 1960's. Recent estimates of the incidence rate range from 600,000 (Antler, 1978) to 1.5 m i l l i o n cases per year in the United States alone (Gelles, 1978). It i s unclear however, whether incidence i t s e l f i s on the r i s e , or i f increased reporting i s due to a series of p o l i t i c a l and l e g i s l a t i v e changes; foremost among these are the design and implementation of mandatory reporting procedures of a l l cases of suspected abuse and neglect. Even with recent l e g i s l a t i o n , accurate projections are frequently confounded by differences in the d e f i n i t i o n of abuse, i n d i v i d u a l i t y of reporting s t y l e s , and enforcement of the mandate. The current trend in awareness i s due in large part to Kempe*s exposition of the problem in 1962 (Kempe, Silverman, -1-Steele, Droegmueller & Henry, 1962). I n i t i a l observations, although c l i n i c a l l y based and anecdotally reported, served as the c r u c i a l premier etage for later theory building and subsequent hypothesis t e s t i n g . The discovery of patterns of s i m i l a r i t i e s among abusing parents was important to the development of a multiple based etiology. As investigators began to recognize a series of t r a i t s and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t y p i c a l of the abusive parent, the notion that abuse was caused by a single factor (such as personality dysfunction or poverty) began to s h i f t , and a new emphasis was placed on the investigation of combinations of factors that seemed l i k e l y to influence outcome. Statement of the Problem There are three basic models of abuse etiology: psychi-a t r i c , s o c i o l o g i c a l , and s o c i a l - i n t e r a c t i o n a l . Belsky (1980), however, has suggested that these models be inte-grated and framed within the context of Bronfenbrenner 1s (1979) model of ecological development. Defining the problem for the current investigation i s done in four steps. F i r s t , each of the three t r a d i t i o n a l approaches i s b r i e f l y reviewed. Second, Bronfenbrenner's (1979) model i s discussed. Next, Belsky's (1980) model i s elucidated and discussed in r e l a t i o n to the three t r a d i -t i o n a l views. F i n a l l y , an adaptation of the Belsky model, designed by t h i s author, i s presented. It i s thi s f i n a l model that serves as the the o r e t i c a l basis for the present investigation. P s y c h i a t r i c . Stemming from the observations of Kempe -2-and his colleagues (Kempe et. a l . , 1962), psychiatric notions of c h i l d abuse o r i g i n a l l y grew from a psychodynamic model of functioning. This th e o r e t i c a l base, although modi-fied in recent years by some proponents, viewed c h i l d abuse as the d i r e c t r e s u l t of parental personality dysfunction. The aggressive drive of the parent hypothetically originated in early childhood experiences. The inadequacy of these early experiences was most often t y p i f i e d by unmet depen-dency needs and a lack of emotional security. In adulthood then, the negative effects of these early experiences t r i g -gered f r u s t r a t i o n and h o s t i l i t y which were subsequently d i s -placed onto the parent's own infant. These feelings of anger rendered the parent incapable of meeting the same needs for emotional security, comfort and physical care, thus setting the stage for another cycle and generation of abuse (Steele and Pollack, 1968). So firm was the b e l i e f that abuse was the result of a defective personality structure, Boisvert (1972) constructed a typology for c l a s s i f y i n g abusive parents on the basis of personality c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Six general categories were established including the psychotic, inadequate, passive-ag-gressive and s a d i s t i c types whose members were generally c l a s s i f i e d as 'uncontrolled in their battering'. Parents who were 'controlled' in their abuse were described as exhibiting 'displacement of aggression', or were regarded as 'cold d i s c i p l i n a r i a n s ' incapable of responding to a c h i l d ' s need for love and a f f e c t i o n in a warm and appropriate man-ner. The major problem with typologies such as these i s the -3-d i s r e g a r d f o r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f both the c h i l d and the e n v i r o n m e n t , and the i n t e r a c t i v e f o r c e s unique t o each s i t u -a t i o n . D e s p i t e the f a c t t h a t p e r s o n a l i t y d e f i c i t s seemed to be e v i d e n t among p a r e n t s who abused t h e i r c h i l d r e n , the spe-c i f i c t y p e s of p s y c h i a t r i c m o r b i d i t y and i n c i d e n c e r a t e s were not h i g h l y r e l i a b l e . In an i n t e n s i v e s t u d y t r a c k i n g 60 f a m i l i e s over a f i v e and one h a l f year p e r i o d , most abusers were s a i d to have e x h i b i t e d i n t r a p s y c h i c d i s t u r b a n c e s s e v e r e enough t o w a r r a n t t h e r a p e u t i c i n t e r v e n t i o n r e g a r d l e s s o f the p r e s e n t i n g problem of m a l t r e a t m e n t ( S t e e l e and P o l l a c k , 1968). However, a subsequent r e - e v a l u a t i o n o f those d a t a i n d i c a t e d t h a t l e s s than 10% o f a l l those p e r s o n s r e f e r r e d f o r abuse c o u l d be s i m i l a r l y c l a s s i f i e d ( S t e e l e , 1976). In a more r e c e n t s t u d y o f p a r e n t s who commit a c t s o f s e v e r e abuse however, 76% were d i a g n o s e d w i t h e i t h e r a p e r s o n a l i t y or n e u r o t i c d i s o r d e r w h i l e 30% gave h i s t o r i e s o f s u i c i d a l a t t e m p t s or g e s t u r e s . T h i r t y - f o u r p e r c e n t had been p s y c h i -a t r i c i n p a t i e n t s and 30% were c l a s s i f i e d as b o r d e r l i n e or m e n t a l l y subnormal ( B a l d w i n and O l i v e r , 1979). C o u p l i n g t hese f i n d i n g s w i t h S t e e l e ' s e s t i m a t e o f p s y c h o p a t h o l o g y among abu s i n g p a r e n t s may i n i t i a l l y appear p a r a d o x i c . How-e v e r , B a l d w i n and O l i v e r ' s s t u d y i s l i m i t e d to c a s e s o f s e v e r e abuse, s u g g e s t i n g t h a t the degree o f p a r e n t a l p a t h o l -ogy may be d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d to the s e v e r i t y o f t r e a t m e n t to which the c h i l d i s s u b j e c t e d . G i v e n the l i m i t e d knowledge base a t t h i s p o i n t , f i n d i n g s such as t h e s e do not p r o v i d e an adequate b a s i s f o r the development o f an e n t i r e e t i o l o g i c a l -4-model. They do, however, y i e l d enough evidence to m e r i t continued i n v e s t i g a t i o n of p e r s o n a l i t y f a c t o r s as a compo-nent among c o n t r i b u t i n g i n f l u e n c e s . To p o s t u l a t e that dys-f u n c t i o n a l p e r s o n a l i t y s t r u c t u r e s alone account f o r abusive s i t u a t i o n s f a i l s to acknowledge the complexity of o u t s i d e i n f l u e n c e s as w e l l as i n d i v i d u a l response p a t t e r n s . S o c i o l o g i c a l . Proponents of the s o c i o l o g i c a l model of abuse address the problem on one of two d i s t i n c t l e v e l s , here r e f e r r e d to as the g l o b a l l e v e l and the s p e c i f i c l e v e l . A g l o b a l l e v e l of a n a l y s i s c o n s i d e r s the impact of broad s o c i e t a l i n f l u e n c e s such as s o c i a l v a l u e s and c l a s s membership. One of the most v i s i b l e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the p o p u l a t i o n of abusing parents thus f a r has been low s o c i o e -conomic s t a t u s (SES) . Although t h i s has r e p e a t e d l y been noted i n the l i t e r a t u r e (Jaraytane, 1977; G i l , 1970; G i l , 1977; P e l t o n , 1979) there seems to be some disagreement regarding the s p e c i f i c i t y o f i n f l u e n c e ; i . e . , what are the t r a i t s of lower SES groups t h a t p l a c e them at higher r i s k f o r abuse than t h e i r middle c l a s s c o u n t e r p a r t s ? Are these d i f f e r e n c e s true or are the r e p o r t i n g laws and procedures bia s e d towards the lower SES groups? Long-standing debate c e n t e r i n g on the c l a s s i s s u e has f a i l e d to come up with a d e f i n i t i v e answer to t h i s problem. Most of the reported f i n d i n g s i d e n t i f y a m a j o r i t y of the cases as o c c u r r i n g among parents i n the lower SES groups. These f i n d i n g s have been c r i t i c i z e d as u n f a i r because lower economic group members are more v i s i b l e (through we l f a r e r o l l s , p u b l i c h e a l t h c l i n -i c s and community agencies) and much more e a s i l y accessed -5-f o r r e s e a r c h p u r p o s e s . Indeed, i n a r e c e n t r e v i e w o f over 200 p u b l i c a t i o n s , n o t one s t u d y i n v o l v i n g a m i d d l e c l a s s sample was l o c a t e d ( P a p a t o l a , 1980). P e l t o n (1979) , how-e v e r , c l e a r l y b e l i e v e s t h a t abuse i s one o f the e f f e c t s o f p o v e r t y and i s more common among low, r a t h e r than m i d d l e or upper income i n d i v i d u a l s . He b e l i e v e s t h a t the " c l a s s l e s s s t a n c e " , or the h y p o t h e s i s t h a t abuse o c c u r s a c r o s s a l l income l e v e l s i s a p o l i t i c a l myth manufactured by p o l i t i -c i a n s who r e f u s e to assume the s o c i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y n e c es-s a r y f o r e f f e c t i v e program i m p l e m e n t a t i o n . The second g l o b a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c i s proposed by G e l l e s (1979) who s u g g e s t s t h a t abuse o c c u r s as a n a t u r a l e x t e n s i o n of the s o c i a l v i o l e n c e e v i d e n t among we s t e r n c u l t u r e s . G i l (1977) advances t h i s one s t e p f u r t h e r and b e l i e v e s t h a t a reduced i n h i b i t i o n f o r the e x p r e s s i o n o f v i o l e n c e among lower c l a s s g r o u p s , c o u p l e d w i t h the c u l t u r a l a p p r o v a l o f p h y s i c a l f o r c e , may account f o r some o f the d i f f e r e n c e s between lower and m i d d l e c l a s s p o p u l a t i o n s . The second l e v e l o f a n a l y s i s , the s p e c i f i c l e v e l , i n a s o c i o l o g i c a l model i d e n t i f i e s c e r t a i n t r a i t s o f i n d i v i d u a l (or f a m i l y ) f u n c t i o n i n g as c h a r a c t e r i s t i c among per s o n s who abuse t h e i r c h i l d r e n : the two most common o f which are s t r e s s and s o c i a l i s o l a t i o n . The r e c o g n i t i o n o f s t r e s s as a p o s s i b l e f a c t o r i n abuse was f i r s t advanced i n the mid-1970's. S e v e r a l i n v e s t i g a t o r s were a b l e t o a s c e r t a i n s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s on s t r e s s l e v e l s between ab u s i n g and non-abusing groups o f p a r e n t s (Conger, Burgess & B a r r e t t , 1979; J u s t i c e and Duncan, 1976; -6-Kempe and Kempe, 1978). In a l l cases, parents who abused their children reported higher l e v e l s of l i f e stress than their non-abusing counterparts. Kempe and Kempe (1978) , in their most recent work, state that an abusive incident i s much more l i k e l y to occur at a time of stress than at a time when stress may be absent. Marital c o n f l i c t , loss of employment or an unex-pected or unwanted geographical move are types of s t r e s s f u l situations capable of triggering abusive patterns. Another major c h a r a c t e r i s t i c frequently noted among parents who abuse their children, but rarely empirically investigated, i s s o c i a l i s o l a t i o n (Young, 1964; Elmer, 1967; Reed, 1975; Kempe and Kempe, 1978; Rosenfeld and Newberger, 1978.) Garbarino and Stocking (1980) state that when families are not exposed to the nurturance and feedback provided by informal support systems, c h i l d maltreatment thrives. If patterns of maltreatment begin to emerge in a s o c i a l l y isolated family, the children have no 'allies'...1ikewise, parents who are in isolated families are cut off from potential sources of assistance (p. 5). The d i r e c t i o n of the relationship between abuse and so c i a l i s o l a t i o n i s , however, somewhat unclear. Does abuse engender isolation? That i s , do abusing parents i s o l a t e themselves from friends and family because they fear being 'found out'? Or i s i t that isolated families lack the sup-port necessary to ward off abuse as Garbarino and Stocking (1980) suggest? -7-Parke and C o l l m e r (1975) suggest t h a t a b u s i v e p a r e n t s i s o l a t e t h e m s e l v e s to a v o i d d e t e c t i o n . They b e l i e v e such p a r e n t s l a c k n e c e s s a r y s k i l l s t o form and m a i n t a i n f r i e n d -s h i p s and community t i e s and/or are a v o i d e d by o t h e r s i n the community because they d i s a p p r o v e o f the manner i n which these p a r e n t s t r e a t t h e i r c h i l d r e n . E m p i r i c a l e v i d e n c e a t t h i s p o i n t , however, i s l a c k i n g and a d e f i n i t i v e statement on the d i r e c t i o n o f the r e l a t i o n -s h i p between abuse and i s o l a t i o n i s premature. S o c i a l - i n t e r a c t i o n a l . The s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n a l a pproach, sometimes r e f e r r e d to as 'the e f f e c t o f the c h i l d on the c a r e g i v e r model', s u g g e s t s t h a t c e r t a i n c h a r a c t e r i s -t i c s o f the c h i l d i n t e r a c t w i t h another s e t o f c h a r a c t e r i s -t i c s i n the p a r e n t t o c r e a t e a s y n e r g i s t i c e f f e c t r e s u l t i n g i n abuse. Both p a r e n t and c h i l d make s i g n i f i c a n t c o n t r i b -u t i o n s t o t h i s outcome. I t i s from t h i s s c h o o l o f t h o u g h t , perhaps more than any o t h e r , t h a t the n o t i o n o f the c h i l d at r i s k matured. H e i f e r (1975) o u t l i n e s t h r e e c o n d i t i o n s he b e l i e v e s n e ces-s a r y f o r abuse to o c c u r : p a r e n t a l p r e d i s p o s i t i o n t o abuse, a c r i s i s or a s e r i e s o f c r i s e s ; and a s p e c i a l type o f c h i l d , e.g., a c h i l d w i t h b e h a v i o r a l , p h y s i c a l , and/or i n t e l l e c t u a l d e f i c i t s . When a l l t h r e e c o n d i t i o n s a re met the s i t u a t i o n i s c o n s i d e r e d e x p l o s i v e and the c h i l d i s c o n s i d e r e d to be a t h i g h r i s k . S u p p o r t i n g the n o t i o n t h a t the c h i l d i s an a c t i v e c on-t r i b u t o r t o the a b u s i v e s i t u a t i o n , B i s h o p (1971) has o u t -l i n e d s e v e r a l groups o f 'at r i s k ' c h i l d r e n . Among these a re -8-the i l l e g i t i m a t e , premature and c o n g e n i t a l l y deformed c h i l d , as w e l l as c h i l d r e n o f women w i t h e x c e s s i v e work l o a d s , mul-t i p l e p r e g n a n c i e s or p r e g n a n c i e s c o m p l i c a t e d by m a t e r n a l i l l n e s s . The ' s p e c i a l type o f c h i l d ' H e i f e r mentions may be, as Bi s h o p o u t l i n e d , p r e m a t u r e , c o n g e n i t a l l y deformed or o t h e r -wise h a n d i c a p p e d . In a s t u d y based on o b s e r v a t i o n s by hos-p i t a l p e r s o n n e l and s o c i a l workers l o n g a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the stud y f a m i l i e s , Johnson and M o r r i s (1968) found t h a t 70% of the c h i l d r e n under i n v e s t i g a t i o n had demonstrated p h y s i c a l or d e v e l o p m e n t a l d e v i a t i o n s b e f o r e a c t u a l i n j u r i e s o c c u r r e d . These c h i l d r e n were d e s c r i b e d as o v e r l y a c t i v e , r e t a r d e d , speech or o t h e r w i s e d e l a y e d , and were c o n s i d e r e d d i f f i c u l t t o c a r e f o r . T h e i r b e h a v i o r seemed q u a l i t a t i v e l y d i f f e r e n t from the b e h a v i o r o f c h i l d r e n who were not abused. I n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n i n f a n t temperament have been e x t e n s i v e l y i n v e s t i g a t e d by Thomas, B i r c h , Chess, Herzog and Korn (1963) . They were a b l e t o i d e n t i f y i n d i v i d u a l p a t t e r n s of p r i m a r y r e a c t i v i t y i n e a r l y i n f a n c y which appeared p e r -s i s t e n t through l a t e r p e r i o d s o f l i f e . T h e i r f i n d i n g s were an i m p o r t a n t l i n k i n the u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f how i n d i v i d u a l i n f a n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were c a p a b l e o f i n f l u e n c i n g i n f a n t c a r e . C h i l d r e n who were d i f f i c u l t were v e r y a c t i v e . They demonstrated lower a r o u s a l t h r e s h o l d s and when a r o u s e d , e x h i b i t e d more i n t e n s e r e a c t i o n s (Thomas, Chess and B i r c h , 1968). A d i f f i c u l t c h i l d born to a woman f e e l i n g i l l - p r e -pared and/or u n w i l l i n g t o assume the r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o f p a r e n t i n g i s more l i k e l y t o be a t r i s k f o r abuse than an -9-easy baby born t o an eager and competent mother. As the i n f a n t or c h i l d c o n t r i b u t e s t o the i n t e r a c t i v e p r o c e s s , so too does the p a r e n t . C a s t l e (1976), i n a d e t a i l e d i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f f a m i l i e s r e f e r r e d to a t r e a t m e n t c e n t e r i n London, s i m i l a r l y i d e n t i f i e d s e v e r a l p r e d i s p o s i n g f a c t o r s t o abuse. In a m a j o r i t y o f the abuse c a s e s r e f e r -r e d , women c i t e d the pregnancy as unplanned and unwanted. These mothers e x h i b i t e d f e e l i n g s o f h e l p l e s s n e s s and f r u s -t r a t i o n which f o s t e r e d an a t t i t u d i n a l r e j e c t i o n o f the c h i l d b e f o r e b i r t h . Many o f thes e women c o n s i d e r e d themselves too young to bear a c h i l d and were not p r e p a r e d to a c c e p t the r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o f p a r e n t i n g . O t h e r s were plagued w i t h f e e l i n g s o f b e i n g overwhelmed, h a v i n g g i v e n b i r t h t o another c h i l d as r e c e n t l y as 10 months p r i o r t o the c u r r e n t d e l i v -e r y . Many e x p e r i e n c e d s e v e r e m a r i t a l d i s c o r d and some were abandoned by t h e c h i l d ' s f a t h e r d u r i n g the g e s t a t i o n p e r i o d . Almost w i t h o u t e x c e p t i o n , t h e s e women l a c k e d a s u p p o r t i v e network from which t o seek a i d and were g e n e r a l l y c o n s i d e r e d s o c i a l i s o l a t e s . N e g a t i v e c i r c u m s t a n c e s and a t t i t u d e s s u r -r o u n d i n g the b i r t h o f a c h i l d are p a r t o f a p a r e n t ' s con-t r i b u t i o n t o the d y a d i c i n t e r a c t i o n t h a t may r e s u l t i n abuse. S p e c i f i c c o n t r i b u t i o n s o f both the mother and the i n f a n t i n t e r a c t and t h e r e f o r e e f f e c t t he subsequent d e v e l o p -ment o f both p e r s o n s . The r e s u l t s o f i n v e s t i g a t i o n s from normal m o t h e r - i n f a n t p a i r s s u p p o r t the concept t h a t abnormal p a r e n t i n g p r a c t i c e s a r i s e , n o t out o f a s i n g l e f a c t o r , but are the r e s u l t o f a c o m b i n a t i o n o f s e v e r a l e l e m e n t s . On the -10-the infant's part, s i g n a l l i n g and response patterns ( B e l l , 1977), l e v e l of a c t i v i t y and manageability (Thomas et a l , 1953) mesh with maternal variables such as attitude towards the c h i l d , sources of support, and information on c h i l d care (Klaus and Kennel, 1976; Maden and Wrench, 1977; Egeland and Brunnquell, 1979) to create a unique synergistic e f f e c t of mother-infant i n t e r a c t i o n . An Integration. While the models described above are not mutually exclusive and may indeed have common elements, as individual models they f a i l in two major respects. The f i r s t weakness i s an inadequate integration of much of the known information. The second is a f a i l u r e , thus f a r , to c l e a r l y i d e n t i f y and examine the interactions among the most prevalent c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , and further, to incorporate those interactions into a complete model of etiology. Belsky (1980) has responded to these c r i t i c i s m s by attempting to integrate divergent patterns of theory and etiology, believing that the differences between the current models are more apparent than r e a l . His conceptual frame-work i s based on an adaptation of Bronfenbrenner's model of ecological development. B r i e f l y , Bronfenbrenner has d e l i -neated a scheme of systematic relationships, grounded in the contexts in which the developing person i s found. His b e l i e f i s that in order to f u l l y understand human behavior, one must regard not only the i n d i v i d u a l , but the multiple systems in which the developing person i s found. In addi-t i o n , these systems must be explored for interactions that extend well beyond the immediate se t t i n g . There are four -11-basic systems to the Bronfenbrenner model, nested one inside the other: the microsystem, the mesosytem, the exosystem and the macrosystem. A representation of the ove r a l l framework is presented in Figure 1. A. Microsystem B. Mesosystem C. Exosystem D. Macrosystem Figure 1. Bronfenbrenner's model of ecological systems. B r i e f l y , the systems are defined as follows. The microsystem i s a complex pattern of dyadic interactions experienced by the developing person within a variety of given settings including the home, school, and day care. The mesosystem consists of int e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s between two or more settings in which-an individual is active. These may include relations between/among the home, school, neighbor-hood, family, peers, or work. The mesosystem is alternately defined as a series of microsystems. The exosystem refers -12-to one or more settings which a f f e c t the i n d i v i d u a l , but in which the person i s not actually contained, e.g., p o l i t i c a l systems, c i t y , state, and federal regulating bodies, etc. The macrosystem represents c u l t u r a l consistencies which hold true for a large group of persons including underlying b e l i e f systems, ideologies and c u l t u r a l mores in operation. In other words, i t i s the c u l t u r a l blueprint for a given society. Although Bronfenbrenner's model accounts for a number of external influences that af f e c t an individual's develop-ment, i t lacks a provision for the e f f e c t s of 1intrapersonal development', or individual psychological development. Bel-sky's adaptation of Bronfenbrenner 1s model provides t h i s missing l i n k by incorporating Tinbergen's work in ontogenic development. By coupling Bronfenbrenner's concern for human ecology with Tinbergen's concern for ontogenic development, Belsky weaves a conceptual framework that i s suitable both for ordering data previously gathered, and acting as a theo-r e t i c a l base for further investigations. Belsky discusses three l e v e l s at which the ontogenic area may be considered pertinent for abuse research. The f i r s t l e v e l asks how a p a r t i c u l a r parent grows up to behave in an abusive manner. The second addresses the immediate antecedents of the event which would explain i t s occurrence at a given point in time. The t h i r d relates to the conse-quences of the act, i . e . , the possible functions that the maladaptive behavior serves. He supports the addition of an ontogenic element to the model with evidence from the l i t e r --13-ature c i t i n g commonly observed t r a i t s in abusing parents including h i s t o r i e s of maltreatment, nonnurturing environ-ments, early exposure to violence and emotional deprivation resulting in role reversal (Belsky, 1980) . In adding t h i s ontogenic component to the center of the nested model, he deletes the mesosystm and retains the four structure system. Figure 2 demonstrates t h i s adaptation. Figure 2. Belsky's adaptation of Bronfenbrenner's ecological model. Although t h i s framework i s a step toward a t o t a l l y integrative model of abuse, i t s author feels i t does not yet account for the necessary and s u f f i c i e n t conditions for c h i l d maltreatment to occur, but suggests the proposed framework as useful in guiding future inquiry. -14-An adaptation; the current model and basis for present  investigation. In an attempt to begin incorporating an eco-l o g i c a l framework for the basis of c h i l d abuse investiga-tions, t h i s author has developed a t h i r d model of ecology. This current model i s unique to the two previously described models in that i t addresses only those systems in which an individual i s actually contained; in other words, only those systems in which the individual i s a d i r e c t p a r t i c i p a n t . For example, a mother i s an active participant in the dyadic relationship with her c h i l d ; she i s contained in a microsys-tem. S i m i l a r l y , a woman maintains d i r e c t contact with her friends, r e l a t i v e s and other important figures. Hence, she par t i c i p a t e s in her s o c i a l network; she i s contained in a mesosystem. The decision to l i m i t t h i s investigation to systems in which the mother i s actually contained was done for several reasons. F i r s t , while the author has no theoretical argu-ment with the e f f e c t s of both the exosystem and the macro-system, there appears to be a natural d i v i s i o n between those systems in which an individual is contained and those in which she i s not. For example, while the p o l i t i c a l and gov-ernmental regulating bodies (exosystem) may a f f e c t the qual-i t y of l i f e for i t s c i t i z e n s , most individuals do not d i r e c t l y partake of that process. S i m i l a r l y , c u l t u r a l con-s i s t e n c i e s , norms and ideologies (macrosystem) may have a powerful impact on individual behavior, but are influences that evolve over extended periods of time. They are con-sis t e n t for a l l those who l i v e in the same society and -15-r e f l e c t c u l t u r a l norms that have been years in the making. Second, although individuals are generally not con-tained in the exosystem and macrosystem, there i s l i t t l e doubt that these systems are capable of influencing behav-i o r . For example, the recent cutbacks of the Reagan admin-i s t r a t i o n in s o c i a l welfare and educational programs d i r e c t l y influence the o v e r a l l quality of l i f e for m i l l i o n s of Americans. The r e l i a b l e and v a l i d assessment of the impact of these changes on individual behavior i s extremely d i f f i c u l t . While we may hypothesize that vast cutbacks may increase stress, feelings of f r u s t r a t i o n , helplessness and a sense of i s o l a t i o n (in turn affecting the quality of the parent-child r e l a t i o n s h i p ) , there i s no way of r e l i a b l y . testing these associations within a reasonable time frame-work. The p r a c t i c a l l i m i t a t i o n s with regard to the size and scope of the proposed research e f f o r t prompted the design of the empirically more manageable model. Third, the systems that are included were chosen because of their l o g i c a l f i t with work previously conducted on abuse etiology. Variables believed to be representative of each system were selected on the basis of available l i t -erature, input from persons knowledgeable in the area, and on the a v a i l a b i l i t y and adequacy of assessment too l s . For example, the variables selected within the ontogenic domain r e f l e c t primarily the personality development of the mother, as well as the quality of care she received in her own childhood. Variables in the microsystem r e f l e c t the quality of -16-attachment between mother and c h i l d , and the mother's per-ception of how her family functions: i t s degree of expres-sion, c o n f l i c t , p a r t i c i p a t i o n in outside a c t i v i t i e s , and attitude towards the general well- being of the family. Mesosystem variables concentrate on the relationships between the mother and her s o c i a l support system or s o c i a l networks. They attempt to address the degree of s o c i a l i s o -l a t i o n , feelings of support and amount of stress the mother exper iences. Fourth, while each system i s viewed as having the potential for a s i g n i f i c a n t contribution to the prediction of abuse, i t i s assumed that the combination of these sys-tems and influences interact among themselves to produce unique e f f e c t s . A clearer understanding of these interac-tions w i l l increase predictive a b i l i t y and better f a c i l i t a t e eventual i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of problematic parent-child interac-tion . Figure 3 i l l u s t r a t e s the adapted model. -17-A. Ontogenic C. Mesosystem B. Microsystem Figure 3. Ecological model serving as basis for current investigation. In summary, the ecological model upon which t h i s inves-t i g a t i o n i s based was derived from two main sources. The f i r s t was Bronfenbrenner's concern for the context in which individual development takes place and his elucidation of four ecological systems: the microsystem, the mesosystem, the exosystem, and the macrosystem. The second was Belsky 1s adaptation of Bronfenbrenner's model and his addition of a component that would allow for individual psychological, or intrapersonal, development. The present model d i f f e r s from the f i r s t two in that i t investigates only those systems in which an individual is contained. S p e c i f i c a l l y , the systems considered are the ontogenic, the microsystem and the mesosystem. - 1 8 -Purpose of Present Investigation The purpose of the present investigation i s four- f o l d . F i r s t , each system was studied i n d i v i d u a l l y to determine the amount of variance i t s variables were able to contribute to the o v e r a l l outcome of abuse. Second, a l l three systems were regarded together to determine the t o t a l amount of var-iance they c o l l e c t i v e l y accounted f o r . Third, each system was again regarded i n d i v i d u a l l y to assess i t s predictive a b i l i t y ; that i s , to determine how well each system was able to predict abusing and non-abusing groups. F i n a l l y , a l l systems were regarded c o l l e c t i v e l y to determine their pre-d i c t i v e a b i l i t y into abusing and non-abusing groups. The hypotheses for these are as follows: (1) That personality and maternal abuse variables com-bined w i l l account for a s i g n i f i c a n t amount of the variance in the ontogenic domain. (2) That maternal abuse w i l l account for more variance than the personality data. (3) That a s i g n i f i c a n t number of cases w i l l be cor-r e c t l y predicted into abusing and nonabusing groups sol e l y on the basis of the ontogenic data. (4) That data obtained on the family environment com-bined with the attachment ratings w i l l account for a s i g n i f i c a n t amount of the variance within the microsystem. (5) That a s i g n i f i c a n t number of cases w i l l be cor-r e c t l y c l a s s i f i e d into abusing and nonabusing groups so l e l y on the basis of the microsystem data. - 1 9 -(6) That network s i z e , support density and l i f e stress w i l l account for a s i g n i f i c a n t amount of variance within the mesosystem. (7) That a s i g n i f i c a n t number of cases w i l l be cor-r e c t l y predicted into abusing and nonabusing groups sol e l y on the basis of the mesosystem data. (8) That the combination of a l l systems into a single stepwise regression analysis w i l l account for more variance than the variance accounted for by any one of the systems i n d i v i d u a l l y . (9) That the rate of correct c l a s s i f i c a t i o n into abus-ing and nonabusing groups from the t o t a l model i s greater than the rate of correct c l a s s i f i c a t i o n for any one system i n d i v i d u a l l y . In order to better describe groups of abusing and non-abusing women, and to determine the relationship between having been abused in childhood and system variables, the following question was posed: -20-What is the relationship between having been abused in one's own childhood and: a) the incidence of s p e c i f i c personality characteris-t i c s and their influence on the subsequent abuse of one's children? b) maternal perception of family environment and i t s influence on the abuse of one's children? c) parent-child interaction and i t s influence on the development of abuse of one's children? d) c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of an ongoing s o c i a l network and i t s influence on the abuse of one's children? S p e c i f i c a l l y , the hypotheses for these questions are as follows. (10) Women who abuse their children are s i g n i f i c a n t l y more l i k e l y to have been abused in childhood than women who do not abuse. (11) Women who abuse their children seek more sympathy and reassurance, are more aggressive, impulsive, suspicious, and anxious than women who do not abuse. (12) Women who abuse their children are more l i k e l y to have children who are anxiously attached to them than those who do not. (13) Women who abuse their children view family members as more dependent, higher on c o n f l i c t , lower on expressiveness, and pa r t i c i p a t i n g in fewer a c t i v i -t i e s outside the home than women who do not abuse. (14) Women who abuse their children have smaller s o c i a l -21-networks and feel less supported by their networks than those who do not abuse. (15) Women who abuse their children are higher on l i f e stress than those who do not abuse. Operational De f i n i t i o n s Maternal Abuse (in childhood) . The f i r s t ontogenic variable i s maternal abuse. For purposes of t h i s investiga-t i o n , maternal abuse i s defined as the maternal report of having been treated in a manner considered inappropriate (by the investigator) by either a primary caregiver (mother or father f i g u r e ) , or a s i b l i n g , who had the perceived permis-sion of the caregiver to mistreat the subject and whose actions resulted in any one, or combination of the follow-ing : a) physical marks on c h i l d ' s body including bruising, bite marks and/or skin d i s c o l o r a t i o n ; b) i n j u r i e s resulting in broken skin including contu-sions, lacerations and burns; c) internal trauma manifested by broken bones, subdural hematoma, internal bleeding and previously unde-tected fractures at various stages of healing; d) inadequate clothing and shelter for weather condi-tions: being locked outside of one's dwelling for lengthy periods of time; e) abandonment by one or both parent figures for extended periods of time without adequate provisions for food, shelter and nurturance; f) having spent a s i g n i f i c a n t amount of time in several -22-foster dwellings; g) admission to hospital for i n j u r i e s i n f l i c t e d by careg iver; h) doctor's v i s i t for i n j u r i e s i n f l i c t e d by caregiver; i) sexual molestation by a person more than f i v e years the c h i l d ' s senior at time of incident; j) repeated sexual a c t i v i t y , including intercourse by an adolescent, e.g., a s i b l i n g or an adult. Ontogenic Var iables Aggression Defendence (Suspic iousness) Impulsivity Succorance Stress Anx iety Operat ional D e f i n i t i o n Aggression subscale score from Jackson's Personality Research Form (PRF) Defendence subscale score from PRF Impulsivity subscale score from PRF Succorance subscale score from PRF Stress score obtained from Egeland's adaptation of the Cochrane-Robertson Li f e Events Inventory Anxiety score obtained from C a t t e l l ' s I PAT Microsystem Var iables Cohesion Operational Def i n i t i o n Subscale score from the Family Environment Scale (FES) Expressiveness Conf1ict Independence Achievement Orientation I n t e l l e c t u a l Cultural 11 -23-Or ientation Active Recreation Subscale score from the Family Orientation Environment Scale (FES) Moral Religious Emphasis " " Organization " " Control Parent-child Interaction Attachment C l a s s i f i c a t i o n from the Ainsworth and Wittig Strange Situation C l a s s i f i c a t i o n Tool. Mesosystem Var iables Operational D e f i n i t i o n Network Size Network Density Network Support Cr i t e r ion Var iables The t o t a l number of persons the mother l i s t s when asked to name a l l those people who are important to her. The number of dyadic relationships in a network in proportion to the number of linkages possible, given network s i z e . The formula most often given for calculating network density i s a/ n(n-l)/2 where: a = number of linkages in the network n = network s i z e : n(n-1)/2=total number of possible 1 inks . The degree to which the subject feels supported by her network members. Score on 'Support' subscales of Social Network Inventory. Operational Def i n i t i o n s Abusing Mother Nonabusing Mother For the purposes of thi s investigation, an abusing mother i s defined as a woman whose caretaking s k i l l s result in any one or any combination of the outcomes that are l i s t e d under 'maternal abuse' (see pp. 21-22: a-j) . For purposes of thi s investigation, a nonabusive mother i s a woman who refrains from behavior that results in any of the outcomes that are -24-l i s t e d under 'maternal abuse' (see pp. 21-22: a - j ) . Assumptions This investigation assumes that c h i l d abuse i s a prod-uct of multiple influences which interact among themselves to provoke violence. It i s not the result of one single variable or factor. It i s further assumed that the informa-tion obtained from the women during the course of structured interviews, i s as true and v a l i d a representation of their perception of experiences, both in childhood and in adult-hood, as can be r e a l i s t i c a l l y obtained for purposes of t h i s study. Del imitations This study i s limited to the investigation of women and their children considered 'at r i s k ' for abuse and neglect, most of whom are members of lower socioeconomic groups. -25-CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE Research in the area of c h i l d abuse i s perhaps best t y p i f i e d by the paucity of empirical data and an over r e l i -ance on c l i n i c a l observations and anecdotal reporting methods. There are three basic methodological reasons for t h i s : (1) problems with d e f i n i t i o n , (2) low incidence rate and (3) the v a l i d i t y of retrospective investigation. Fundamental to the problem of research in c h i l d abuse is the issue of d e f i n i t i o n ( G i l , 1970; ten Bensel, 1976; Kempe and Kempe, 1978). Central to thi s has been a noted lack of agreement among investigators as to what constitutes abuse; e.g., whether or not neglect, sexual abuse, non-or-ganic f a i l u r e to thrive and n u t r i t i o n a l deprivation exist under their own rubrics, or are merely d i f f e r e n t points on the same continuum. While some investigators have regarded various forms of maladaptive parenting in thi s manner ( G i l , 1970; Garbarino, 1977), others have tended to view abuse as e t i o l o g i c a l l y separate (Steele and Pollack, 1968). The problems of d e f i n i t i o n may stem from additional sources having l i t t l e to do with basic behavioral c l a s s i f i -cation. An additional factor may be a more general problem: s o c i e t a l resistance against l a b e l l i n g any maladaptive par-ent-child interaction too broadly. As has been a d r o i t l y pointed out, the broader the d e f i n i t i o n of abuse, the clearer i t s r e l a t i o n to normal caregiving, and the more serious an indictment one lodges against many forms of par--26-ent-child interaction (Garbarino, 1977; Z i g l e r , 1979). The notion of s o c i e t a l resistance against a broad d e f i n i t i o n may be most applicable in l i g h t of G e l l e s 1 findings (1978). Based on semi-structured interviews with parents from a nationally representative sample, he states that up to 71% of a l l children in the United States are physically d i s c i -plined at some point in their l i v e s . It i s not d i f f i c u l t to see that i f a broad d e f i n i t i o n of abuse i s adopted to include most forms of physical punishment, a high percentage of parents become potential 'child abusers'. A l b e i t perhaps the most fundamental, d e f i n i t i o n i s but the f i r s t problem encountered in abuse research. The second is low incidence rate. The degree of frequency with which abuse occurs has been d i f f i c u l t to e s t a b l i s h . Although a l l states in the United States and most provinces in Canada have implemented mandatory reporting laws, the actual numbers of authentic cases continues to be elusive. Differences in personal interpretation of the law, ambiguous reporting procedures and archaic record keeping systems contribute to the inaccu-racie s . Despite the problems with reporting however, abuse is generally recognized as a low incidence phenomenon. For example, in a recent longitudinal investigation with a high risk sample drawn from a major public health c l i n i c (Egeland and Brunnquell, 1979), the base rate for abuse and neglect was cited as approximately 2%. This rate was somewhat higher than for the state in general. The t h i r d problem involves the v a l i d i t y of s e l f report -27-measures. With very few exceptions (Egeland and Brunnquell, 1979; Gray, Cutler, Dean & Kempe, 1979), most investigations have been retrospective in nature. For instance, when investigators attempt to determine antecedents of abusive behavior, they do so after the maltreatment has occurred. This type of research generally leads to a confounding of cause and e f f e c t . A case in point: Sandgrund, Gaines and Green (1974) studied the e f f e c t s of abuse on cognitive development in abused, neglected and normal children. They found a s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher number of retarded ( i . e . , IQ's less than 70) children both among the neglected and abused groups. The r i v a l hypothesis i s that retarded or otherwise developmentally delayed children are at greater risk for abuse and neglect than their normal counterparts (Friederich and Boriskin, 1976; Klein and Stern, 1971) and that their retardation i s a cause, or a contributing factor, rather than a res u l t of their subsequent treatment. The problems inherent in abuse research, however, have not diminished the e f f o r t s of investigators to better under-stand etiology. Although the e a r l i e s t investigations tended to be unidimensional in approach and somewhat limited in focus, Belsky's (1979) suggestion to t h e o r e t i c a l l y integrate available information has prompted the s h i f t towards con-structing a model better suited to account for a complex array of influences. This l i t e r a t u r e review i s framed within the context of the previously defined ecological model. Using evidence from available l i t e r a t u r e as support, i t emphasizes the need -28-t o combine and i n t e g r a t e i n f o r m a t i o n i n t o a b r o a d e r , more i n c l u s i v e t h e o r y o f e t i o l o g y . O ntogenic The a r e a o f o n t o g e n i c development, as B e l s k y (1980) p o i n t s out from Burgess' a n a l y s i s , can be i n t e r p r e t e d a t t h r e e d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s : (1) how one grows up to behave i n an a b u s i v e manner, (2) a n t e c e d e n t s o f the a b u s i v e e v e n t , and (3) p o s s i b l e consequences t h a t the b e h a v i o r may engender. For purposes o f t h i s s t u d y , o n l y the f i r s t l e v e l w i l l be c o n s i d e r e d . T h i s l e v e l assumes t h a t t h e r e are c e r t a i n t r a i t s and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t h a t can be d e t e r m i n e d as h a v i n g had an impact on c h i l d h o o d e x p e r i e n c e s . In t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n , t h e s e are d e f i n e d as p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s . A d i s c u s s i o n o f p e r s o n a l i t y development would not be complete w i t h o u t r e f e r e n c e t o the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and the q u a l i t y o f the p r i m a r y r e l a t i o n s h i p , i . e . , the p a r e n t - c h i l d a l l i a n c e . W h i l e the development o f i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s h i n g e s on many f a c t o r s , the manner i n which a c h i l d i s t r e a t e d c o n t r i b u t e s t o i t s growth and development. I t i s o f i m p o r t t h e r e f o r e , t o d e t e r m i n e what c o m m o n a l i t i e s , i f any, e x i s t among the p e r s o n a l i t i e s and the h i s t o r i e s o f a b u s i v e p a r e n t s . One o f the most common c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f p a r e n t s who abuse t h e i r c h i l d r e n i s t h a t t h e y were themselves abused. F r e q u e n t l y , the e x p e r i e n c e o f e a r l y m a l t r e a t m e n t r e s u l t s i n what i s known as " r o l e r e v e r s a l ' i n a d u l t h o o d ( S t e e l and P o l l a c k , 1968). T h i s i s t y p i f i e d by u n r e a l i s t i c e x p e c t a --29-t i o n s f o r the i n f a n t , e s p e c i a l l y w i t h r e g a r d s to i t s a b i l i t y t o c a r e f o r the p a r e n t . F r e q u e n t l y , p a r e n t s whose own h i s -t o r i e s were v i o l e n t , m a i n t a i n e d dependency needs i n a d u l t -hood not s a t i s f i e d i n c h i l d h o o d . When these p a r e n t s had c h i l d r e n o f t h e i r own, they viewed i t as an o p p o r t u n i t y t o f i n a l l y be c a r e d f o r and l o v e d . Because the c h i l d was una-b l e t o assume the e m o t i o n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the p a r e n t , p a r e n t a l f r u s t r a t i o n i n c r e a s e d ; t h e y became h u r t and angry at b e i n g ' r e j e c t e d ' and r e s o r t e d to v i o l e n c e as an e x p r e s -s i o n o f t h e i r f e e l i n g s ( B e l s k y , 1978; Kempe and Kempe, 1978; Lynch, 1977; O l i v e r and Cox, 1975; O l i v e r and T a y l o r , 1971; Y e l a j a , 1977). In a d d i t i o n t o r o l e r e v e r s a l , o t h e r p e r s o n a l i t y d e f i -c i t s have been observed i n p a r e n t s who m i s t r e a t t h e i r c h i l d -r e n . For example, K r e i n d l e r ' ( 1 9 7 6 ) i n c o r p o r a t e d two E r i c k -s o n i a n c o n s t r u c t s to e x p l a i n what he b e l i e v e s t o be psycho-p a t h i c development i n the a b u s i n g a d u l t . T y p i c a l l y , he s a y s , a b u s i v e mothers are c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a l a c k o f t e n d e r -n e s s , awareness and c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f needs f o r t h e i r c h i l d . They have l i t t l e s e l f - c o n f i d e n c e , e x h i b i t low s e l f - esteem and b e l i e v e themselves unworthy o f s u p p o r t and a i d . In s h o r t , K r e i n d l e r s a y s , t h e y l a c k b a s i c t r u s t and p e r s o n a l i d e n t i t y . An absence of t h e s e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i s e v i d e n t from the g e n e r a l i n a b i l i t y t o m a i n t a i n s o l i d a r i t y w i t h s o c i a l g r o u p s . In a d d i t i o n , t h e r e i s an e x p e c t a t i o n o f r e j e c t i o n and d i s a p p o i n t m e n t f o r r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n which they do engage. Concordant w i t h K r e i n d l e r , S p i n e t t a (1978) was a b l e to -30-i d e n t i f y similar c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s among a sample of low SES women. He administered the Michigan Screening P r o f i l e of Parenting to four s p e c i f i c groups of parents; adjudicated abusers, spouses of adjudicated abusers, parents convicted of neglect and a control group. A factor analysis produced six clusters of behaviors, a l l resulting in s i g n i f i c a n t d i f -ferences between the abusing and non-abusing groups. The cluste r s were as follows: (1) relationship to one's own parents, (2) tendency to become upset or angry, (3) tendency towards i s o l a t i o n and loneliness, (4) expectations of one's children, (5) i n a b i l i t y to separate parental from chil d ' s feelings, and (6) fear of external threat or control. While Spinetta does not suggest that personality i s the sole cause for abuse, he does imply that i t plays a d e f i n i t e r o l e . Gabinet (1979) compared MMPI p r o f i l e s of three groups of women: an at risk group referred to a parenting program conducted by a large metropolitan h o s p i t a l , a group of iden-t i f i e d abusing mothers and a group of psychiatric outpa-tien t s not deemed at r i s k . A l l groups showed an elevation on the scales of depression, psychopathic deviance, paranoia and schizophrenia but the mean elevation for a l l groups was the same. Two scales discriminated the groups. The f i r s t one was scale 9, the manic scale, which measures hyperactiv-i t y , restlessness, and d i s t r a c t a b i l i t y . The second scale was scale 6 which measures suspiciousness, interpersonal s e n s i t i v i t y , r i g i d i t y in adherence to ideas and feelings of persecution. Despite the discriminating a b i l i t y of these scales, Gabinet concluded that there was no d e f i n i t e abusing -31-personality p r o f i l e . Brunnquell, Crichton and Egeland (1979) assessed per-sonality t r a i t s of 267 at ris k women. A battery of tests was administered in the third trimester of pregnancy and again when the c h i l d was three months of age. Including measures of i n t e l l i g e n c e , locus of control, anxiety and maternal attitude, a factor analysis yielded four factors, two of which related s p e c i f i c a l l y to personality. Their results indicated that mothers who provided excellent care were of higher i n t e l l i g e n c e , had more posit i v e expectations regarding ease of c h i l d care, and had a better understanding of the mother-child r e l a t i o n s h i p . In addition, these moth-ers were able to both recognize a ch i l d ' s impulsive behavior and modulate, rather than i n h i b i t , those expressions. These women were also aware of a baby's a b i l i t y to establish a relati o n s h i p with i t s mother. Women who provided inadequate care were more aggressive, suspicious, and described them-selves more negatively. In general, mothers who were young, had a negative reaction to pregnancy, and lacked an under-standing of their infant and their relationship to the c h i l d were in greater jeopardy than women who did not display these t r a i t s . Green, Liang, Gaines, and Sultan (1980) administered the Current and Past Psyehopathology Scales (CAPPS) to 60 women: 20 in each group of abusing, neglecting, and normal mothers. The CAPPS questions relate either to current ind-ices of pathology or to past pathology. He found no s i g n i f -icant differences among groups for evidence of current -32-pathology. Univariate tests on subscales of past pathology indicated abuse groups were s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t on neu-r o t i c childhood, disorganization, and a n g e r - e x c i t a b i l i t y . There were no s i g n i f i c a n t differences on impulsivity, depen-dency, or depressive anxiety. Their data suggest, as does that of Brunnquell, Crichton, and Egeland, (1979) that the most f r u i t f u l d i rections for personality contributions l i e in a combination of, rather than i n d i v i d u a l , variables. In one of the few investigations conducted on men, O'Hearn (1975) compared fathers in abusive situations with those not involved in similar behaviors. Matched on v a r i a -bles such as father's age, income, number of children, and number of chidren at home less than three years of age, he found s i g n i f i c a n t differences between groups on t r a i t s such as powerlessness, empathy, self-esteem, ego strength, and s o c i a l i s o l a t i o n . Fathers who abused their children f e l t less powerful, displayed l e s s empathy, had lower l e v e l s of self-esteem and were more s o c i a l l y isolated than nonabusive fathers. In addition, a discriminant function analysis using these variables c o r r e c t l y c l a s s i f i e d 20 of the 23 abusing fathers. Summary Parental personality i s believed to play a s i g n i f i c a n t role in the outcome of abuse. Several studies have i n d i -cated that abusive parents are more impulsive, aggressive, lower in self-esteem, and carry unmet dependency needs into adulthood than their non-abusing counterparts. Assuming that personality development i s influenced by a c h i l d ' s -33-interaction with i t s parents, the manner in which a c h i l d has been treated influences not only the development of cer-tain c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , but the manner in which an individual ultimately responds to i t s own c h i l d . Both research investigations and c l i n i c a l findings report the strong association between abusing one's c h i l d and parental history of abuse. Those that abuse tend to have been abused. What i s less c l e a r , however, are person-a l i t y differences between abusing and nonabusing parents, given a similar background. Unfortunately, most studies investigating personality differences f a i l to account for the commonality of parental history. For example, few stud-ies investigate the difference between abusing and non-abus-ing parents given that they have a l l been abused. Likewise, abusing and non-abusing parents, a l l of whom have c l e a r l y not been abused, need to be investigated as well. It may not be differences in personality per se that distinguish these groups; that i s , i t may not be true that abusive parents are actually more aggressive or impulsive. An alternative hypothesis, not necessarily exclusive of the f i r s t , i s that abusive parents were abused and that a lack of good qua l i t y care in childhood interacted with s p e c i f i c individual t r a i t s to produce a more aggressive or impulsive adult. The role of personality in abuse might best be i n v e s t i -gated by f i r s t comparing groups on the basis of their t reat-ment in childhood. While the broad group comparisons (abus-ing vs. non-abusing) may continue to provide interesting -34-d e s c r i p t i v e i n f o r m a t i o n , the c o n s i d e r a t i o n of how the p a r e n t was t r e a t e d i n c h i l d h o o d b e g i n s t o b u i l d a t h e o r e t i c a l l i n k between e a r l y p a r e n t a l t r e a t m e n t , p e r s o n a l i t y development and abuse. M i c r o s y s t e m The m i c r o s y s t e m i n t h i s model, b a s i c a l l y r e p r e s e n t s the d y a d i c i n t e r a c t i o n between the c h i l d and the mother. S e v e r a l r e s e a r c h e r s have i n v e s t i g a t e d the c o n t r i b u t i o n o f p a r e n t - c h i l d i n t e r a c t i o n to the development o f c h i l d m a l -t r e a t m e n t i n c l u d i n g f a c t o r s such as b o n d i n g , attachment (Egeland and S r o u f e , 1980; K l a u s and K e n n e l l , 1976; P i l l i n g and P r i n g l e , 1978; S c h a e f f e r , 1977), and v e r b a l i n t e r a c t i o n ( B u r g e s s , 1979; B u r g e s s , Anderson, & S c h e l l e n b a c k , 1980; Burgess and Conger, 1978; Disbrow, Doerr & C a u l f i e l d , 1977). In t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n , the d y a d i c i n t e r a c t i o n i s b e s t c h a r -a c t e r i z e d by the c o n s t r u c t o f attachment ( A i n s w o r t h , 1973). Bowlby (1969), on whose work much o f the attachment d a t a are based, o u t l i n e s f o u r s p e c i f i c phases o f the d e v e l -opment o f a t t a c h m e n t . B r i e f l y , the i n f a n t b e g i n s w i t h a c a p a c i t y t o respond to s o c i a l b e h a v i o r but an i n a b i l i t y t o d i s c r i m i n a t e between p e r s o n s e l i c i t i n g those b e h a v i o r s . In the second phase, the i n f a n t can both respond to and d i s -c r i m i n a t e between f a m i l i a r f i g u r e s . In the t h i r d phase, t h e r e i s an a c t i v e i n i t i a t i o n of p r o x i m i t y s e e k i n g and con-t a c t b e h a v i o r s , w h i l e i n the l a s t phase, an i n f a n t i s a b l e to i n f e r i t s mother's g o a l s , and may b e g i n to attempt t o a l t e r those g o a l s . The degree t o which a mother d i s s e m b l e s her g o a l s and d i s c o u r a g e s the i n f a n t from d i s c o v e r i n g what -35-they are may be the degree to which attachment i s hampered. Ainsworth (1978) l i s t s three conditions necessary for atta-chment to develop: s u f f i c i e n t opportunity for interaction with a s p e c i f i c figure (primary caregiver), the development of the infant's discriminatory a b i l i t y , and the onset of object permanence - the cognitive awareness that a figure continues to exist outside of the range of the infant's d i r e c t perception. The construct of attachment i t s e l f has been defined and studied in a variety of ways. Ainsworth (1978) has c l e a r l y outlined the differences between d e f i n i t i o n and behavioral manifestations. Attachment refers to the bond, the t i e or the more enduring relationship that occurs between a young c h i l d and i t s mother. It i s a construct that may be i n f e r -red from a propensity to seek contact with another i n d i v i d -ual over time despite any variat i o n s in behavior. Attach-ment behaviors are viewed as a diverse group of intermittent actions which promote contact and vary in in t e n s i t y , accord-ing to circumstance. Support for t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n has most recently been offered by Waters (1978) who states that nega-tive evidence surrounding the notion of attachment, espe-c i a l l y in construct v a l i d a t i o n research, i s a result of an i n i t i a l l y incorrect body of theory, inappropriate use of measuring devices and poor experimental design. The prob-lems with c i t i n g s p e c i f i c infant behaviors as t y p i c a l of the presence or absence of attachment, i s that evidence for the temporal s t a b i l i t y of discreet behaviors i s lacking; fur-ther, recognition of the context in which attachment behav--36-iors occur has been ignored. He concludes that there i s l i t t l e to gain by regarding attachment as a t r a i t , and sug-gests that future research e f f o r t s consider i t a more dynamic process. Ainsworth (1978) agrees and states that as attachment was not intended to be viewed as a personality construct, there i s no theore t i c a l basis for expecting a l l attachment behavior to be p o s i t i v e l y correlated. A variety of factors are believed to be at work in the attachment process. It has been suggested that while the amount of mother-infant interaction may determine whether or not a c h i l d becomes attached, i t i s the type of interaction that shapes the quality of that attachment. Clarke Stew-art's investigation (1973) supports t h i s hypothesis in that the mother serves as a mediator of stimulation for her infant. She found that immediate maternal response to an infant's behavior had a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on l a t e r occur-rence of the behavior. Her study also indicated that responsiveness and o v e r a l l maternal care were highly corre-lated with the infant's l e v e l of competence, suggesting a r e c i p r o c i t y of the i n t e r a c t i o n . More recently, a series of investigations have tested the hypothesis that at least some patterns of attachment have antecedents in the infant's behavior and in the i n t e r -active processes of the mother and the infant. Waters, Ege-land and Vaughn (1980) administered the Neonatal Behavior Assessment Scale to the f i r s t 100 (total 267) infants from economically disadvantaged backgrounds, whose mothers were pa r t i c i p a t i n g in a longitudinal study investigating mother--37-c h i l d i n t e r a c t i o n . Infants and mothers were la t e r assessed for attachment v i a Ainsworth and Wittig's Strange Situation. Their preliminary results indicated that infants rated as either securely attached or avoidant were normally respon-sive and r e s i l i e n t during the neonatal period, but that infants c l a s s i f i e d as resi s t a n t showed signs of unrespon-siveness, motor immaturity and problems with physiological regulations. Mothers of t h i s l a s t group of infants were observed to experience d i f f i c u l t i e s coordinating interac-t i o n , physical contact, and face to face episodes during feeding s i t u a t i o n s . By the end of the f i r s t year, they were rated as less available and less e f f e c t i v e in response to the infant's signals than mothers of securely attached babies. This set of data points to the early age at which the process of mutual influence begins. The authors stress that attachment i s a dyadic process that occurs over an extended period of time. While many behavioral antecedents of attachment have yet to be c l a r i f i e d , the s t a b i l i t y of the construct has been well documented (Vaughn, Egeland, Sroufe & Waters, 1979; Waters, 1978; Matas, Arend, & Sroufe, 1978). The s t a b i l i t y of t h i s measure over time allows cert a i n behaviors to be correlated with s p e c i f i c attachment ratings. The c o r r e l a -tion of an attachment rating with a behavior or a series of behaviors may enable a greater degree of prediction of l a t e r abusing and nonabusing groups. This may be the f i r s t step towards multigenerational research. If attachment c l a s s i f i -cations of abused children are known, and these children are -38-followed through their years of adolescence, adulthood and, f i n a l l y , parenting, the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s may f a c i l i t a t e in the prediction of future abuse. The results of the research on attachment support the concept that the nature of attachment can only be determined by investigating contributions of both the mother and the c h i l d . What are these s p e c i f i c contributions and how might they a f f e c t outcome? As discussed e a r l i e r , Thomas (1963) and his colleagues were able to i d e n t i f y i n d ividual patterns of primary r e a c t i v i t y in infants. These patterns, i d e n t i f i a b l e in early infancy, appeared persistent through l a t e r periods of l i f e . Although the basis for these differences were unknown, genetics, f a m i l i a l influence, prenatal and parana-t a l influences and early l i f e experience seem to contribute. B e l l (1975) explored the nature of the mother-infant in t e r a c t i o n , and outlined several contributions of the infant to the i n i t i a t i o n , maintenance, and termination of both caregiving and s o c i a l interaction episodes. The infant launches caregiving episodes with i t s mother by crying, fussing or s i g n a l l i n g in other ways for some type of atten-t i o n . The physiological and hormonal changes in the mother, coupled with early behavioral aspects of the infant, such as thrashing and the appearance of helplessness, trigger her response. B e l l suggests that these changes, along with early infant behaviors, e l i c i t d i f f e r e n t responses from d i f -ferent mothers. Certainly, to the stressed or immature mother, the sight of a thrashing, crying, helpless infant -39-may trigger a vastly d i f f e r e n t set of responses than those evoked in a competent, confident mother. In the former, feelings of anger or f r u s t r a t i o n may provoke abusive behav-ior rather than appropriate caregiving strategies. The infant may define i t s own l i m i t s by accepting or refusing the stimuli offered by the caregiver. If the parent has limited knowledge of normal infant behavior and interprets refusal of stimuli or a f f e c t i o n as personal r e j e c t i o n , hos-t i l i t y and violence may r e s u l t . If a c h i l d a c t i v e l y contributes to the interactive process of s o c i a l i z a t i o n , then we may reason that he also contributes to maladaptive interactions. Support for t h i s notion has been documented by investigations which suggest that d e f i c i e n t children may be at greater risk for abuse than 'normal' children. (Johnson and Morris, 1968; Bishop, 1971; Friederich and Boriskin, 1976). Summary The microsystem in t h i s model represents the dyadic relationship between the mother and her c h i l d . For purposes of t h i s investigation, t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p i s characterized by the attachment construct as defined by Ainsworth (1973) . The relationship between mother and c h i l d and the a b i l -i t y of a woman to adequately care for an infant i s i n f l u -enced by a variety of factors. These include infant temper-ament, l e v e l of infant a c t i v i t y , maternal maturity, knowl-edge of her infant, and a b i l i t y to assess and meet needs and demands. The attachment relationship r e f l e c t s the culmination of -40-both the a c t i v i t i e s and the l e v e l s of s k i l l of mother and c h i l d . Both make s i g n i f i c a n t contributions to t h i s process r e f l e c t i n g the r e c i p r o c i t y of the i n t e r a c t i o n . The concept of attachment i s important to the i n v e s t i -gation of c h i l d abuse for three reasons. F i r s t , because attachment r e f l e c t s an i n t e r a c t i v e process, i t . s t e e r s away from the concept of a parent acting in a nonprovoked fash-ion. It enriches the basic understanding of abuse etiology by allowing for an interaction of both mother and c h i l d fac-tors. Second, p r e c i s e l y because both mother and c h i l d con-t r i b u t e , i t affords the opportunity to assess those contrib-utions one at a time. For example, i t allows the inspection of the relationship between a mother's treatment in her own childhood and the subsequent quality of attachment with her c h i l d . Is there any r e l a t i o n s h i p between women who have been abused and the quality of attachment between them and their children? Third, what af f e c t does abuse i t s e l f have on attach-ment? Do women who abuse have children who are more anxious in their attachments than women who provide adequate care? These are questions seldom raised in the current l i t e r a t u r e . I f , as i s so frequently c i t e d , abusers tend to have been abused, we need to know what the e f f e c t s of early maltreat-ment are, e s p e c i a l l y with regards to an individual's later a b i l i t y to parent. Mesosystem The t h i r d component, the mesosystem, i s defined by Bronfenbrenner (1979) as a system of microsystems, or as a -41-s e r i e s o f i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s between two or more s e t t i n g s i n which an i n d i v i d u a l i s an a c t i v e p a r t i c i p a n t . Put s i m p l y , a mesosystem may be d e f i n e d as a s o c i a l network w i t h the i n d i -v i d u a l a c t i n g as the p r i m a r y l i n k between h e r s e l f and o t h e r systems. The a r e a o f s o c i a l networks has been r e p e a t e d l y h y p o t h -e s i z e d as an i m p o r t a n t v a r i a b l e i n the e t i o l o g y o f abuse. The most commonly noted network c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f a b u s i v e p a r e n t s has been s o c i a l i s o l a t i o n (Elmer, 1967; G a r b a r i n o and S t o c k i n g , 1980; Gray, C u t l e r , Dean & Kempe, 1979; Kempe and Kempe, 1978; R o s e n f e l d and Newberger, 1978; Young, 1964). The assumption i s t h a t network connectedness f u n c -t i o n s as a type o f b u f f e r or p r e v e n t i o n a g a i n s t abuse, w h i l e i s o l a t i o n may f o s t e r i t . I s o l a t i o n , however, i s o n l y one c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f s o c i a l n e t w o r k s . In o r d e r to c o n s i d e r networks on a broader b a s i s , i t i s n e c e s s a r y t o d e f i n e o t h e r t r a i t s t h a t may have an e f f e c t on p a r e n t - c h i l d r e l a t i o n s . Duncan-Jones (1978) proposes t h a t the commonly h e l d assumption t h a t s o c i a l r e l a -t i o n s h i p s are s u p p o r t i v e and p r o t e c t i v e a g a i n s t i l l n e s s i s r h e t o r i c u n l e s s we b e g i n to s p e c i f y which t y p e s o f r e l a t i o n -s h i p s are s u p p o r t i v e and which t y p e s are n o t . Cochrane and B r a s s a r d (1979) agree t h a t few r e s e a r c h e r s have s e r i o u s l y attempted to a c c u r a t e l y d e s c r i b e and measure s o c i a l n e t -works. F a m i l i e s , t h e y s t a t e , are not s i m p l y s u p p o r t e d or i s o l a t e d ; the l i n k s are complex and e v e r - c h a n g i n g . Methods o f g a t h e r i n g d a t a on s o c i a l networks are d i v -e r s e and have been, a t t i m e s , c o n t r o v e r s i a l . W h i l e some -42-t h e o r i s t s have chosen to e x t r a p o l a t e g l o b a l p a t t e r n s o f i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s by r e l y i n g h e a v i l y on the use o f a l g e -b r a i c t e c h n i q u e s and graph t h e o r y ( L o r r a i n and Whi t e , 1977), o t h e r s have i n c o r p o r a t e d d i r e c t f i e l d o b s e r v a t i o n , s u r v e y t e c h n i q u e s and i n t e r v i e w s t r a t e g i e s t o h y p o t h e s i z e s o c i a l network r e l a t i o n s h i p s among groups o f f r i e n d s and f a m i l i e s ( B o t t , 1957; S t a c k , 1974; Young and W i l m o t t , 1957). For a t i m e , even the d e f i n i t i o n o f s o c i a l networks was c o n t r o v e r s i a l . Years o f r e s e a r c h and s c h o l a r l y communica-t i o n , however, have r e s o l v e d many o f those d e f i n i t i o n a l problems ( T o l s d o r f , 1976). Banck (1973) d i s c u s s e s t h r e e o f the most common c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f n e t w o r k s . The f i r s t two of these a re the f o c u s f o r the c u r r e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n . What s t a n d s o u t , ... i s the b a s i c n o t i o n t h a t networks have to do w i t h s o c i a l i n d i v i d u a l s , r a t h e r than g r o u p s . L i n k e d w i t h t h i s f o c u s o f a t t e n t i o n are the f o l l o w i n g t h r e e n o t i o n s about s o c i a l n etworks. F i r s t l y , ego has s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s w i t h o t h e r i n d i v i d u a l s , who i n t u r n have s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s w i t h o t h e r s , those b e i n g d i r e c t l y l i n k e d w i t h ego or n o t , and so on ... Ego i s e n t a n g l e d i n a network o f s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s , the s t r u c t u r e o f which i n f l u e n c e s the b e h a v i o r o f ego. F i n a l l y , opposed to the second n o t i o n , the i n d i v i d u a l i s supposed to be a b l e t o m a n i p u l a t e t o a c e r t a i n measure, h i s s o c i a l network f o r h i s own ends. The c o n t e n t o f Banck's a d d r e s s moves beyond s i m p l e d e f -i n i t i o n a l a s p e c t s o f s o c i a l n e t w o r k s . What he d i r e c t l y i m p l i e s i s t h a t network p r o p e r t i e s a re c a p a b l e o f d i f f e r e n --43-t i a l l y affecting individual behavior. The exploration of these properties, and some hypotheses about how they act, either alone or in concert with other properties, i s d i s -cussed in the next sections. Network Support. The f i r s t point to be addressed is that individuals are entangled in a network of s o c i a l r e l a -tions and that the structure of the network influences behavior. There are two basic points to consider in thi s statement. The f i r s t i s an assumption that a l l individuals are, to some extent or another, actually enmeshed, or 'entangled' as Banck would have i t . This notion, however, precludes the p o s s i b i l i t y of i s o l a t i o n ; i f one i s enmeshed, one cannot be is o l a t e d . If the structure of one's so c i a l enmeshment i s devoid of actual r e l a t i o n s , then t h i s lack of entanglement i s equally i n f l u e n t i a l to the behavior of the in d i v i d u a l . If the structure of s o c i a l r e lations influences individual behavior, how does t h i s occur? By what means i s behavior influenced? In response to t h i s , the following proposition i s offered: The structure of one's s o c i a l r e l a -tions influences individual behavior in three ways: (1) by guiding or offering certain s o c i a l l y accepted parameters, (2) by providing various types of support, and (3) by pro-viding corrective feedback. Caplan (1974) suggests that s o c i a l networks are capable of guiding individuals by providing cues which signal socie-t a l acceptance of certa i n behaviors. He hypothesizes that deviant behavior occurs as a resu l t of blocked messages; that i s , s o c i e t a l expectations are not being consistently -44-communicated to the i n d i v i d u a l . W ithout c o n s i s t e n t communi-c a t i o n , t h e r e can be no subsequent s o c i e t a l e v a l u a t i o n o f the b e h a v i o r , no new i n f o r m a t i o n i n p u t i n t o the system and, t h e r e f o r e , no p o s s i b i l i t y o f b e h a v i o r change. I f t h e mes-sages are b e i n g t r a n s m i t t e d , but are not b e i n g a c t e d upon, then i t may be t h a t the i n d i v i d u a l i s u n f a m i l i a r w i t h the e x p e c t a t i o n s and the e v a l u a t i v e cues t h a t are b e i n g p r o -v i d e d . T h i s p e r s p e c t i v e i s l a r g e l y agreed upon by o t h e r s i n the a r e a . For example, Cochrane and B r a s s a r d (1979) suggest two major ways networks might i n f l u e n c e , or g u i d e p a r e n t s . Network members may c o n t r i b u t e to c h i l d r e a r i n g p r o c e d u r e s by condemning or s a n c t i o n i n g c e r t a i n a c t i o n s , t h e r e b y p r o -v i d i n g c h i l d r e a r i n g c o n t r o l s ; o r , t h e y may f u r t h e r i n f l u -ence p a r e n t i n g p r o c e d u r e s by a d v i c e g i v i n g , d i r e c t r e i n -forcement and, perhaps more i m p o r t a n t l y , by p r o v i d i n g o b s e r v a b l e examples ( r o l e models) of a p p r o p r i a t e p a r e n t -c h i l d i n t e r a c t i o n . The second manner i n which s o c i a l networks i n f l u e n c e b e h a v i o r i s t h r o u g h the p r o v i s i o n o f v a r i o u s t y p e s o f sup-p o r t . C a p lan (1974) s t a t e s t h a t most p e o p l e d e v e l o p and m a i n t a i n a sense of w e l l - b e i n g by i n v o l v i n g themselves i n a range of r e l a t i o n s h i p s t h a t s a t i s f y s p e c i f i c needs. Both e n d u r i n g and s h o r t term s u p p o r t s are l i k e l y t o c o n s i s t o f t h r e e e l e m e n t s : (1) a m o b i l i z a t i o n o f p s y c h o l o g i c a l r e s o u r c e s t o master e m o t i o n a l burdens, (2) a s h a r i n g of t a s k s , and (3) a p r o v i s i o n o f e x t r a s u p p l i e s o f money, mate-r i a l s , s k i l l s and c o g n i t i v e g u i d a n c e . S i m i l a r l y , G o t t l i e b (1980) was a b l e to i d e n t i f y f o u r -45-s p e c i f i c types of support available to female heads of house- holds. The f i r s t type he c a l l s 'emotionally sustain-ing' help. This type of aid enables women to explore their problems and concerns in a safe, supportive atmosphere. The second type he c a l l s 'problem solving behaviors'. This sup-port provides three basic elements and augments the mother's problem solving resources with new and/or additional inform-ation, ideas, perspectives and d i r e c t assistance. The t h i r d type of help he c a l l s 'unconditional access'. This type of support occurs from the knowledge that support i s available on a wherever-whenever basis. The knowledge that help i s available on an unconditional basis i s , in i t s e l f , a source of support. And l a s t l y , Gottlieb has l i s t e d 'direct advo-cacy' as a source of support; i . e . , an individual who i s w i l l i n g and able to d i r e c t l y intervene with a problem s i t u a -tion at the source of the problem, or who i s w i l l i n g to appeal to a higher source to gain service, support, etc. In addition, Pattison, Llamas and Hurd (1976) suggest that net-works may be most helpful in s t r e s s f u l situations by provid-ing a continuous flow of p o s i t i v e emotional support and ready and available assistance. Lastly, networks offer support through the provision of feedback (Caplan, 1974; Stack, 1974). Offering corrective feedback regarding c u l t u r a l mores and norms, including c h i l d rearing practices, aids in the parent's s o c i a l i z a t i o n as a parent and f a c i l i t a t e s p a r t i c i p a t i o n in the mainstream of group a c t i v i t y . Given that networks are capable of providing an array -46-o f s u p p o r t s t o a f a m i l y u n i t , what happens t o f a m i l i e s t h a t e i t h e r i s o l a t e t h emselves or a r e i s o l a t e d by t h e i r communi-t i e s ? R e c a l l i n g Parke and C o l l m e r ' s (1975) s u g g e s t i o n t h a t a b u s i n g p a r e n t s are e i t h e r a v o i d e d or abandoned by t h e i r n e t w o r k s , one may assume t h a t the o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r g u i d -ance, s u p p o r t and feedback are a l l g r e a t l y d i m i n i s h e d . The absence o f c o r r e c t i v e i n p u t most l i k e l y i n c r e a s e s the p o t e n -t i a l of a m a l a d a p t i v e response p a t t e r n . I f , f o r whatever r e a s o n , s u p p o r t i s u n a v a i l a b l e , the p r o b a b i l i t y o f abuse i n c r e a s e s . Network D e n s i t y . Banck's second p o i n t s t a t e s t h a t the i n d i v i d u a l i s i n v o l v e d i n a s e r i e s o f s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s w i t h o t h e r i n d i v i d u a l s who i n t u r n have s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s , some o f which are d i r e c t l y l i n k e d w i t h the i n d i v i d u a l , o t h e r s o f which are n o t . What Banck i s a d d r e s s i n g here i s the concept of network d e n s i t y . T o l s d o r f (1976) d e f i n e s d e n s i t y as the number o f d y a d i c r e l a t i o n s h i p s ( l i n k a g e s ) i n the network i n p r o p o r t i o n t o the number o f l i n k a g e s p o s s i b l e g i v e n the n e t -work s i z e . The r e l a t i o n s h i p between network d e n s i t y and c h i l d abuse i s b e s t understood by f i r s t i n v e s t i g a t i n g the r e l a t i o n s h i p between d e n s i t y and o t h e r m ental h e a l t h f a c -t o r s : f a c t o r s t h a t have been i d e n t i f i e d as r e l a t e d to abuse. The i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s among these v a r i a b l e s are i n t r i c a t e and, a t t i m e s , c i r c u i t o u s , f u r t h e r r e f l e c t i n g the complex-i t i e s i n h e r e n t i n the problem. When an i n d i v i d u a l i s embedded i n a network w i t h a h i g h d e n s i t y r a t i n g , i t i s l i k e l y t o be i n d i c a t i v e o f s e v e r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f b oth the i n d i v i d u a l and the network. -47-F i r s t , there i s an inverse relationship between s o c i a l class and network density: the lower the socioeconomic l e v e l , the higher the density index. Support for this relationship was f i r s t evidenced by Bott's (1957) investigation of the s o c i a l and psychological organization of urban families. In look-ing at factors d i r e c t l y affecting the structure of s o c i a l networks, she discovered that density was higher when f e e l -ings of s o c i a l s i m i l a r i t y and neighborhood continuity were stronger and when members were more l o c a l i z e d in their a c t i v i t i e s . A higher degree of connectedness was also char-a c t e r i s t i c when opportunities for making new friends were limited either by a lack of f i n a n c i a l resources or by a lack of mobilization. Networks were less dense, or more loosely knit, when people moved out of the neighborhood. These neighborhood moves generally resulted from the promise of better employment and upward mobility. These findings were supported in l a t e r studies by Cubbitt (1973), McCallister & Fischer (1978) and Belle (1980). But how are low SES and high density related to abuse? This l i n k i s hypothesized by looking s p e c i f i c a l l y at the structure and the function of networks, including l e v e l s of stress. Stack (1974), in her seminal work on the s o c i a l net-works among low income urban blacks, looked intensively at both structure and methods of support available to network members. The recurring theme throughout her work i s the network emphasis on r e c i p r o c i t y . Akin to an 'insurance pol-i c y ' , sharing with one another builds the necessary c r e d i t against which to draw in the event of need or emergency. -48-P e o p l e share w i t h one another t h e i r s c a r c e r e s o u r c e s because of the extreme urgency o f t h e i r s i t u a t i o n and as a p r o t e c -t i o n o f t h e i r own i n v e s t m e n t . S t a c k says t h i s system o f exchange i s p u r p o s e f u l and b l a t a n t . O u t s i d e p e o p l e are f r e -q u e n t l y p e r c e i v e d as p o s s i b l e s o l u t i o n s t o troublesome s i t u -a t i o n s and are c u l t i v a t e d f o r t h e i r p o t e n t i a l u s e f u l n e s s . R e c i p r o c a l l y , s u p p o r t i s made a v a i l a b l e i n emergencies and o t h e r times o f need. In i n v e s t i g a t i n g the r e l a t i o n s h i p between s o c i a l sup-p o r t s and d e p r e s s i o n , B e l l e (1980) found t h a t f e e l i n g s o f mastery (a sense o f h a v i n g c o n t r o l over one's l i f e ) were p o s i t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h h a v i n g h e l p i n an emergency and the a v a i l a b i l i t y o f c a r e f o r c h i l d r e n i n non-emergency s i t u -a t i o n s . The second type o f s u p p o r t was a l s o r e l a t e d to fewer symptoms o f d e p r e s s i o n and a n x i e t y . Brown, B h r o l -c h a i n , and H a r r i s (1975) found t h a t the l a c k o f an i n t i m a t e , c o n f i d i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h a husband or b o y f r i e n d i n c r e a s e d the chances o f d e v e l o p i n g a p s y c h i a t r i c d i s o r d e r s u p p o r t i n g B e l l e ' s (1980) f i n d i n g s t h a t women who r e p o r t e d h a v i n g some-one t o c o n f i d e i n , demonstrated fewer symptoms o f d e p r e s s i o n and a g r e a t e r sense o f mas t e r y . One c o n c l u s i o n e a s i l y drawn from a l l t h i s i s t h a t a h i g h degree o f s o c i a l c onnectedness i s b e n e f i c i a l . On the s u r f a c e , i t p r o v i d e s the i n d i v i d u a l w i t h s u p p o r t and a i d i n a v a r i e t y o f p r o b l e m a t i c s i t u a t i o n s . B e l l e (1980), however, c a u t i o n s a g a i n s t such a s i m p l i s t i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . Her r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d t h a t the more a network was made up o f r e l a t i v e s , and the denser the network i n g e n e r a l , the more -49-o f t e n women reported having no one to t e l l how they were r e a l l y f e e l i n g . Women were a c t u a l l y more l i k e l y to p a r t i c i -pate i n neighborhood s o c i a b i l i t y when c o n d i t i o n s were worse, and when t h e i r l e v e l s of s t r e s s were h i g h e r . Assuming that the constant flow of s e r v i c e from neighbor to neighbor and household to household reduces anonymity, c o n s i s t e n t l y high e x p e c t a t i o n s f o r r e c i p r o c i t y may engender a s t r e s s of i t s own: a much more c h r o n i c and p e r v a s i v e s t r e s s than that gen-e r a l l y a s s o c i a t e d with l i f e change. Herein l i e s the t h i r d and f i n a l l i n k i n the c h a i n - the r e l a t i o n s h i p between abuse and l i f e s t r e s s . S e v e r a l authors have demonstrated a r e l a t i o n s h i p between l i f e s t r e s s and c h i l d abuse (Egeland, Breitenbucher & Rosenberg, 1980; J u s t i c e and Duncan, 1975; J u s t i c e and J u s t i c e , 1976; Kempe and Kempe, 1978). J u s t i c e and Duncan (1976) administered the S o c i a l Read-justment Rating Scale to groups of abusing and non-abusing p a r e n t s . S i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between groups suggested that abusing parents demonstrated higher l e v e l s of s t r e s s than non-abusing groups. To e x t r a p o l a t e these f i n d i n g , how-ever, to a l l s t r e s s e d parents would be erroneous. Given the low i n c i d e n c e r a t e of abuse as a phenomenon and the i n c r e a s -ing r e c o g n i t i o n of the prevalence of s t r e s s among western s o c i e t i e s , the c o n c l u s i o n t h a t a l l s t r e s s e d parents are abusers i s f a r too s i m p l i s t i c . Egeland, B r e i t e n b u c h e r , and Rosenberg (1980) attempted to d i s c o v e r why some s t r e s s e d parents abused t h e i r c h i l d r e n , w h ile o t h e r s , e q u a l l y s t r e s s e d , d i d not. They administered a m o d i f i e d v e r s i o n of -50-the Cochrane-Robertson Life Events Inventory to 267 high risk women recruited from a public health center. Member-ship in abusing or non-abusing groups was predicted via d i s -criminant function analysis. This was used to determine the rela t i v e importance of changing l i f e events as compared to certain mother, infant, and interaction variables. Since the majority of stressed women did not abuse their children, the determination of the influence of a variety of variables was c r i t i c a l to the overall understanding of the problem. Their results indicated that mothers who abused their c h i l d -ren and were highly stressed also demonstrated s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher scores on anxiety, suspiciousness, and aggression as compared with highly stressed mothers who did not abuse their children. They had less understanding and awareness of the d i f f i c u l t i e s and demands involved in parenting. While there were no s i g n i f i c a n t differences on type of stre s s f u l event, the abusing group perceived their events as more traumatic, chaotic, and disruptive. Maternal ego boundary, i . e . , the mother's a b i l i t y to view herself as sep-arate from her infant, was also indicative of mother-child interaction. Women who were less able to make that d i s t i n c -tion were also less l i k e l y to isolate stress to a particular incident. This in turn, interfered with adequate caregiving responses. They concluded that high l i f e stress combined with certain maternal t r a i t s , infant behaviors, and patterns of interaction increased the likelihood of abuse as an out-come of the child-caregiver relationship. -51-A Mesosystem in the current investigation i s defined as the structure and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of maternal s o c i a l net-works. The most prominent network c h a r a c t e r i s t i c cited in the l i t e r a t u r e has been s o c i a l i s o l a t i o n , i . e . women who abuse their children appear cut off from most forms of phys-i c a l and emotional aid. The relevance of s o c i a l networks to c h i l d abuse becomes evident once s p e c i f i c types of support are defined. Typi-c a l l y , networks are capable of guiding, offering corrective feedback and f i n a n c i a l or emotional resources a family may lack. One hypothesis i s that isolated families become impoverished and are unable to benefit from mutual support systems. But the relat i o n s h i p between s o c i a l i s o l a t i o n and c h i l d abuse has ra r e l y , i f ever, been empirically determined. It is not clear from the available l i t e r a t u r e , i f abusive moth-ers t r u l y have fewer supportive contacts than their non-abusing counterparts. It i s also unclear at thi s point how those networks are structured, and how these women perceive the amount of support av a i l a b l e . An additional factor tied to the structure and function of networks i s l i f e s t r ess. How do networks help individuals absorb, or cope with stress and how may they actually promote stress? One theory i s that the constant r e c i p r o c i t y noted among networks of lower SES families may engender a degree of stress in and of i t s e l f . As most mothers who abuse their children and are the basis for s c i e n t i f i c investigation, come from lower class settings, they may be operating under a d e f i c i t not -52-found in middle class women. The greatest unknowns, however, l i e in the differences between individuals who have common backgrounds, but who exhibit d i f f e r e n t methods of c h i l d rearing. For example, do a l l women who abuse their children feel unsupported, or only those who themselves were abused? What are the differences between these groups in terms of network support, density, and l i f e stress? These are the s p e c i f i c types of questions that need to be answered i f the role of networks in abuse etiology i s to be better understood. -53-CHAPTER 3 METHOD Child abuse research has been complicated by a number of methodological problems. Foremost among these have been operational d e f i n i t i o n s of abuse and neglect, u n a v a i l a b i l i t y of large sample sizes, lack of adequate control groups and a heavy reliance on s e l f report and retrospective measures. In response to these problems, Egeland and Brunnquell (1979) have described an at ri s k approach to the investiga-tion of c h i l d maltreatment. This p r o b a b i l i s t i c method assumes that certain groups can be i d e n t i f i e d in which a s p e c i f i c problem w i l l develop with a higher degree of f r e -quency than i t would in a normal population. This b a s i c a l l y healthy group, although considered at ri s k as a whole, pro-vides not only a higher incidence rate of abuse, but also provides the "appropriate group for comparison of the eff e c t s of the various factors which put the c h i l d at r i s k , for i t i s only in contrast to the good outcomes within the same sample that the major e f f e c t i v e influences in the poor outcomes can be i d e n t i f i e d . " (p. 220) There are three steps needed to incorporate a prospec-tive method. F i r s t , the high r i s k group must be i d e n t i f i e d . Second, the variables selected for investigation must r e f l e c t the knowledge base at hand. Third, the group must be followed l o n g i t u d i n a l l y and c l o s e l y monitored for the development of abusive patterns. The current investigation i s part of a longitudinal -54-study designed to i d e n t i f y c e r t a i n p a t t e r n s of mot h e r - c h i l d i n t e r a c t i o n , i n c l u d i n g those t h a t r e s u l t i n abuse. Su b j e c t s The p o p u l a t i o n c o n s i s t e d of 267 mot h e r - c h i l d p a i r s r e c r u i t e d from the Minneapolis P u b l i c Health Infant and C h i l d Care C l i n i c . T h i s i s the group from which the c u r r e n t sample was drawn. The i n c i d e n c e r a t e of abuse and n e g l e c t i n the P u b l i c Health C h i l d Care C l i n i c p o p u l a t i o n i s roughly 2%, a r a t e considered somewhat higher than for the s t a t e i n g e n e r a l , and which f o r purposes of t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n char-a c t e r i z e d the sample as at r i s k . In a d d i t i o n , most women come from lower socioeconomic backgrounds and cannot a f f o r d the s e r v i c e s o f a p r i v a t e p h y s i c i a n . Over 400 primiparous women r e c e i v i n g p r e n a t a l care were r e c r u i t e d . One hundred and t h i r t y - n i n e were unable to par-t i c i p a t e f o r the f o l l o w i n g reasons: moving (N=31), mate r e f -used to allow p a r t i c i p a t i o n (N=19), d e l i v e r e d before prena-t a l t e s t i n g could be completed (N=17), baby p l a c e d f o r adop-t i o n (N=5), baby d i e d d u r i n g d e l i v e r y (N=2) and oth e r , e.g., language problems, too busy, r e f u s a l to be observed during a feedi n g s i t u a t i o n (N=65). E d u c a t i o n a l d i s t r i b u t i o n among the 267 s u b j e c t s was somewhat heterogeneous. Forty-one percent o f the mothers d i d not complete high school while 54% d i d . Of the l a t t e r group, 20% went on to c o l l e g e . F i v e percent d i d not gradu-ate from high school but continued t h e i r education i n some -55-type o f v o c a t i o n a l s c h o o l . Nine p e r c e n t o f the sample were N a t i v e A m e r i c a n , 8% b l a c k and 4% from o t h e r m i n o r i t y g r o u p s . Mean age a t time o f d e l i v e r y was 20.52 (SD=3.65, range 12-34). When c l i n i c r e c o r d s were examined f o r d i f f e r e n c e s on age, e d u c a t i o n and o c c u p a t i o n between those t h a t had agreed to p a r t i c i p a t e and those t h a t r e f u s e d , no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were n o t e d . D e s p i t e e v e r y e f f o r t t o e n r o l l the f a t h e r f i g u r e , o n l y 29% agreed t o p a r t i c i p a t e . S u b j e c t drop out w i t h i n the f i r s t f o u r and h a l f y e a r s o f the stu d y has t o t a l l e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y 28% (N=77) , a f a i r l y low p e r c e n t a g e c o n s i d e r i n g the d u r a t i o n o f the i n v e s t i g a t i o n . Data Gather i n g and C l a s s i f i c a t i o n P r o c e d u r e s Numerous d a t a were c o l l e c t e d on p s y c h o l o g i c a l , s o c i a l and m e d i c a l v a r i a b l e s p r e n a t a l l y , p e r i n a t a l l y and p o s t n a -t a l l y . Mothers were t e s t e d at the 36th week o f pregnancy and mothers and i n f a n t s were t e s t e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y e v e r y 6 months t h e r e a f t e r , c u l m i n a t i n g w i t h the c h i l d ' s s i x t h b i r t h -day. The measures r e p o r t e d here were d e s i g n e d to a s s e s s m a t e r n a l p e r s o n a l i t y , m a t e r n a l t r e a t m e n t i n c h i l d h o o d , i n f a n t a t t a c h m e n t , the s o c i a l c l i m a t e o f the f a m i l y e n v i r o n -ment and the mother's s o c i a l network. Each woman c u r r e n t l y p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the i n v e s t i g a t i o n (N=190) was asked a s e r i e s o f q u e s t i o n s r e g a r d i n g the q u a l -i t y o f c a r e t a k i n g r e c e i v e d i n her own c h i l d h o o d . These q u e s t i o n s were a d m i n i s t e r e d v i a a s t a n d a r d i z e d format and -56-were asked by research assistants who had been known to the subject for at least a year and a half prior to the adminis-t r a t i o n of t h i s interview. The results of t h i s interview were used to determine whether or not the mother herself was a victim of abuse. Four s p e c i f i c groups of women emerged from the in t e r -views. The f i r s t group, the not abused group, described their families of o r i g i n as loving, concerned and encourag-ing. Most importantly, they were able to describe a sense of emotional security that women in the other groups f a i l e d to mention. 'I always knew that no matter what I did my parents would be there' was a common, almost universal statement for women in th i s group. The second group, the middle group, described their family backgrounds as quiet and r e l a t i v e l y uneventful. Family descriptions were similar to those in the not abused group but they f a i l e d to project the image of emotional security. The th i r d group, the bor-derline group, described treatment bordering on abuse but lacked the physical evidence of having been mistreated. For example, a common statement made by these women was 'I remember my daddy beating me with a hairbrush when he got drunk, but I don't remember ever being bruised.' The l a s t group, the abused group, consisted of women who c l e a r l y reported incidences of maltreatment in childhood. These women were burned with irons, scalded with hot water, thrown into walls and radiators and h i t repeatedly with b e l t s , switches, and e l e c t r i c a l cords. The women in the f i r s t group comprised the not abused group of mothers. The abused -57-group was made up o f members from the f o u r t h group des-c r i b e d . Groups two and t h r e e were o m i t t e d from the p r e s e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n because the i n t e r e s t was c l e a r l y i n comparing the abused w i t h the non-abused women. F o l l o w i n g c l a s s i f i c a t i o n i n t o e i t h e r the abused or not abused g r o u p s , each s u b j e c t was f u r t h e r a s s i g n e d to e i t h e r the Abusing Group (Group A) or the Not Abusing Group (Group B) . Abusing mothers were women whose c a r e g i v i n g h a b i t s i r e s u l t e d i n i n j u r i o u s outcomes t o t h e i r c h i l d r e n such as b r u i s e s , l a c e r a t i o n s , b u r n s , broken bones or i n t e r n a l i n j u -r i e s . Inadequate food or c l o t h i n g , abandonment and/or placement i n s e v e r a l f o s t e r d w e l l i n g s a l s o c o n s t i t u t e d abuse. C h i l d r e n who were s e x u a l l y m o l e s t e d , f o r c e d t o engage i n i n t e r c o u r s e or o t h e r s e x u a l b e h a v i o r e i t h e r by a p a r e n t , another a d u l t or an a d o l e s c e n t were a l s o i n c l u d e d . Nonabusive mothers were women whose c a r e g i v i n g h a b i t s ena-b l e d them to p r o v i d e s e c u r e e n v i r o n m e n t s , f r e e from the i n j u r i e s l i s t e d above. In a d d i t i o n , t h e s e environments were g e n e r a l l y s a f e , n u r t u r i n g and s t i m u l a t i n g . These women were t y p i c a l l y a b l e t o a s s e s s a c h i l d ' s need and p r o v i d e c o m f o r t . The d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f the c a r e groups was based p r i m a -r i l y on t h r e e c r i t e r i a : (1) r e s u l t s o f the C h i l d Care R a t i n g S c a l e (2) r e f e r r a l to c h i l d p r o t e c t i o n (3) i n f o r m a t i o n g a t h -ered from s t a n d a r d i z e d i n t e r v i e w s a d m i n i s t e r e d at 42, 48 and 54 month t e s t i n g s : These c l a s s i f i c a t i o n p r o c e d u r e s y i e l d e d a t o t a l o f 107 s u b j e c t s i n the f o l l o w i n g g r o u p s . Not Abused/Not Abusing (N=44), Not Abused/Abusing (N=14), -58-Abused/Not Abusing ( N = l l ) , Abused/Abusing (N=38). F o l l o w i n g c l a s s i f i c a t i o n p r o c e d u r e s , each mother was asked to complete the F a m i l y Environment S c a l e (Moos, 1976), and a S o c i a l Network I n v e n t o r y . These d a t a were g a t h e r e d both by e x p e r i e n c e d r e s e a r c h a s s i s t a n t s and the a u t h o r . I n f o r m a t i o n was g a t h e r e d d u r i n g home v i s i t s and was used i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h the f o l l o w i n g : J a c k s o n ' s P e r s o n a l i t y Research Form ( a d m i n i s t e r e d as p a r t o f a p e r s o n a l i t y b a t t e r y at the 36th week o f p r e g n a n c y ) , attachment r a t i n g s based on the A i n s w o r t h and W i t t i g S t r a n g e S i t u a t i o n (1969) , Cochrane and R o b e r t s o n ' s L i f e Events I n v e n t o r y (1973) and the IPAT A n x i e t y S c a l e (1963). I n s t r u m e n t a t i o n M a t e r n a l E a r l y Treatment. The M a t e r n a l E a r l y Treatment (MET) i n t e r v i e w was d e s i g n e d by the auth o r f o r the c u r r e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n . The purpose o f t h i s i n s t r u m e n t was to d e t e r -mine how women p e r c e i v e t h e i r own t r e a t m e n t i n c h i l d h o o d . Because o f the d e l i c a t e n a t u r e o f the c o n t e n t , q u e s t i o n s were worded to f a c i l i t a t e as much r a p p o r t between i n t e r -v iewer and s u b j e c t as p o s s i b l e . Q u e s t i o n s were c o n s t r u c t e d a f t e r d i s c u s s i o n w i t h e x p e r t s i n the f i e l d who had i n t i m a t e knowledge o f t h i s p a r t i c u l a r sample. The c o n t e n t o f the i n t e r v i e w r e f l e c t s t r e a t m e n t b e l i e v e d to be h a r m f u l to the c h i l d and c o n s t i t u t i n g abuse as i n d i c a t e d i n the c u r r e n t l i t e r a t u r e . The i n t e r v i e w s were conducted a t one o f the r e g u l a r l y - 5 9 -scheduled testing periods of 42, 48 and 54 months and were administered by experienced research personnel who had been involved with the current sample for no less than two years. Care Rating Scale. This c h e c k l i s t was developed by Egeland and Deinard (1977) as a measure of the quality of care a c h i l d receives in the home. Items were selected from three d i f f e r e n t sources: (1) existing items from the Child-hood Level of Living Scale (Polansky, 1972) (2) profession-als in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area working with abusing and neglecting families (3) observations of the situations of a number of abusing and neglecting fa m i l i e s . The f i n a l item set was chosen on the basis of how well they d i f f e r e n -tiated abusing and neglecting families from those with no known abuse or neglect. After f i n a l selection of items, v a l i d i t y data were obtained by determining how accurately the scale d i f f e r e n t i a t e d 10 known abusing families from 10 similar families with no known abuse. The scale d i f f e r e n t i -ated the two groups 100% with no overlap in the t o t a l number of items checked for the two groups. The ch e c k l i s t s were completed by experienced research assistants following a v i s i t to the subject's home. These home v i s i t s are conducted approximately once every 6 months. The 2 most recent scales were used as an index of the qual-i t y of caregiving in the home. Personality Research Form. Jackson's Personality Research Form (1967) is a standardized personality inventory measuring from 15-22 constructs depending on the form used. Instrument construction began with the adaptation of 20 -60-t r a i t items from a l i s t of needs o r i g i n a l l y formulated by Murray. These t r a i t s were further refined and over 100 face v a l i d items were generated for each t r a i t d e f i n i t i o n . Each item hypothetically bore some conceptual l i n k to the t r a i t being measured. These items were c r i t i c a l l y reviewed by 2 or more editors and administered to a large group of college students. Twenty items for each of the f i n a l scales were selected. The resulting scale demonstrated high content v a l i d i t y . Internal consistency r e l i a b i l i t y estimates using Kuder-Richardson 20 for the four subscales are as follows: Aggression, .94; Defendence, .80; Impulsivity, .92; Succor-ance, .92. One week t e s t - r e t e s t • r e l i a b i l i t i e s for each scale were as follows: Aggression, .85; Defendence, .72; Impulsivity, .81; Succorance, .84. IPAT Anxiety Scale. Cattel and Scheir's (1963) IPAT Anxiety Scale i s a 40 item questionnaire designed to measure free f l o a t i n g anxiety in a rapid, standardized and objective manner. The construction, rationale and v a l i d i t y was accom-plished over an extended period of time. Five factors cluster together to y i e l d a composite score. These primary factors are described as (1) Tense/Relaxed, (2) Apprehensive/ Self Assured, (3) Emo-t i o n a l l y Unstable/Emotionally Stable, (4) Suspi-cious/Trusting, (5) Uncontrolled/Self Controlled. Internal v a l i d i t y , which i s estimated between .85 and .90, was obtained by a convergence of three methods of v a l i -dation estimation: (1) item to subscale loadings (2) item to t o t a l test correlations and (3) the derivation of the -61-square r o o t o f the s p l i t h a l f r e l i a b i l i t y . R e l i a b i l i t y e s t i m a t e s range from .8 ( R u d e r - R i c h a r d s o n 20) to .93 ( t e s t -r e t e s t ) . I n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c y r e l i a b i l i t y e s t i m a t e s f o r each s u b s c a l e range from .59 ( A p p r e h e n s i v e / S e l f Assured) to .26 ( S u s p i c i o u s / T r u s t i n g ) . L i f e E v e n t s I n v e n t o r y . The L i f e Events I n v e n t o r y i s a 43 i t e m c h e c k l i s t d e s i g n e d by Egeland and D e i n a r d (1977) and i s based on the Cochrane- R o b e r t s o n L i f e S t r e s s I n v e n t o r y (1973) . T h i r t y - e i g h t items from the L. fe S t r e s s I n v e n t o r y were i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o the p r e s e n t i n v e n t o r y . F i v e a d d i -t i o n a l i t e m s , d e s i g n e d s p e c i f i c a l l y f o r t h i s sample and hav-in g to do w i t h w e l f a r e , money problems and a b o y f r i e n d ' s move o u t , were added. In o r d e r to a s s e s s the v a r y i n g degrees o f d i s r u p t i o n i n v o l v e d w i t h p a r t i c u l a r i t e m s , a new s c o r i n g system was d e v e l o p e d . Each item was s c o r e d and the response weighted from 0-3 depending on the s e v e r i t y o f the d i s r u p t i o n and the amount o f r e a d j u s t m e n t needed. T h i s s c o r i n g system was con-s t r u c t e d v i a the f o l l o w i n g s t e p s . F i r s t , a number o f r e s p o n s e s was regarded and a g e n e r a l s e t o f c r i t e r i a f o r d e t e r m i n i n g the degree o f d i s r u p t i o n was d e v i s e d . C r i t e r i a i n c l u d e d f r e q u e n c y and d u r a t i o n o f e v e n t s , c l o s e n e s s o f the r e l a t i o n s h i p o f i n d i v i d u a l s i n v o l v e d and consequences o f the e v e n t . Second, c r i t e r i a were a p p l i e d to the i t e m s . T h i r d , a s e r i e s o f r e v i s i o n s f o l l o w e d and a s p e c i f i c s e t o f c r i t e -r i a f o r each i t e m was d e v e l o p e d . I n t e r - r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y a t the 6 month v i s i t a t i o n was 95% agreement. Attachment R a t i n g s . The attachment r a t i n g s o f mother--62-c h i l d pairs were assessed v i a the Ainsworth and Wittig Strange Situation (1969). This i s the procedure most com-monly used to assess the attachment construct. The procedure i t s e l f consists of eight time segments t o t a l l i n g approximately 22 minutes. B a s i c a l l y , these e p i -sodes are a series of b r i e f separations and reunions for the mother and her c h i l d in an unfamiliar s e t t i n g . A l l s i t u a -tions were videotaped and later coded into one of three basic c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s : Anxious/Avoidant (A), Securely Atta-ched (B), or Anxious/Resistant (C). Anxious Avoidant infants t y p i c a l l y exhibit low proximity seeking, contact maintaining and contact r e s i s t i n g behaviors and tend to avoid their mothers upon a reunion following a b r i e f separa-t i o n . Securely attached babies exhibit high proximity seek-ing and contact maintenance ( i f distressed) and low proxim-i t y avoiding. Anxious/Resistant babies demonstrate high proximity seeking, contact maintenance and contact r e s i s t -ing, but low proximity avoiding (Waters, 1978). A l l attach-ment ratings used in the present investigation were obtained when the infants were 18 months of age. Situations were coded by experienced raters. R e l i a b i l i t y at 18 months for 25 randomly selected subjects was .92. Family Environment Scale. The Family Environment Scale (Moos, 1974) i s a 90 item true-false test designed to tap various aspects of a family's s o c i a l climate. Three dimen-sions are measured v i a 10 d i f f e r e n t subscales. They are the Relationship Dimensions (Cohesion, Expressiveness, Con-f l i c t ) , Personal Growth Dimensions (Independence, Active -63-Recreation Orientation, I n t e l l e c t u a l Cultural Orientation, Achievement Orientation, Moral-Religious Emphasis) and Sys-tem Maintenance Dimensions (Organization, Control). I n i t i a l l y , 200 items were generated and administered to over 1,000 individuals in a sample of 286 f a m i l i e s . Fami-l i e s were heterogeneous to ensure that the resulting scale would be appropriate to the broadest range of f a m i l i e s . Various psychometric test construction procedures were used for f i n a l item s e l e c t i o n . Internal consistencies were obtained by average item to subscale correlations and 8 week individual t e s t - r e t e s t s . These ranged from a low of .68 (Independence) to a high of .86 (Cohesion). To ensure appropriateness for the current sample, a p i l o t study was conducted. Thirty-eight women attending the Mpls. Public Health Center's well baby c l i n i c s were requested to complete the FES while waiting to see the doc-tor. Subjects in t h i s c l i n i c were similar to the sample currently under investigation. Internal consistency r e l i a -b i l i t i e s using Cronbach's Alpha were obtained for a l l scales. Results were as follows: Cohesion-.50, Expressive-ness-.52, Conf1ict-.54, Independence-.71, I n t e l l e c t u a l - C u l -tural Orientation-.50, Active Recreation Orientation-.55, Moral Religious Emphasis-.77, Organization-.68 and Con-trol-.65. Social Networks Inventory. The Social Networks Inven-tory was designed by the author for the current investiga-tion and was based primarily on the Belle-Longfellow (1977) and the Pattison (1979) scales. Three basic dimensions of -64-s o c i a l networks are measured: network s i z e , network support and network density. The f i r s t subscale indicates the size of network in which the individual p a r t i c i p a t e s . The second subscale, network support, indicates the degree to which each subject, feels supported by her network. Density i n d i -cates how many individuals known to the subject are also known to each other. A high density rating means that most members know most of the other members. A low rating i n d i -cates the opposite. In order to ensure that individual subscales were indeed measuring d i f f e r e n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , data were obtained from 41 women attending the Mpls. Public Health C l i n i c . This sample was chosen because of i t s s i m i l a r i t y to the sample under investigation. Subscales were correlated using Pearson's product-moment c o r r e l a t i o n a l c o e f f i c i e n t and were as follows: Support/Size=.16, (p=.156), Sup-port/Density^ 03 , (p=.414), Size/Density=.05, (p=.370). A l l network inventories were i n d i v i d u a l l y administered. Items were read to a l l subjects and responses recorded by the interview administrator. A summary of instruments, their authors, and dates of administration may be found in Appendix B. -65-Data Analysis In order to empirically test the proposed ecological model, a series of analyses i s conducted. These analyses are aimed at assessing the e f f e c t s of variables within their individual systems as well as within the t o t a l ecological model. The ontogenic data here represents the personality t r a i t s of groups of abusing and nonabusing women. Theoreti-c a l l y , these data most c l o s e l y r e f l e c t the emphasis on per-sonality as represented by proponents of a psychiatric model of abuse. The assessment of early maltreatment empirically tests the often cited r e l a t i o n s h i p between a mother's early experiences and the subsequent maltreament of her own c h i l d . The microsystem data represents the dyadic relationship between a mother and her c h i l d as well as the mother's per-ception of some broader c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of family function-ing. The data in t h i s system r e f l e c t s a s o c i a l - i n t e r a c -t i o n a l view of abuse by considering how various characteris-t i c s of dyadic relationships may impact upon a p o t e n t i a l l y abusive s i t u a t i o n . The mesosystem in t h i s investigation represents the impact of l i f e stress and s o c i a l networks on the quality of caretaking. S p e c i f i c a l l y , the frequency and intensity of changing l i f e events, network support, size and density were chosen as variables representative of the mesosystem. This combination of variables most c l o s e l y resembles a s o c i o l o g i -cal model of abuse. -66-I n d i v i d u a l s y s t e m s a n a l y s i s . The o n t o g e n i c d a t a i n t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n r e p r e s e n t t h e g e n e r a l p e r s o n a l i t y t y p e s o f women i n t h i s s a m p l e . A d d i t i o n a l d a t a c o l l e c t e d w i t h i n t h i s s y s t e m a s s e s s t h e q u a l i t y o f c a r e t a k i n g women e x p e r i -e n c e d i n t h e i r own c h i l d h o o d , i . e . , w h e t h e r o r n o t s h e h e r -s e l f , was a v i c t i m o f a b u s e . S p e c i f i c a l l y , f i v e p e r s o n a l i t y m e a s u r e s w e r e o b t a i n e d : a n x i e t y , a g g r e s s i o n , d e f e n d e n c e , i m p u l s i v i t y a n d s u c c o r a n c e . The f i r s t a n a l y s i s i n t h e o n t o g e n i c d o m a i n i s a i m e d a t r e d u c i n g t h e s e v a r i a b l e s t o a s i n g l e f a c t o r . T h i s i s a c c o m -p l i s h e d u s i n g a p r i n c i p a l c o m p o n e n t s f a c t o r a n a l y s i s w i t h v a r i m a x r o t a t i o n . D a t a r e d u c t i o n was c o n d u c t e d f o r two r e a -s o n s . F i r s t , t h e i n t e n t i n t h i s i n v e s t i g a i o n was t o o b t a i n a g e n e r a l p i c t u r e o f p e r s o n a l i t y , o r a m a r k e r v a r i a b l e ; n o t t o e x p l o r e i n d i v i d u a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f p e r s o n a l i t y d i f f e r -e n c e s . S e c o n d , b e c a u s e o f t h e r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l number o f s u b j e c t s i n t h e c u r r e n t s a m p l e , a n d t h e i n i t i a l l y l a r g e n u m -b e r o f t o t a l v a r i a b l e s i n a l l t h r e e s y s t e m s , d a t a r e d u c t i o n was n e c e s s a r y t o c o n s e r v e o n t h e number o f d e g r e e s o f f r e e -dom . The s e c o n d a n a l y s i s i n t h e o n t o g e n i c d o m a i n i s a s t e p -w i s e m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n e n t e r i n g two v a r i a b l e s ; t h e p e r s o n -a l i t y f a c t o r a n d w h e t h e r o r n o t t h e m o t h e r was a b u s e d i n h e r own c h i l d h o o d . The o r d e r o f v a r i a b l e i n c l u s i o n i n t h e r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s i s n o t s p e c i f i e d . T h i s m e t h o d o f r e g r e s s i o n a l l o w s t h e v a r i a b l e a c c o u n t i n g f o r t h e m o s t v a r i -a n c e t o b e e n t e r e d i n t o t h e e q u a t i o n f i r s t , t h e v a r i a b l e a c c o u n t i n g f o r t h e n e x t h i g h e s t a m o u n t o f v a r i a n c e e n t e r e d - 6 7 -second, and so on. The advantage to this approach in the ontogenic domain i s that i t c l a r i f i e s the relationship between personality variables, early abuse and the c r i t e r i o n measure. That i s , i t enables a comparison of the r e l a t i v e power of the personality variable with abuse in childhood. The next analysis within t h i s domain i s a discriminant function analysis. While not t r u l y a d i f f e r e n t form of analysis in t h i s case, i t affords another way of extracting additional information from t h i s system and allows one to predict the c r i t e r i o n measure so l e l y on the basis of person-a l i t y and early treatment. It i s also used as a basis for comparing p r e d i c t a b i l i t y rates from the other two systems i n d i v i d u a l l y and then from the entire model. The microsystem in t h i s investigation represents two broad areas of family functioning. The f i r s t i s the dyadic rela t i o n s h i p between the mother and her c h i l d as measured by the attachment r a t i n g . The second area i s concerned with the mother's perception of her family members and of the general family environment. Spe c i f i c areas assessed include organization, c o n f l i c t , expressiveness, c o n t r o l , independ-ence, cohesion, orientations towards achievement, i n t e l l e c -tual pursuits, recreation and r e l i g i o n . The analysis of the microsystem data i s similar to the analysis of the ontogenic data. The i n i t i a l step i s to reduce the ten subscales of the Family Environment Scale into a more manageable data set. Again, t h i s i s accom-plished using an exploratory factor analysis with varimax rot a t i o n . The second step i s entering the factors from the -68-factor analysis, along with the attachment data, into a stepwise multiple regression. Here, as in the ontogenic domain, the order of variable inclusion i s not specified so that the variables may be allowed to enter the equation in order of their s i g n i f i c a n c e . The t h i r d analysis within the microsystem is a d i s c r i -minant function analysis. The advantage to a reanalysis of the same variance v i s a v i s a discriminant function analysis is that i t enables a rate of prediction into the c r i t e r i o n groups based solely on the information from t h i s system. It allows one to compare the d i f f e r i n g rates of prediction between the microsystem and other systems. The mesosystem here b a s i c a l l y represents the impact of s o c i a l networks and l i f e stress on parent-child r e l a t i o n s . Three basic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of s o c i a l networks are i n v e s t i -gated: network s i z e , support and density. These variables, along with the l i f e stress data are entered into a stepwise multiple regression analysis. As with the other two regres-sion analyses, the order of variable inclusion remains unspecified. The l a s t analysis in t h i s system is a discriminant function. Again, the purpose i s to discern the power of p r e d i c t a b i l i t y of the mesosystem variables and compare the o v e r a l l prediction rate with the o v e r a l l prediction rates of the other two systems. Ecological Systems Analysis. The next step in the analysis i s the integration of the systems into a larger framework. A l l three systems are combined and subjected to -69-a stepwise multiple regression analysis, p a r a l l e l i n g the analyses previously conducted on the systems i n d i v i d u a l l y . While the order of variable inclusion was again, l e f t unspecified, the order of system inclusion was s p e c i f i e d . In other words, in keeping with the ecological model, the ontogenic variables are entered f i r s t , the microsystem v a r i -ables second and the mesosystem variables l a s t . The purpose of t h i s analysis i s two-fold. F i r s t , i t i s to view the con-tr i b u t i o n s of a l l variables in relationship to one another: Second, i t i s to see whether or not the variance accounted for by combining systems exceeds the variance accounted for by the systems i n d i v i d u a l l y . The second analysis of the o v e r a l l model is a d i s c r i m i -nant function analysis. The purpose of t h i s analysis i s to determine whether or not the power of prediction into c r i t e -rion groups can be improved upon by combining the informa-tion from a l l three systems. Descriptive Analyses. The next series of analyses i s designed to explore the differences on individual variables within domains between four previously defined groups: abused/abusing, abused/notabusing, not abused/abusing, not abused/not abusing. A two way analysis of variance c o n t r o l -lin g for the e f f e c t s of maternal abuse was conducted on the following variables: h o s t i l i t y , family continuity, family r i g i d i t y , network s i z e , network support, network density. Follow-up analyses of the s i g n i f i c a n t F tests are conducted using Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test (or Bonfferroni's t ) . This i s the test most commonly used for planned, nonorthogo--70-nal contrasts. The purpose of these analyses i s two-fold; f i r s t , to provide a richer description of the differences between women who were abused in childhood and those who were not; second, to better describe the other two anomolous groups, i. e . , women who were abused and are not abusing and women who were not abused and are abusing. CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Hypotheses are restated and results are presented f i r s t for each of the three individual systems: ontogenic, micro-system and mesosystem. Secondly, hypotheses and results of the integrated model are presented. Ontogenic Hypothesis 1: Hypothesis 2: Hypothesis 3: That personality and maternal abuse variables combined, w i l l account for a s i g n i f i c a n t amount of the variance within the ontogenic domain. That maternal abuse w i l l account for more variance than the personality data. That a s i g n i f i c a n t number of cases w i l l be co r r e c t l y c l a s s i f i e d into abusing and nonabusing groups s o l e l y on the basis of the ontogenic data. The f i r s t variable in the ontogenic domain was whether or not the mother had been abused in her own childhood. Of the 107 women selected for the current investigation, 49 (46%) reported having been abused. While the rate of maternal abuse in childhood was expected to be high because of the at ris k nature of the sample, a 46% rate becomes alarming es p e c i a l l y in l i g h t of the stringent c r i t e r i a used for s e l e c t i o n . Women who reported incidences bordering on -72-maltreatment were excluded from the sample. This rate f a r exceeds the 1-2% generally c i t e d f o r abuse i n a normal pop-ul a t i o n . Of the 49 women who reported abuse, 38 (78%) of these were engaged i n the maltreatment of t h e i r own children, while only 11 (22$) were not. A two dimensional chi-square revealed a highly s i g n i f i c a n t (p=.001) r e l a t i o n s h i p between the q u a l i t y of care a mother received i n her own childhhod and the subsequent care she was able to give her c h i l d . Women who were abused were f a r more l i k e l y to mistreat t h e i r own o f f s p r i n g . In order to reduce the ontogenic data into a more manageable form, a p r i n c i p a l components factor analysis (varimax rotation) using the following variables was con-ducted on the entire samples anxiety, aggression, succorance, impulsivity and defendence. A single factor solution was obtained. The r e s u l t s including the f a c t o r loadings f o r the f i r s t p r i n c i p a l component, are presented i n Table 1 . The decision to r e t a i n a one factor solution was based on several c r i -t e r i a . The f i r s t was an a p r i o r i decision to accept any fac t o r with an eigenvalue greater than one. Second was the intent to obtain a marker variable of personality rather than detailed personality p r o f i l e s . Lastly was the desire to con-serve on the number of degrees of freedom fo r future analyses. Women scoring high on t h i s factor may be characterized as highly aggressive, h o s t i l e and i r r i t a b l e . They are - 7 3 -e a s i l y offended by other people's actions towards them and suspect that others are 'out to get them'. These women are highly impulsive and often express t h e i r emotions i n a v o l a t i l e fashion. This f a c t o r ' i s hereafter referred to as the ' H o s t i l i t y " f actor. -74-Table 1 Subscale Statistics and Factor Loading Matrix of Ontogenic Data Variable X SD Factor 1 Loading Anxiety 35.74 13.91 .16 .41 Aggression 7.52 3.58 .73 .86 Defendence 6.69 3.44 .63 .79 Impulsivity 6.41 3.02 .54 .73 Succorance 8.21 '3.54 .20 .44 Eigenvalues 1 2 3 4 5 2.28 0.98 0.79 0.58 0.24 The second set of a n a l y s e s w i t h i n the ontogenic domain was designed to assess the r e l a t i v e c o n t r i b u t i o n s of both the maternal abuse v a r i a b l e and the p e r s o n a l i t y f a c t o r to the c r i t e r i o n measure, i . e . , whether or not the mother was abusing her c h i l d . T h i s was done v i a a m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s . In order to determine the F r a t i o and s i g n i f i -cance l e v e l s f o r i n d i v i d u a l v a r i a b l e s , the f o l l o w i n g formula was used: 2 R (source) / df (source) 2 1-R / N-R-l 2 2 where R (source) = the change i n R : d f ( s o u r c e ) = the number of degrees of freedom accounting for the change 2 2 2 i n the R : 1 - R = 1 - the R f o r the f u l l model: N = T o t a l number of independent v a r i a b l e s i n the model. ( K e r l i n g e r and Pedhazur, 1973). -76-Table 2 Multiple Regression Analysis for Ontogenic Variables: Hostility and Maternal Abuse System Variable Mult. R R2 2 , R change Simple R F Ontogenic Maternal Abuse .5125 .2626 .2626 .51 34.55* Hostility .5140 .2642 .0016 -.12 .210 *p .000 As can be seen in Table 2, the maternal abuse variable accounted for almost a l l of the variance in the ontogenic system. As was expected in t h i s sample, women who abused their children were most l i k e l y to have been abused in their own childhoods. The h o s t i l i t y factor in t h i s investigation contributed l i t t l e additional information to the o v e r a l l understanding of who i s l i k e l y to abuse their own c h i l d and who i s not. The combined information from the ontogenic system accounted for 26% of the variance. The results of t h i s analysis support the f i r s t and sec-ond hypotheses in the ontogenic system. The combination of maternal abuse information and the h o s t i l i t y variable account for a s i g n i f i c a n t amount of variance within t h i s domain. H o s t i l i t y contributed only n e g l i g i b l y ; the most powerful variable was whether or not the mother was abused in her own childhood. Additional information was sought to determine the power of prediction of the ontogenic domain alone. A d i s -criminant function analysis was employed to determine the percentage of correct c l a s s i f i c a t i o n into one of two groups: abusing or not abusing. These results are given in Table 3. -78-Table 3 Discriminant Function Classification Results: Ontogenic Domain Predicted Group Membership Actual Group No. of Cases Abusing Not Abusing Abusing 51 37 14 Not Abusing 56 12 44 Percent correct classification = 75.70 (p = .000) Using only the information from the ontogenic domain, i t was possible to c o r r e c t l y c l a s s i f y 76% of the cases. Because of the power of the maternal abuse variable and the r e l a t i v e i n s i g n i f i c a n c e of the h o s t i l i t y variable, one may conclude that knowledge of the mother's treatment in her own childhood alone enables a s i g n i f i c a n t rate of c l a s s i f i c a -t i o n . These findings support the t h i r d hypothesis. Microsystem Hypothesis 4: That data obtained on the family environment, combined with the attachment ratings w i l l account for a s i g n i f i c a n t amount of variance within the microsystem. Hypothesis 5: That a s i g n i f i c a n t number of cases w i l l be c o r r e c t l y predicted into abusing and nonabusing groups s o l e l y on the basis of microsystem data. The f i r s t set of analyses on variables within the microsystem was a p r i n c i p a l components factor analysis (var-imax rotation) on a l l 107 subjects for the ten subscale scores on the Family Environment Scale. The subscales were as follows: Control, Expressiveness, C o n f l i c t , Independence, Achievement Orientation, I n t e l l e c t u a l Cultural Orientation, Moral-Religious Emphasis, Organization and Control. Two factors were derived from th i s analysis. While the eigenva-lues suggest the p o s s i b i l i t y of three p r i n c i p a l factors, only the f i r s t two were considered interpretable. The f i r s t -80-factor, hereafter referred to as the Family Continuity Fac-tor, describes a highly cohesive, independent and gregarious family system. Women scoring high on thi s factor viewed their families as highly supportive and committed to the welfare of the family. They saw family members as able to express their feelings in an open and honest fashion with a minimum of c o n f l i c t or aggression. Family members were fur-ther characterized by their l e v e l s of independence, that i s , were encouraged to be assertive, think for themselves and make their own decisions. In addition, these people were ac t i v e l y engaged in a variety of i n t e l l e c t u a l , c u l t u r a l and/or recreational a c t i v i t i e s outside the family. Con-versely, women scoring low on this factor viewed their fami-l i e s as minimally supportive and not very interested i n , or committed to the family's welfare. They f e l t their members to be dependent on either themselves or others in the family for most of the their needs, and showed l i t t l e interest or desire to par t i c i p a t e in a c t i v i t i e s outside the family. Interactions were characterized by c o n f l i c t , aggression and host i l i t y . The second factor i s c a l l e d the Ri g i d i t y factor. Women scoring high on th i s factor viewed their environments as much more constrained than those with low scores. Family members were considered highly competitive both with each other and with society in general. This competition was reflected e s p e c i a l l y in the h i e r a r c h i c a l organization and 'pecking order' of i t s members. Religion was strongly emphasized and rules in the family appeared to be very -81-s t r i c t and i n f l e x i b l e . These results are presented in Table 4. -82-Table 4 Subscale Statistics and Factor Leading Matrix of Microsystem Data Variable X SD N Family Cont Rigidity Cohesion 7.32 1.68 103 .63 "l. .34 .65 Expressiveness 6.14 1.91 103 .74 -.07 .56 Conflict 3.26 1.96 103 -.41 -.22 .21 Independence 6.62 1.51 103 .52 .00 .27 /Achievement Orient 4.85 1.94 103 .05 .58 .34 Int/Cult Orient 4.86 2.16 103 .59 -.03 .35 Active Rec Orient 5.13 2.47 103 .56 .25 .34 Moral Rel Emphasis 5.33 2.12 103 .21 .66 .48 Organization 5.51 2.23 103 .24 .80 .71 Control 4.77 1.94 103 -.42 .74 .74 Eigenvalues 1 2 3 4 5 2.84 1.87 1.25 0.92 0.78 6 7 8 9 10 0.67 0.55 0.50 0.29 0.28 The second set of analyses was designed to determine the rela t i o n s h i p between having been abused in childhood and subsequent quality of attachment. This information, along with the results of the family environment data, r e f l e c t certain growth, relationship and system maintenance dimen-sions of the family as a unit as well as the quality of the mother's relationship with her c h i l d . The attachment c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s , secure and anxious, were cross-tabulated with whether or not the mother had been abused in childhood. The hypothesis predicted that women who were abused would have s i g n i f i c a n t l y more anxiously attached children than those who were not abused. A Chi-Square analysis between groups yielded no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f -ferences between the abused and the not abused groups of women on quality of attachment. Therefore, the nu l l hypoth-esis of no s i g n i f i c a n t difference was not rejected. Having been abused in one's childhood bore no s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n -ship to the subsequent quality of attachment between mother and c h i l d . There were s i g n i f i c a n t differences however between groups for abusing and not abusing mothers. As was predicted, women who abused their children were s i g n i f i -cantly more l i k e l y to have children who were anxiously a t t a -ched than women who did not abuse. Sixty percent of the women who were abusing had anxiously attached children ver-sus forty percent who were not abusing (p=.04). While the quali t y of care received by the mother in her own childhood bore l i t t l e r elationship to the quality of subsequent at t a -chment between her and her own c h i l d , the manner in which -84-she treated her own c h i l d was related to attachment. The th i r d set of analyses employed a multiple regres-sion to assess the r e l a t i v e contribution of the two family factors and the attachment data to the outcome measure, i . e . , whether or not the mother abused her c h i l d . These results are presented in Table 5. -85-Table 5 Multiple Regression Analysis for Microsystem: Family Continuity, Rigidity and Attachment System Variable . Mult. R R2 R2 change Simple R F Microsystem Family Continuity .3589 .1288 .1288 .35 14.47* Family Rigidity .3630 .1317 .0029 -.05 .3258 Attachment .3631 .1319 .0003 .07 .0337 *p .01 The variable in t h i s system responsible for the great-est contribution to the outcome measure was Family Continu-i t y . Both the R i g i d i t y factor and the Attachment data con-tributed l i t t l e after Family Continuity was entered. The combination of these variables however, did account for a s i g n i f i c a n t amount of the t o t a l variance, thus supporting the fourth hypothesis. The f i f t h hypothesis was tested via a discriminant function analysis and was designed to predict group member-ship into either abusing or not abusing groups. These results are given in Table 6. -87-Table 6 Discriminant Function Classification Results Microsystem Domain Predicted Group Membership Actual Group No. of Cases* Abusing Not Abusing Abusing 48 29 19 Not Abusing 56 13 43 Percent of grouped cases correctly classified 69.23 (p = .007) * 3 cases had at least 1 missing predictor variable. Knowing the mother's score on the family continuity factor, r i g i d i t y factor and quality of attachment enabled a 69% rate of correct c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . Although t h i s rate i s lower than the percentage of correct c l a s s i f i c a t i o n from the ontogenic domain, t h i s percentage s t i l l r e f l e c t s a s i g n i f i -cant number of c o r r e c t l y c l a s s i f i e d cases, and supports the f i f t h hypothesis. -89-Mesosystem Hypothesis 6: That network s i z e , network support, network density and l i f e stress account for a s i g n i f i c a n t amount of variance in the mesosystem. Hypothesis 7: That a s i g n i f i c a n t number of cases w i l l be c o r r e c t l y predicted into abusing and nonabusing groups so l e l y on the basis of the mesosystem data. Mesosystem variables were designed to measure three d i s t i n c t aspects of s o c i a l networks: network s i z e , network support and network density (the percentage of persons know-ing each other in the same network). Descriptive s t a t i s t i c s for each variable for a l l subjects (N=107) are presented in Table 7. Table 7 Descriptive Statistics for Mesosystem Variables on Total Sample Variable X SD Range N Size 13.02 6.90 4-33 104 Support '178,99 26.16 75.55-245.15 104 Density .79 . 1 7 .36-1.00 104 , Life Stress • 9.83 7.15 0-38 104 The f i r s t set of analyses for mesosystem variables assessed the r e l a t i v e contribution of each variable to the outcome measure, i . e . , whether or not a woman was abusing her c h i l d . This was accomplished v i a a multiple regression analysis. The variable accounting for the single most variance was L i f e Stress. The next most important variable was Net-work Size followed by Support and then Density. L i f e Stress in the Mesosystem accounted for as much variance as the maternal abuse variable accounted for in the ontogenic sys-tem. These results support the positi v e relationship between l i f e stress and c h i l d abuse. That i s , women who abuse their children tend to experience higher l e v e l s of l i f e stress than those who do not. These findings also sup-port the sixth hypothesis. Mesosystem variables account for a s i g n i f i c a n t amount of variance. These results are pres-ented in Table 8. -92-Table 8 Multiple Regression Analysis for Mesosystem Variables: Network Size, Support, Density and Li f e Stress System Variable Mult. R 2 R change Simple R F Mesosystem Life Stress .5098 .2599 .2599 -.50 34.19* Size .5183 .2690 .0091 111 1.21 Support .5201 .2705 .0014 .16 .186 Density .5202 .2706 .0001 -.01 .013 *p .000 Next, as in the f i r s t two systems, a discriminant func-tion analysis was conducted on the variables in the mesosys-tem to predict group membership - abusing or not abusing. Again, as with the ontogenic and the microsystem, t h i s anal-y s i s was used to determine the predictive power of the meso-system variables only. These results are presented in Table 9. -94-Table 9 Discriminant Function Classification Results: Mesosystem Domain Predicted Group Membership Actual Group No. of Cases* Abusing .:' Not Abusing Abusing 51 32 19 Not Abusing 53 6 47 Percent of grouped cases correctly classified -75.96% (p = .000) * 3 cases had at least one missing predictor variable. The results given in Table 9 suggest that information from the mesosystem is valuable in predicting whether or not a mother w i l l abuse her c h i l d . The most powerful predictor among th i s group of variables i s the degree of change in l i f e events, or l i f e s tress. A t o t a l of 75% correct c l a s s i -f i c a t i o n was obtained from t h i s analysis. Both mesosystem hypotheses were supported. The four mesosystem variables accounted for a s i g n i f i c a n t amount of variance within the t o t a l system and a s i g n i f i c a n t number of cases was c o r r e c t l y c l a s s i f i e d into the c r i t e r i o n groups. -96-An I n t e g r a t i o n H y p o t h e s i s 8: That the c o m b i n a t i o n o f a l l systems i n t o a r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s w i l l account f o r more v a r i a n c e than the v a r i a n c e accounted f o r by any one system i n d i v i d u a l l y . H y p o t h e s i s 9: That the r a t e o f c o r r e c t c l a s s i f i c a t i o n i n t o a b using and nonabusing groups from the t o t a l model w i l l exceed the r a t e o f c o r r e c t c l a s s i f i c a t i o n f o r any one system i n d i v i d u a l l y . I t i s c l e a r from the a n a l y s e s o f the i n d i v i d u a l systems t h a t each one o f them c o n t r i b u t e s a s i g n i f i c a n t amount o f i n f o r m a t i o n both t o the o v e r a l l u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f abuse e t i o l o g y , and to the a b i l i t y t o p r e d i c t who may or may not end up a b u s i n g t h e i r o f f s p r i n g . However, the i n t e g r a t i o n o f t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n i s the next s t e p towards a g r e a t e r under-s t a n d i n g o f the a b u s i v e p a r e n t . B e l s k y (1979) has e l u c i d a t e d a c o n c e p t u a l framework f o r abuse e t i o l o g y based h e a v i l y on B r o n f e n b r e n n e r ' s (1979) model of e c o l o g i c a l development. From both o f t h e s e t h e o -r i s t s , t h i s a uthor has d e v e l o p e d a t h i r d , e m p i r i c a l l y t e s t a -b l e model where o n l y systems i n which the d e v e l o p i n g person i s c o n t a i n e d are c o n s i d e r e d . Three systems, the o n t o g e n i c , m i c r o s y s t e m and mesosystem r e p r e s e n t environments and i n t e r -a c t i o n s t h a t a l l have a d i r e c t impact on the d e v e l o p i n g c h i l d . V a r i a b l e s b e l i e v e d to be r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f each s y s --97-tem were selected and investigated. In order to investigate these systems, two series of analyses, p a r a l l e l i n g the analyses done with the individual systems were conducted. The f i r s t was a multiple regression analysis entering variables and factors from a l l three sys-tems. These results are presented in Table 10. -98-Table 10 Multiple Regression Analysis Ontogenic, Microsystem and Mesosystem Data System Variable Mult. R R2. R2 change Simple R F Ontogenic Abused .5124 .2626 .2626 .51 46.07*** Ontogenic Hostility .5140 .2642 .0015 -.12 .26 Microsystem Continuity .5699 .3248 .0606 .35 10.63* Microsystem Rigidity .5730 .3283 .0035 -.01 .61 Microsystem Attachment .5737 .3291 .0008 .04 .14 Mesosystem Life Stress .6595 .4349 .1058 -.50 18.56** Mesosystem Support .6640 .4408 .0059 .16 1.03 Mesosystem Size .6661 .4437 .0028 .11 .49 Mesosystem Density .6662 .4438 .0001 -.01 .01 *p .005 **p .001 ***p .000 There are two basic advantages to taking a l l three sys-tems and integrating them into a larger framework. The f i r s t i s that the individual contributions of each variable may be seen in r e l a t i o n to the other variables. For exam-ple, the r e l a t i v e l y large increases in the R Square change for the Family Continuity, L i f e Stress and Maternal Abuse variables account for more variance than, say for example, the Density variable which only has an R Square value of .0002. The second advantage i s the a b i l i t y to determine how much ov e r a l l variance a l l three systems together can account for, and compare i t to the amount of variance each i n d i v i d -ual system accounts f o r . Before t h i s comparison can be made however, some men-tion must be made of the problem of shrinkage of the multi-ple c o r r e l a t i o n . When beta weights have been determined on a single sample, as in thi s investigation, overestimation occurs because the zero order correlations are treated as though they were error free. The resulting R i s an in f l a t e d estimate of the relationship between the independent and dependent variables. There are two ways to correct for i n f l a t i o n . One i s a cross v a l i d a t i o n using another sample similar to the one currently under investigation. Because of the longitudinal nature of t h i s study, the length of time the women have parti c i p a t e d , and a lack of additional resources, cross v a l i d a t i o n in th i s case, i s not possible. The second method of correcting for an i n f l a t e d R i s by estimating the amount of shrinkage that would occur i f t h i s analysis and set of results were applied to another, similar -100-sample. The f o r m u l a commonly used f o r c o r r e c t i n g e s t i m a t e i s : a b i a s e d ' 2 2 N-1 R = 1 - (1 - R ) N-K-l 2 where R = the e s t i m a t e d squared m u l t i p l e c o r r e l a t i o n i n the p o p u l a t i o n ; N i s the sample s i z e and k i s the number o f independent v a r i a b l e s ( K e r l i n g e r and Pedhazur, 1973). R e c a l l i n g the r e s u l t s o f the m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n ana-l y s e s f o r each i n d i v i d u a l system ( T a b l e s 2, 5 and 8 ) , we see t h a t the o n t o g e n i c domain a l o n e c o n t r i b u t e s 26% o f the v a r i -ance, the m i c r o s y s t e m 13% and the mesosystem, 27%. When a l l t h r e e systems are c o n s i d e r e d t o g e t h e r , however, 44% o f the t o t a l v a r i a n c e i s accounted f o r . C o r r e c t i n g f o r i n f l a t i o n however by a p p l y i n g the above f o r m u l a y i e l d s a square o f .39. So when a l l t h r e e systems are e n t e r e d i n t o a s i n g l e r e g r e s s i o n and square i s c o r r e c t e d f o r i n f l a t i o n , 39% of the v a r i a n c e i s s t i l l accounted f o r . T h i s f i g u r e exceeds the amount o f v a r i a n c e accounted f o r by any s i n g l e system by 11% and s t r e n g t h e n s the argument f o r i n v e s t i g a t i o n s w i t h a b r o a d e r , more comprehensive range o f v a r i a b l e s . These r e s u l t s a l s o s u p p o r t the need to i n t e g r a t e a v a i l a b l e i n f o r m a t i o n w i t h new i n f o r m a t i o n when new t h e o r i e s o f e t i o l o g y a re b e i n g b u i l t . The second a n a l y s i s aimed a t i n t e g r a t i n g c u r r e n t i n f o r m a t i o n , a g a i n p a r a l l e l s the a n a l y s e s conducted w i t h i n -101-the individual domains. A discriminant function analysis entering a l l variables from a l l three systems was conducted. The purpose of t h i s analysis was to see whether or not the predictive power of the individual systems could be improved upon by entering the variables and factors into a single discriminant function. In other words, could the informa-tion from the three domains better predict who may abuse and who may not abuse than each system i n d i v i d u a l l y . These results are presented in Table 11. Table 12 l i s t s the results of the subsequent c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . -102-Table 11 Discriminant Fvjnction Analysis for Ontogenic, Microsystem, and Mesosystem Data Variable WiLks Lambda N Sig Stan. Discrim. Func. Coefficient Abused Hostility Family Continuity Li f e Stress Network Support .783 .768 .672 .559 .535 92 92 92 92 92 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .4068 .0205 .6836 -.3444 -.6791 * 15 cases had at least one missing discrirnirating variable. The four remaining variables, attachment, network s i z e , r i g i d i t y , and network density contributed no additional d i s -criminating power and therefore were automatically deleted from the analysis. - 1 0 4 -Table 12 Discriminant Function Classification Results for Ontogenic, Microsystem, and Mesosystem Data Predicted Group Membership Actual Group No. of Cases* Abusing Not Abusing Abusing 41 35 6 Not Abusing 51 7 44 Percent bf grouped.cases correctly c l a s s i f i e d 85.87% * 15 cases had at least 1 missing discriminant variable. Upon reviewing the r e s u l t s from Table 12, i t i s c l e a r t h a t combining the i n f o r m a t i o n from a l l three systems ena-b l e s a much higher r a t e of c o r r e c t c l a s s i f i c a t i o n than regarding any one system i n d i v i d u a l l y . R e c a l l i n g the r e s u l t s from the i n d i v i d u a l systems (Tables 3, 6 and 9), we see that a combination of a l l three systems i s much more powerful. The ontogenic i n f o r m a t i o n c o r r e c t l y c l a s s i f i e d 76% of the cases: the microsystem 69% and the mesosystem, 76%. The i n t e g r a t i o n of three systems increased the rate to 85%. Again, these r e s u l t s support the need to continue a broad range of i n v e s t i g a t i o n . T h i s i s p a r t i c u l a r l y impor-tant f o r c l i n i c i a n s and s e r v i c e d e l i v e r y systems i n need of be t t e r t o o l s to assess the l i k e l i h o o d of an abusive outcome. D e s c r i p t i v e Analyses The r e s u l t s of the pre v i o u s analyses s t r o n g l y support the o f t e n c i t e d r e l a t i o n s h i p between having been abused i n one's c h i l d h o o d and the p r o b a b i l i t y o f subsequently abusing one's o f f s p r i n g . But more i n f o r m a t i o n i s needed to d e t e r -mine how groups of abused and not abused women d i f f e r . Fur-t h e r , l i t t l e i s known of women who were abused themselves, yet are capable of adequately c a r i n g for t h e i r own c h i l d r e n ; or of women who were not abused yet are g u i l t y of m a l t r e a t -ment. In s h o r t , women who were abused would be 'expected' to abuse and those who were not abused, would be 'expected' to d e l i v e r adequate c a r e . Why then are there abused women g i v i n g adequate care and c o n v e r s e l y , not abused women g u i l t y -106-of maltreatment? Hypothesis 10: Women who abuse their children are s i g n i f i c a n t l y more l i k e l y to have been abused in childhood than women who do not abuse. Hypothesis 11: Women who abuse their children seek more sympathy and reassurance, are more aggressive, impulsive, suspicious and anxious than women who do not abuse. Hypothesis 12: Women who abuse their children are more l i k e l y to have children who are anxiously attached to them than those who do not. Hypothesis 13: Women who abuse their children view family members as more dependent, higher on c o n f l i c t , lower on expressiveness and par t i c i p a t i n g in fewer a c t i v i t i e s . Hypothesis 14: Women who abuse their children have smaller networks and fee l less supported by their networks than those who do not abuse. Hypothesis 15: Women who abuse their children are higher on l i f e stress than those who do not abuse. In an attempt to answer these questions and to provide a richer description of both abused versus not abused women -107-and abusing versus non-abusing women, two way analyses of variance were conducted on a l l variables except the attach-ment data which i s nominal in nature. (Summary Anova Tables may be found in Appendix A). Follow-up tests for s i g n i f i -cance were conducted using Dunn's Multiple Comparisons Test (or Bonferonni's t ) . This i s the most common test used for planned nonorthogonal contrasts. The f i r s t comparison for each variable tested d i f f e r -ences between the abused and not abused groups, regardless of how they were treating their own children. The second, tested differences between abusing and non-abusing mothers regardless of how they were treated in childhood. These results are presented in Table 13. -108-Table 13 Planned Comparisons Between Abused and Not Abused Mother Groups: Abusing and Not Abusing Mother Groups on Ontogenic, Microsystem, and Mesosystem Variables Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 N=49 N=56 N=52 ' N=55 Abused Not Abused Abusing Not Abusing Variable X X X X Contrast Personality 52.45 48.24 51.73 48.71. Grp 1 vs. Grp 2 Grp 3 vs. Grp 4 Continuity 47.19 52.18 45.77 53.34 • Grp 1 vs. Grp 2* Grp 3 vs. Grp 4* Rigidity 49.34 50.48 50.63 49.52 Grp 1 vs. Grp 2 Grp 3 vs. Grp 4 Network Size 13.25 13.62 13.10 13.74 Grp 1 vs. Grp 2 Grp 3 vs. Grp 4 Support 169.85 185.80 173.98 182.69 Grp 1 vs. Grp 2* Grp 3 vs. Grp 4 Density .76 .81 .80 .79 Grp 1 vs. Grp 2 Grp 3 vs. Grp 4 Life Stress 13.56 6.72 13.85 6.19 Grp 1 vs. Grp 2* Grp 3 vs. Grp 4* *o .05 No s i g n i f i c a n t differences were found on the h o s t i l i t y factor, the r i g i d i t y factor, network s i z e , support or den-s i t y for any of the comparisons. There were s i g n i f i c a n t differences however between abused and not abused groups on family continuity, network support and l i f e stress. For abusing and not abusing groups, the differences occurred again on both the family continuity factor and l i f e stress. Women who were abused in their own childhoods viewed their current family members as dependent, larg e l y unable or unwilling to think for themselves and uninterested in par-t i c i p a t i n g in a c t i v i t i e s outside the home. Family members were low on expression of feelings and high on c o n f l i c t . Interactions were characterized as generally h o s t i l e and aggressive. These same findings were true when abusing and non-abusing groups were compared. Women who were abusing viewed their families much the same as the abused group did. They too, saw their families as dependent, unable to express themselves and high on c o n f l i c t . These findings support e a r l i e r investigations, p a r t i c u l a r l y from the psychiatric orientation, that women who abuse have a d i f f i c u l t time with the dependency needs of their children. In terms of network support, s i g n i f i c a n t differences were found between the abused and the not abused groups. Women who had been abused in their own childhoods f e l t s i g -n i f i c a n t l y less supported than women who were not abused. Interestingly, no differences were found between the abusing and not abusing groups. This lack of differences between the l a t t e r two groups apparently does not support the -110-hypothesis that women who abuse their children feel less supported by their networks than those who do not. Combin-ing this information with the lack of differences in the network size suggests that abusing mothers may not be par-t i c u l a r l y i s o l a t e d . They l i s t similar numbers of people as important and report minimal d i f f i c u l t y getting help with d a i l y tasks. Social i s o l a t i o n may have been better i n v e s t i -gated by looking at s p e c i f i c interactions including f r e -quency of interaction as well as s a t i s f a c t i o n with the con-tacts that were made. As expected, women who abused their children scored s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher on l i f e stress than their non-abusing counterparts. The differences in l i f e stress held true for the abused women as well, where abused women experienced s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher l e v e l s of l i f e stress than non-abused women. The next set of comparisons was designed s p e c i f i c a l l y to obtain more information on the two anomolous groups, i . e . , women who were abused and who were not abusing and women who were not abused but engaged in the abuse of their c h i l d . The f i r s t contrasts tested differences between groups of abused/abusing (AA) mothers versus abused/not abusing(AB). The second contrast tested differences between not abused/abusing(BA) versus not abused/not abusing(BB). These results are presented in Table 14. - I l l -Table 14 Planned Comparisons Between AA vs. AB and BA vs. BB for Variables i n the Ontogenic, Microsystem and Mesosystem Group AA N=38 Abused/ Abusing Group AB N=ll Abused/ Not Abusing Group BA N=14 Not Abused/ Abusing Group BB N=44 Not Abused/ Not Abusing Variable X X X X is Contrast Personality 52.91 51.24 48.87 48.06 ': . • ' Grp. AA Grp BA vs. vs. Grp Grp AB BB Family Cont 45.75 50.98 45.83 53.95 Grp AA Grp BA vs. vs. Grp Grp AB BB* Rigidity 49.73 48.31 52.80 49.83 Grp AA Grp BA vs. vs. Grp Grp AB BB Network Size 13.17 13.45 12.92 13.81 Grp AA Grp BA vs. vs. Grp Grp AB BB Network Sup 168.12 175.20 189.30 184.70 Grp AA Grp BA vs. vs. Grp Grp AB BB Network Den .77 .74 .86 .90 Grp AA Grp BA vs. vs. Grp Grp AB BB Life Stress 15.62 7.18 9.23 5.93 Grp AA Grp BA vs. vs. Grp Grp AB* BB *p .05 There were two s i g n i f i c a n t contrasts from these ana-lyses. Women who were not abused but abusing their children scored s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower on the family continuity factor-than women who were not abused and not abusing. Given a group of women who were not abused in their childhoods, those who end up abusing their children may be those who perceive their families as dependent, unassertive and apath-e t i c about the family's welfare. This lack of enthusiasm both for personal growth and exploration of the world around them (vis-a-vis a lack of interest in a c t i v i t i e s outside the family), may increase maternal feelings of resentment and h o s t i l i t y and trigger a vi o l e n t reaction to family demands. The second s i g n i f i c a n t difference was found on l i f e stress between women who were abused/abusing and abused/not abusing. The l a t t e r group scored s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower on l i f e stress than the former. This suggests that for women who were abused in childhood, stress may have a p a r t i c u l a r l y negative e f f e c t on their caregiving s k i l l s . This seems to be supported by a lack of differences on the same variable for not abused/abusing versus not abused/not abusing con-t r a s t . As i s evident from Table 13, women who were abused reported s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher l e v e l s of l i f e stress than those who were not abused. The ultimate l i n k between stress and abuse may be how the mother was treated in her own childhood. As i t appears, stress i s a mediating factor i f one were an abuse victim as a c h i l d : i t does not appear p a r t i c u l a r l y powerful however, i f the mother was not abused. -113-Summary of Results The results were analyzed and presented acording to each of the defined systems of the ecological model. The ontogenic domain, representing the personal growth and development of the mother, yielded several findings. F i r s t , the relationship between having been abused in one's childhood and subsequent maltreatment was firmly established in t h i s high r i s k sample. Of the 49 women who reported hav-ing been abused in childhood, 38 (78%) were abusing their own children. Second, contrary to many of the e a r l i e r findings and c l i n i c a l observations, women who abused their children did not d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y from their non-abusing counterparts on a series of personality variables. S p e c i f i c a l l y , they were not more aggressive, impulsive, h o s t i l e or suspicious nor were they more anxious. Next, whether or not the mother was abused in her own childhood proved to be the most powerful predictor variable in this domain. Based primarily on knowing how the mother was treated in her own childhood, a 76% rate of correct c l a s s i f i c a t i o n was possible. The microsystem represented a series of dyadic r e l a -tionships within the family including the mother's r e l a t i o n -ship with her c h i l d . Unlike the predictive power of mater-nal abuse in the ontogenic domain, maternal abuse in this system had no bearing on the quality of attachment. There were no s i g n i f i c a n t differences between abused and not abused women on the secure and anxious attachment groups. -114-There were differences however on the abusing and not abus-ing groups. Sixty percent of women who were abusing had anxiously attached children versus forty percent who were not abusing. S i g n i f i c a n t differences were found on the family c o n t i -nuity factor, an empirically derived score from the sub-scales of the Family Environment Scale. The family continu-i t y factor assesses the degree of a family's cohesion and supportiveness, independence, gregariousness and expressive a b i l i t y . This construct accounts for the most variance in the microsystem, and in thi s domain, i s the most powerful predictor of whether or not a woman w i l l abuse her c h i l d . A 69% rate of correct c l a s s i f i c a t i o n was possible from micro-system information. There were also s i g n i f i c a n t differences on the family continuity factor between the not abused/abusing and not abused/not abusing groups with the l a t t e r scoring s i g n i f i -cantly higher indicating to a certai n degree, a healthier family system. The mesosystem assessed both the mother's s o c i a l net-work and her le v e l of stress. The variable accounting for the most variance in thi s system and also the best pre-d i c t o r , was l i f e stress. A 76% rate of correct c l a s s i f i c a -tion was possible with mesosystem variables alone. S i g n i f i c a n t differences were found on the network sup-port variable between women who were abused and those who were not. Surprisingly, there were no differences on thi s variable for the abusing and not abusing groups. Apparently -115-t h i s f a i l s to support the hypothesis that abusing women are isol a t e d . However, the support measure in thi s study was a very crude estimate of network support and did not address q u a l i t a t i v e issues regarding relationships. This w i l l be discussed at greater length in the next section. The differences between abused versus not abused groups and abused/abusing versus abused/not abusing groups supports the accepted view of stress as a mediating variable in abu-sive s i t u a t i o n s . However, in thi s sample, s i g n i f i c a n t d i f -ferences on le v e l s of stress were found only for those women who were abusing and abused. There were no differences for women who were abusing and not abused when compared with their not abused/not abusing counterparts. - 1 1 6 -CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION The purpose o f t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n was to e m p i r i c a l l y t e s t a t h e o r e t i c a l model o f c h i l d abuse based on an e c o l o g i -c a l model r o o t e d i n B r o n f e n b r e n n e r 1 s (1979) work, advanced i n the a r e a o f c h i l d abuse by B e l s k y (1980) , and f u r t h e r d eveloped by t h i s author to r e f l e c t a l i m i t e d number o f l e v -e l s i n f l u e n c i n g the m o t h e r - c h i l d r e l a t i o n s h i p . The e c o l o g i -c a l model d i r e c t l y a d d r e s s e s the c o n t e x t s i n which i n d i v i d u -a l s f u n c t i o n . In t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n , c o n t e x t s were c o n f i n e d to those i n which the mother and her c h i l d were d i r e c t p a r -t i c i p a n t s . The f i r s t c o n t e x t f o c u s e d on the mother's development i n her own c h i l d h o o d and addressed v a r i o u s p e r s o n a l i t y v a r i -a b l e s as w e l l as the q u a l i t y o f c a r e she r e c e i v e d as a c h i l d ; s p e c i f i c a l l y , whether or not she had been abused. These v a r i a b l e s c o n s t i t u t e d the o n t o g e n i c domain. Perhaps the most s u r p r i s i n g r e s u l t i n t h i s domain was t h a t 46% of the women r e p o r t e d b e i n g abused i n c h i l d h o o d . T h i s e s t i m a t e , i f a n y t h i n g , i s a c o n s e r v a t i v e f i g u r e g i v e n the s t r i n g e n t c r i t e r i a used f o r c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . Women who r e p o r t e d i n c i d e n c e s t h a t b o r d e r e d on a b u s i v e t r e a t m e n t were e l i m i n a t e d from the i n v e s t i g a t i o n . No doubt t h i s p e r c e n t a g e would have approached or exceeded the 50% mark had a l l the women d i s c u s s e d t h e i r c h i l d h o o d s w i t h e q u a l candor. D e s p i t e l o n g s t a n d i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h t h e i r t e s t e r s , many chose t o r e f r a i n from r e v e a l i n g s e n s i t i v e i n f o r m a t i o n about t h e i r -117-upbringing. Of the 49 women who reported childhood abuse, 38, or 78% were engaged in similar abuse of their own c h i l d -ren. Only 11, or 22% of the women who were abused were pro-viding adequate care. These results strongly support the often cited relationship between early childhood experiences and later parenting practices (Kempe et a l , 1962; Oliver and Cox, 1975; Steele and Pollock, 1968). The trend in thi s sample was predictable from the l i t e r a t u r e : Women who abused their children were l i k e l y . t o have been victims of abuse themselves. This finding must, however be interper-eted with caution for several reasons. F i r s t , a l l of these women were at ris k for abuse when they were enrolled in the longitudinal investigation, so a proportionately higher num-ber of abusers was expected. Second, the range of SES in this sample was somewhat r e s t r i c t e d thereby l i m i t i n g the generalization of these results to other populations. A majority of the women came from lower income backgrounds: Generalizing to upper and middle income groups, therefore, i s unwise. On the one hand, these findings support Pelton's (1979) claim that abuse i s a function of poverty and is not necessarily as rampant among middle and upper SES groups. On the other hand, l i t t l e information i s available on abu-sive parents in the upper SES groups (Papatola, 1980), so a legitimate comparison between the two groups would be d i f f i -c u l t to draw. Lower income women may, as many have sug-gested, simply have been more accessible for investigative purposes ( G i l , 1979; G i l , 1977; Jaraytane, 1977; Papatola, 1980) through welfare r o l l s , public assistance records, etc. -118-While the relationship between early abuse and subse-quent maltreatment was firmly established in thi s investiga-t i o n , the relationship between abuse and maternal personal-i t y variables was less c l e a r . No s i g n i f i c a n t differences were found between abused and not abused women, and perhaps more s i g n i f i c a n t l y , between the four previously defined groups: abused/abusing, abused/not abusing, not abused/abusing and not abused/not abusing. This lack of differences was surprising given that the bulk of the l i t e r -ature indicates that women who abuse their children tend to exhibit higher l e v e l s of impulsivity and aggression than women who do not abuse (Boisvert, 1972; Lynch, 1977; Steele and Pollack, 1968; Yelaja, 1977). One hypothesis for the lack of differences in thi s investigation i s that the r e l a t i v e l y small number of sub-jects in the ov e r a l l sample, and espe c i a l l y the two anomo-lous c e l l s , precluded detection of differences. A second explanation assumes that the lack of differences between groups on personality variables i s true, in which case, a somewhat d i f f e r e n t interpretation of the role of personality is necessary. Personality development i t s e l f , i s no doubt, mediated by the quality of care received in childhood (Clarke-Stewart, 1973; Schaeffer , 1977). If women who abuse their children were indeed victims of similar treatment, the differences in observed p e r s o n a l i t i e s may, in r e a l i t y , mir-ror differences in early care. In other words, abusive women may not necessarily be more aggressive, h o s t i l e or impulsive. They may simply be r e f l e c t i n g or replaying the -119-experiences they had with their own parents; modeling a re s t r i c t e d range of responses to parent-child interaction. Of course t h i s explanation does not account for the women who provide adequate care. But perhaps the explanation for this group does not l i e within the realm of the ontogenic domain, or with personality differences. The micro and mesosystems discussed in the next sections may prove more f r u i t f u l . The next series of analyses addressed the dyadic r e l a -tionships of the mother with her c h i l d and the mother with the rest of her family. While the mother's relationship with her own parents was highly predictive of how she would eventually care for her own c h i l d , i t was not predictive at a l l of the qual i t y of attachment that would develop between her and her c h i l d . The expectation that abused women would have had a higher rate of anxiously attached children was not supported. It i s s t i l l unclear at thi s point, what types of intervening variables mediate between abuse and attachment, but c l e a r l y , the qual i t y of early treatment alone, does not s i g n i f i c a n t l y a f f e c t l a t e r parenting s k i l l s . Women who were abusing their children did have more anxiously attached children than non-abusing women. As attachment i s a relationship that develops over time, i t cannot be the result of a single traumatic episode (Ains-worth, 1978). Many components of both the mother and the ch i l d ' s behavior combine to influence the quality of attach-ment. One of the most prominent c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of mothers with securely attached babies i s the consistency of -120-r e s p o n s e . These women are a b l e t o q u i c k l y a s s e s s the i n f a n t ' s needs and to p r o v i d e the n e c e s s a r y c o n t a c t f o r com-f o r t . T h i s i s not t r u e o f women who abuse t h e i r c h i l d r e n . W h i l e t h e y may o c c a s i o n a l l y be c a p a b l e o f gauging t h e i r c h i l d ' s needs, t h i s i s not a c o n s i s t e n t mode o f i n t e r a c t i o n ( C l a r k e - S t e w a r t , 1973; Waters, Egeland & Vaughn, 1980; Waters, 1978). So one e x p l a n a i o n f o r the d i f f e r e n c e s i n attachment i s t h a t mothers who abuse t h e i r c h i l d r e n are not c a p a b l e o f a s s e s s i n g i n f a n t demands and meeting i n f a n t needs. A p p a r e n t l y , the a b i l i t y t o gauge a c h i l d ' s needs a d e q u a t e l y enough to ensure a secu r e attachment i s not espe-c i a l l y i n f l u e n c e d by how a mother was h e r s e l f t r e a t e d i n c h i l d h o o d . A g a i n , t h i s i s e v i d e n t from the l a c k o f d i f f e r -ences between abused and not abused women on the attachment r a t i n g s . The i n f o r m a t i o n needed to p r o v i d e adequate c a r e may not n e c e s s a r i l y come from an i n d i v i d u a l ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h her mother. T h i s type o f i n f o r m a t i o n may have been p r o v i d e d by another s t a b l e a d u l t f i g u r e w h i l e the c h i l d was growing up, f o r example, a grandmother, an o l d e r s i b l i n g or an aunt. E x p e r i e n c e s w i t h p e e r s and/or s o c i a l networks o f the v a r i o u s f a m i l y members may a l s o have had a p o s i t i v e impact on l a t e r p a r e n t i n g s k i l l s . The r e l a t i o n s h i p between the mother and her c h i l d may be c l a r i f i e d somewhat by l o o k i n g at the mother's p e r c e p t i o n o f , and r e l a t i o n s h i p t o , her f a m i l y as a whole v i s - a - v i s the f a m i l y c o n t i n u i t y f a c t o r . T h i s f a c t o r , p r e v i o u s l y des-c r i b e d , r e p r e s e n t s both the type and the q u a l i t y o f f a m i l y i n t e r a c t i o n . Mothers who abused t h e i r c h i l d r e n were much -121-more l i k e l y to see their families as dependent, unable to express themselves and higher on c o n f l i c t than women who did not abuse. Speaking therapeutically, these women seem to be projecting their thoughts and feelings about themselves onto their current family s i t u a t i o n s . The feelings of dependency needs never met, anger never confronted and the pervasive-ness of h o s t i l i t y and c o n f l i c t t y p i f y these women's percep-tions of their own fami l i e s . If a woman i s viewing her ch i l d in a manner similar to how she thought her parents viewed her, i t stands to reason that her frustrations with her c h i l d may stem from similar u n r e a l i s t i c expectations of a c h i l d ' s c a p a b i l i t i e s . Abusing families also participated in fewer a c t i v i t i e s outside the home and demonstrated less embeddedness in s o c i -ety in general. These families may be visu a l i z e d as a tight knit c i r c l e with a thick, almost impermeable ring around the external boundary. A l l families have boundaries (Bowen, 1976), but abusing families seem to have es p e c i a l l y r i g i d boundaries between themselves, and the world outside. Because few contacts outside the home are made, and few mem-bers pa r t i c i p a t e regularly in community a c t i v i t i e s , there i s no outward directedness of energy: A l l the energy remains inside the parameters of the boundary. With no external outlet or pressure valve, the normal everyday c o n f l i c t s b u i l d , generate f r i c t i o n and increase the pr o b a b i l i t y of violence. The mesosystem variables attempted to s p e c i f i c a l l y assess the relationship between the mother, her so c i a l net--122-work and l i f e s t r e s s . As e x p e c t e d , women who abused t h e i r c h i l d r e n had h i g h e r l i f e s t r e s s s c o r e s than those who d i d not . These r e s u l t s s u p p o r t s i m i l a r f i n d i n g s d e m o n s t r a t i n g the r e l a t i o n s h i p between abuse and l i f e s t r e s s ( J u s t i c e and Duncan, 1975; J u s t i c e and J u s t i c e , 1976; Kempe and Kempe, 1978) . I n t e r e s t i n g l y however, when the groups were broken down i n t o the two c a t e g o r i e s o f m a t e r n a l abuse (yes and no) and two c a t e g o r i e s o f ab u s i n g (yes and n o ) , s t r e s s d i f f e r e n c e s were s i g n i f i c a n t o n l y f o r women who had been abused. Women who were not abused, but abu s i n g t h e i r c h i l d r e n d i d not dem-o n s t r a t e s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r l e v e l s o f s t r e s s than those not abused and not a b u s i n g . In o t h e r words, g i v e n a group of women who were not abused themselves i n c h i l d h o o d , t h e r e were no d i f f e r e n c e s i n s t r e s s l e v e l s between the abusing and the nonabusing mothers. So abu s i n g mothers i n t h i s subgroup d i d not have h i g h e r s t r e s s l e v e l s than nonabusing mothers. These f i n d i n g s are markedly d i f f e r e n t from the r e s u l t s o f the same comparisons on women who were abused. Abused women who abused t h e i r c h i l d r e n had s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r s t r e s s s c o r e s than abused women who were not a b u s i n g . The second major f i n d i n g among the mesosystem v a r i a b l e s was t h a t women who abuse t h e i r c h i l d r e n were not e s p e c i a l l y i s o l a t e d . T h i s was somewhat s u r p r i s i n g as much o f the l i t -e r a t u r e d e a l i n g w i t h the s o c i o l o g i c a l a s p e c t s o f abuse c i t e a b u s i n g mothers as s o c i a l l y i s o l a t e d (Elmer, 1967; G a r b a r i n o and S t o c k i n g , 1980; Gray, C u t l e r , Dean and Kempe, 1979; R o s e n f e l d and Newberger, 1978; Young, 1964). In t h i s sample -123-however, i s o l a t i o n was measured by the numbers of persons each mother l i s t e d as important: These women were e a s i l y able to generate l i s t s of s i g n i f i c a n t persons. The mean number of persons did not d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y between the abusing and the nonabusing groups. While there were no differences in network size between groups, s i g n i f i c a n t differences were found on the network support variable but not between the expected groups. Women who were abusing their children were expected to feel less supported than women who were not abusing (Caplan, 1974; Gottli e b , 1980). This was not the case. Women who had been abused in childhood however, f e l t s i g n i f i c a n t l y less sup-ported than those who had not been mistreated. While abused women enumerated the same number of important persons, they seemed less able to e l i c i t the type of support that could be instrumental in lessening the burden of d a i l y tasks. While l i f e stress may be an important component in the etiology of abuse, i t appears to be es p e c i a l l y c r u c i a l for those women who themselves were abused. There are several hypothetical explanations for why th i s may be so. F i r s t , women who were victims of abuse may, as suggested e a r l i e r , have a limited repertoire for respond-ing to a wide range of l i f e events. Second, women who were abused may simply perceive their l i f e experiences as more traumatic and disorganized. Third, women who were abused may f e e l that they have l i t t l e or no control over what hap-pens to them, and that any attempt they make to change their current s i t u a t i o n i s hopeless. They may have learned to be -124-h e l p l e s s ( S e l i g m a n , 1976). As abuse v i c t i m s t h e m s e l v e s , i t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t these women f e l t unable t o impact any change i n t h e i r own l i v e s as c h i l d r e n . The same f e e l i n g s o f h e l p l e s s n e s s r e c u r i n a d u l t h o o d and fu s e w i t h the chaos. F r u s t r a t i o n s e t s i n and v i o l e n c e r e s u l t s . Thus f a r , t he d i s c u s s i o n has r e l a t e d f i n d i n g s o f the c u r r e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n p r i m a r i l y by system. These f i n d i n g s p a r a l l e l r e s u l t s from the t h r e e main abuse o r i e n t a t i o n s : p s y c h i a t r i c ( o n t o g e n i c ) , s o c i o l o g i c a l (mesosystem) and s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n a l ( m i c r o s y s t e m ) . The i n t e g r a t i o n o f these systems i s the l a s t s t e p towards d e m o n s t r a t i n g the advantages o f c o n s i d e r i n g a m u l t i p l e range o f i n f l u e n c e s f o r abuse e t i o l o g y . F i r s t , the s u p e r i o r i t y o f an i n t e g r a t e d model i s c l e a r from the amount o f v a r i a n c e one i s a b l e t o account f o r among a l l t h r e e systems. A t o t a l o f 39% of the v a r i a n c e may be accounted f o r when a l l systems are regarded t o g e t h e r . T h i s p e r c e n t a g e r e f l e c t s an i n c r e a s e o f a t l e a s t 11% over the systems when viewed i n d i v i d u a l l y . Second, the r a t e o f p r e d i c t i o n i n t o a busing and not abusing groups i n c r e a s e d when a l l t h r e e systems a re i n t e -g r a t e d . The p r e d i c t i o n r a t e s have a s p e c i a l s i g n i f i c a n c e f o r c l i n i c i a n s and s e r v i c e d e l i v e r y p e r s o n s . I f the most p r e d i c t i v e p i e c e s o f i n f o r m a t i o n can be o b t a i n e d from women e a r l y i n t h e i r p r e g n a n c i e s , p r e v e n t i o n , i n the form of edu-c a t i o n programs may be p o s s i b l e . Women may be tau g h t t o d e c i p h e r a c h i l d ' s dependency needs as normal and may be ta u g h t t o m o n i t o r her own f e e l i n g s o f p o s s i b l e anger and -125-rage towards those needs. New mothers may be taught appro-priate expression of those feelings in a way that would allow them to release tension and in a manner that would not be harmful to their children. Third, integrating information from a l l three systems provides c l a r i f i c a t i o n for some of the more t r a d i t i o n a l l y held views of abuse, and enables the weaving of a tapestry so to speak, with a somewhat d i f f e r e n t texture. For exam-ple, e a r l i e r investigations and c l i n i c a l observations of abusive mothers suggest that they are more aggressive, hos-t i l e , and impulsive than those who don't abuse. This inves-t i g a t i o n does not support that idea. There were no d i f f e r -ences between women who were abusing their children and those who were not on a series of personality variables. Nor were there any differences between women who had been abused in childhood and those who had not. What was s i g n i f -icant, however, was the relat i o n s h i p between having been abused and the li k e l i h o o d of subsequent abuse. One explana-tion for the results of e a r l i e r investigations that sug-gested abusing women were more impulsive, aggressive and ho s t i l e may be the contribution of maternal abuse to i n d i -vidual personality development. That i s , none of the ear-l i e r investigations, to thi s author's knowledge, systemati-c a l l y inquired about the quality of the mother's treatment in her childhood. The reported differences may not t r u l y have reflected d i s p a r i t i e s in personality as much as they reflected the eff e c t s of having been mistreated in c h i l d -hood. The results of t h i s mistreatment may indeed promote a g g r e s s i v e and h o s t i l e b e h a v i o r i n a d u l t h o o d . Another example o f c l a r i f y i n g a t r a d i t i o n a l v iew i s the r e l a t i o n s h i p between l i f e s t r e s s and abuse. S e v e r a l i n v e s -t i g a t o r s ( E g e l a n d , B r e i t e n b u c h e r & Rosenberg, 1980; J u s t i c e and Duncan, 1976; J u s t i c e and J u s t i c e , 1976) have c i t e d h i g h e r l i f e s t r e s s l e v e l s i n ab u s i n g women than i n non-abus-e r s . I t i s t r u e t h a t when a b u s e r s and non-abusers are com-pared f o r s t r e s s l e v e l s w i t h o u t r e f e r e n c e t o how the mother was t r e a t e d i n c h i l d h o o d , a b u s e r s a re h i g h e r on s t r e s s . However, when f u r t h e r c omparisons are made and m a t e r n a l background i s c o n s i d e r e d , a somewhat d i f f e r e n t p i c t u r e emerges. Women who were a b u s i n g t h e i r c h i l d r e n but were not abused themselves demonstrated s i m i l a r l e v e l s o f s t r e s s as t h e i r not abused/not a b u s i n g c o u n t e r p a r t s . Women who were a b u s i n g t h e i r c h i l d r e n and were abused i n c h i l d h o o d demon-s t r a t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r l e v e l s o f s t r e s s than those who were not abused and not a b u s i n g . So, w h i l e s t r e s s s t i l l a ppears t o be a moderator v a r i a b l e f o r abuse, i t seems t o have more impact on women who were abused than those who were n o t . T h i s i s an i m p o r t a n t d i s t i n c t i o n because i t b e g i n s t o narrow the f o c u s and b e t t e r d e f i n e f o r whom h i g h s t r e s s l e v e l s a r e an added l i a b i l i t y . In t h i s sample, abused women may s i m p l y be more v u l n e r a b l e t o the impact o f changing l i f e e v e n t s and t h e r e f o r e may need to l e a r n a d d i -t i o n a l c o p i n g s t r a t e g i e s . A s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n emerges from the r e s u l t s o f the f a m i l y c o n t i n u i t y a n a l y s i s . Both the abused and the a b u s i n g groups s c o r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower on the c o n t i n u i t y f a c t o r -127-than the not abused, and the not abusing groups. When fur-ther comparisons are made between groups and maternal back-ground i s considered, once again, a d i f f e r e n t picture emerges. The differences between the abused/abusing and abused/not abusing group are not s i g n i f i c a n t . That i s , given maternal abuse as a constant, both abusers and non-a-busers view their families s i m i l a r l y with regards to c o n t i -nuity. There were differences, however, between women who were not abused/abusing and the not abused/not abusing counterparts. The abusing women in thi s contrast viewed their families as more dependent and less supportive and obtained almost i d e n t i c a l scores as a group as the abused/abusing women. As s i g n i f i c a n t differences between groups aid in the c l a r i f i c a t i o n of certain t r a d i t i o n a l l y held relationships, so too do the lack of differences. For example, the bulk of the l i t e r a t u r e supports the relationship between so c i a l i s o -l a t i o n and abuse (Castle, 1976; Elmer, 1976; Garbarino and Stocking, 1980; Young, 1964). When the individual networks of women who abuse their children were compared with those who did not, no s i g n i f i c a n t differences were noted in si z e , density or support. The hypothesis that abusing women would f e e l less supported by their networks and have fewer friends was unfounded. This apparently suggests that networks and support systems may not be as i n f l u e n t i a l as once hypothes-ized. However, t h i s lack of differences i s challenged by the results of the Continuity factor. Recall that women who abused scored lower on thi s factor, indicating less movement -128-between family and society. If a family remains within i t s own confines and is influenced by l i t t l e else save i t s own members, the degree of network support sought i s probably not very high. The problem with the network variables in this investigation may have been a lack of s p e c i f i c i t y . While the support variable was based on several items from a standardized questionnaire, the questions themselves addressed the degree of d i f f i c u l t y women had in securing help with d a i l y tasks. They did not address more q u a l i t a -tiv e issues such as the l e v e l of s a t i s f a c t i o n associated with those contacts. The qual i t y of network interactions needs to be investigated in later research e f f o r t s i f the role of networks i s to be better understood. Although there were no differences between any of the groups on network density a l l groups had very dense net-works. That i s , most people knew each other within the net-work. This finding was expected and supports the r e l a t i o n -ship established in previous investigations between density l e v e l s and SES. That i s , lower income individuals exhibit higher density among network members because many members take on multiple roles such as f r i e n d , cousin, mother, boy-fri e n d , etc. (Caplan, 1974; Cubitt, 1973; McCallister and Fischer, 1978). That r e l a t i o n s h i p i s supported in th i s investigation, but the ultimate l i n k between density and support i s s t i l l unclear and needs further investigation. Directions for Future Research Research in the area of c h i l d abuse has t r a d i t i o n a l l y been framed within one of three basic models of etiology: -129-p s y c h i a t r i c , s o c i o l o g i c a l and s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n a l . This investigation however t h e o r e t i c a l l y integrates these systems into a single ecological model. The results of integrating these into a single inclusive framework indicate that con-tinued exploration using an ecological model as a t h e o r e t i -cal base for future research i s a f r u i t f u l d i r e c t i o n . Although variables in t h i s study were selected to rep-resent each of the defined systems, the number of variables in each domain needs to be vastly increased. For example, additional personality variables such as s e l f concept and depression could be added to the ontogenic domain, enriching our understanding of the role of personality in abuse. In addition to increasing the numbers of variables, more sensitive instruments need to be developed to better ascertain the impact of cert a i n variables. For example, a much more comprehensive interview needs to be incorporated for the investigation of s o c i a l networks. Interactions between network members need to be assessed for both f r e -quency and quality of contact. The l e v e l of s a t i s f a c t i o n attained in p a r t i c i p a t i n g in a given network needs to be established. Asking how networks are supportive, and more importantly, how they are not supportive, i s the f i r s t step in defining q u a l i t i e s of support systems that would increase our understanding of their c a p a b i l i t i e s and functions. In general, a much more comprehensive assessment regarding the structure and function of networks needs to be incorporated into future research. One of the major c r i t i c i s m s of abuse research has been -130-the retrospective nature of a great deal of the investiga-tions. That i s , events (such as abuse) are studied after they have occurred. This i s problematic for two reasons: the f i r s t i s the problem with s e l f report in general. Indi-vidual exaggeration, omitting information, or worse yet, the refusal to discuss sensitive information prohibits the gath-ering of 'clean' data. The second is that the use of s e l f report as a sole measure of a c t i v i t y precludes the use of observational information. For these reasons, a prospective approach remains the best choice for continued investigation in t h i s area. Using an at ris k methodology means that although a higher percentage of persons w i l l become abusers, many w i l l not. This l a t t e r group provides an excellent comparison group. In addition, early background can be used to provide a richer description of both groups. By considering women with common h i s t o r i e s and comparing common h i s t o r i e s with abusive outcomes, we are better able to understand how cer-tain variables impact d i f f e r e n t groups. The ultimate goal in abuse research i s to determine which combination of variables interacts to produce an abu-sive s i t u a t i o n . Because of the uniqueness of human develop-ment, human response and individual behavior, we may never be able to predict outcomes for a l l individuals. But addi-t i o n a l information from case studies may enable a better understanding of the p r o b a b i l i t y for abuse and ultimately, better plans for intervention. The incorporation of such information with known data from group studies, serves as - 1 3 1 -the best combination of tools to predict, educate and even-t u a l l y prevent maladaptive parent-child i n t e r a c t i o n . -132-Limitations There are three s p e c i f i c areas of l i m i t a t i o n within the current investigation. The f i r s t addresses i n t e r n a l v a l i d i t y ; the second i s concerned with external v a l i d i t y , or the degree to which these r e s u l t s may be generalized. The t h i r d l i m i t -ation centers on problems inherent to the development of a newamodel. Perhaps the most s i g n i f i c a n t concern with regards to int e r n a l v a l i d i t y i s the issue of s e l f report. In t h i s study, women were asked highly personal questions regarding the qu a l i t y of care they received i n childhood. This was done i n an attempt to assess whether or not women had been victims of abuse. Despite the f a m i l a r i t y of each mother with her tester, not a l l s s u b j e c t s responded with equal candor. This of course, leads to the p o s s i b i l i t y of m i s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n into'the abused or not abused groups. Many of these women were eliminated from the study because of the vague qu a l i t y of response. How-ever, t h i s leaves a question as to the true numbers of mothers who were abuse victims. Generalizato.ility of the re s u l t s from t h i s study i s lim i t e d to those groups bearing a strong resemblance to the current sample. Young, lower SES women having t h e i r f i r s t c hildreharacterize t h i s group. It would be d i f f i c u l t to gen-e r a l i z e to other groups, e s p e c i a l l y other socioeconomic groups. Very l i t t l e empirical research has been conducted on middle and upper income women with regards to abuse. Because l i t t l e i s known about maladaptive patterns i n the middle and upper - 1 3 3 -groups, comparisons at t h i s point, would be moot. The danger i s generalizing rests i n the f a c t that income alone may account fo r vast group differences. For example, middle income women generally have much greater mobility and access to a wider range of a c t i v i t i e s . Hypothetically, t h i s expands t h e i r range of support and affords them opportunities f o r s o c i a l t i e s not available to t h e i r lower income counterparts. This i n turn, may have a large e f f e c t on thefperceptionoof l i f e events and subsequent l i f e stress. Because of a broader range of support, middle incomei-jwomen may perceive t h e i r experiences as l e s s d e b i l i t a t i n g and therefore l e s s able to influence the parent-c h i l d i n t e r a c t i o n . C l e a r l y however, some of the most severe l i m i t a t i o n s stem from the inherent d i f f i c u l t i e s i n the development of any new schema or paradigm. This investigation represents the i n i t i a l step i n reorganizing abuse data into one encompassing model. Its purpose was to serve as a foundation f o r future inquiry and experimentation. Future investigations may begin by r e f i n i n g and reor-ganizing data i n the three current systems. The addition of more variables to each of the systems may continue to t e s t bbthSthel^power of i n d i v i d u a l variables as well as combinations of them. The t r u l y ambitious w i l l move on to the task of conceptualizing, defining, operationalizing and measuring variables within the exosystem and the macrosystem. F i n a l l y , i f a model i s to hold true f o r more*'5than just a select group, data from a broader range of mother-child pairs - 1 3 / ! -must be gathered and tested to determine the o v e r a l l robust-ness of the model. -135-B i b l i o g r a p h y A i n s w o r t h , Mary D.S. The development o f i n f a n t - m o t h e r a t t a -chment, i n B e t t y e M. C a l d w e l l and Henry N. R i c u i t t i (eds.) Review of C h i l d Development R e s e a r c h . B e t t y e M; C a l w e l l and Henry N. R i c i u t t i (eds.) U n i v e r s i t y o f Chicago P r e s s . C h i c a g o . 1973. A i n s w o r t h , Mary D.S.; B l e h a r , Mary C.; Waters, E v e r e t t and W a l l , S a l l y . P a t t e r n s o f Attachment. John W i l e y and Sons. New York. 1978. A i n s w o r t h , M.B. and W i t t i g , B.A. Attachment and e x p l o r a t o r y b e h a v i o r o f one-year o l d s i n a s t r a n g e s i t u a t i o n , i n B.M. Foss (ed.) Developments o f i n f a n t b e h a v i o r ( V o l . 4 ) . London: Methuen, 1969. A n t l e r , Stephen. C h i l d abuses: an emerging s o c i a l p r i o r i t y . S o c i a l Work. 23:58-61. 1978. B a l d w i n , J.A. and O l i v e r , J.E. Severe c h i l d abuse: i m p l i c a -t i o n s o f the e p i d e m i o l o g y . I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o u r n a l of  Ment a l H e a l t h . 7:78-95. 1979. Banck, Geert A. Network a n a l y s i s and s o c i a l t h e o r y . i n Network A n a l y s i s S t u d i e s i n Human I n t e r a c t i o n . J . B o i s s e v a i n and J.C. M i t c h e l l (eds.) Mouton and Com-pany. P a r i s . 1973. B e l l , R i c h a r d Q. C o n t r i b u t i o n s o f human i n f a n t t o c a r e g i v -i n g and s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n . i n E.M. H e t h e r i n g t o n and R.D. Parke (eds.) Contemporary Readings i n C h i l d Psy-c h o l o g y . M c G r a w - H i l l Book Co. San F r a n c i s c o . 1977. B e l l e , Deborah. S o c i a l L i n k s and S o c i a l S u p p o r t , i n D. B e l l e ( e d ) . L i v e s I n S t r e s s : A C o n t e x t For D e p r e s s i o n . S t r e s s and F a m i l i e s P r o j e c t R e p o r t . Harvard S c h o o l o f E d u c a t i o n . 1980. B e l l e , D. and L o n g f e l l o w , C. A S o c i a l Networks I n v e n t o r y . S t r e s s and F a m i l i e s P o r j e c t R e p o r t . Harvard School o f E d u c a t i o n . Cambridge, Mass. 1980. B e l s k y , J a y . A t h e o r e t i c a l a n a l y s i s o f c h i l d abuse remedia-t i o n s t r a t e g i e s . J o u r n a l o f C l i n i c a l C h i l d P s y c h o l o g y . -136-:117-121. 1978. B e l s k y , J a y . C h i l d m a l t r e a t m e n t : an e c o l o g i c a l i n t e g r a t i o n . American P s y c h o l o g i s t . 35:320-335. 1980. B esharoy, Douglas. B u i l d i n g a community response to c h i l d abuse and m a l t r e a t m e n t . C h i l d r e n Today. 4:2-4. 1975. B i s h o p , F . I . C h i l d r e n a t r i s k . M e d i c a l J o u r n a l o f A u s t r a -l i a . 1:623-625. 1971. B o i s s e v a i n , Jeremy. An e x p l o r a t i o n o f two f i r s t o r d e r zones. i n J . B o i s s e v a i n and J.C. M i t c h e l l (eds.) Net-work A n a l y s i s : S t u d i e s i n Human I n t e r a c t i o n . Mouton and Company. P a r i s . 1973. B o i s v e r t , M a u r i c e . The b a t t e r e d c h i l d syndrome. S o c i a l Casework. 10:475-480. 1972. B o t t , E l i z a b e t h . F a m i l y and S o c i a l Networks. T a v i s t o c k P u b l i c a t i o n s , L t d . London. 1957. Bowlby, John. Attachment and L o s s : Attachment. Penguin Books. London. 1969. Bowen, Murray. F a m i l y Therapy and F a m i l y Group Therapy. i n David H. L. O l s o n (ed) T r e a t i n g R e l a t i o n s h i p s . Lake M i l l s , Iowa. G r a p h i c P u b l i s h i n g Co., I n c . 1978. B r o n f e n b r e n n e r , U r i e . The e c o l o g y of human development. Harvard U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . Cambridge, Mass. 1979. Brown, George; B h r o l c h a i n , M a r i e N i ; H a r r i s , T i r r i l . S o c i a l c l a s s and p s y c h i a t r i c d i s t u r b a n c e among women i n an urban p o p u l a t i o n . S o c i o l o g y . 9:225-254. 1975. B r u n n q u e l l , Donald; C r i c h t o n , L e s l i e and E g e l a n d , Byron. M a t e r n a l p e r s o n a l i t y and a t t i t u d e d i s t u r b a n c e s o f c h i l d r e a r i n g . Expanded v e r s i o n o f a paper p r e s e n t e d at the American P s y c h o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n . New York. Sept. 2, 1979. B u r g e s s , Robert L. P r o j e c t I n t e r a c t : a s t u d y o f p a t t e r n s o f i n t e r a c t i o n s i n a b u s i v e , n e g l e c t f u l and c o n t r o l f a m i -l i e s . C h i l d Abuse and N e g l e c t . 3:781-791. 1979. B u r g e s s , Robert L.; Anderson, E l a i n e A. and S c h e l l e n b a c h , C y n t h i a . A s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n a l approach t o the s t u d y - . 1 3 7 -o f a b u s i v e b e h a v i o r . i n J.P. V i n c e n t (ed.) Advances  i n F a m i l y I n t e r v e n t i o n , Assessment and Theory. J A I P r e s s , I n c . Greenwich, Conn. 1980. B u r g e s s , Robert and Conger, Rand D. F a m i l y i n t e r a c t i o n i n a b u s i v e , n e g l e c t f u l and normal f a m i l i e s . C h i l d D e v e l -opment. 49:1163-1173. 1978. C a p l a n , G e r a l d . Support Systems and Community Me n t a l H e a l t h . B e h a v i o r a l P u b l i c a t i o n s . New York. 1974. C a s t l e , Raymond. At r i s k : an account of the work of the  b a t t e r e d c h i l d r e s e a r c h department NSPCC. Routledge and Kagen. London. 1976. C a t t e l l , R.B. and S c h e i r , I.H. Handbook f o r the IPAT a n x i -e t y s c a l e . I n s t i t u t e f o r P e r s o n a l i t y and A b i l i t y T e s t -i n g . Champaign, 111. 1963. C l a r k e - S t e w a r t , K. A l i s o n . I n t e r a c t i o n s between mothers and t h e i r young c h i l d r e n : c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and conse-quences. C h i l d Development Monographs. V o l . 38. S e r i a l No. 153. December, 1973. Cochrane, M o n c r i e f f M. and B r a s s a r d , Jane Anthony. C h i l d development and p e r s o n a l s o c i a l n e t w o r k s . C h i l d D e v e l -opment . 50:601-616. 1979. Cochrane, R. and R o b e r t s o n , A. The l i f e e v e n t s i n v e n t o r y : a measure o f the r e l a t i v e s e v e r i t y o f p s y c h o - s o c i a l s t r e s s e s . J o u r n a l o f P s y c h o s o m a t i c R e s e a r c h . 17:135-139. 1973. C o l l i n s , Gary Gene. The p s y c h o s o c i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f c h i l d a b u s e r s . U n p u b l i s h e d d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n . U n i t e d S t a t e s I n t e r n a t i o n a l U n i v e r s i t y . 1975. Conger, R.D.; B u r g e s s , R.L. and B a r r e t t , C. C h i l d abuse r e l a t e d to l i f e change and p e r c e p t i o n s o f i l l n e s s : some p r e l i m i n a r y f i n d i n g s . F a m i l y C o o r d i n a t o r . 28:73-78. 1979. C u b i t t , T e s s a . Network d e n s i t y among urban f a m i l i e s . i n J . B o i s s e v a i n and J.C. M i t c h e l l (eds.) Network A n a l y s i s  S t u d i e s i n Human I n t e r a c t i o n . Mouton and Company. P a r i s . 1973. Disbrow, M i l d r e d ; D o e r r , Hans and C a u l f i e l d , C o l l e e n . Meas--138-ures to p r e d i c t c h i l d abuse. Paper presented at the annual meeting of S o c i e t y f o r Research i n C h i l d Devel-opment. New Orleans. 1977. Duncan-Jones, P a u l . The i n t e r v i e w measurement of s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n . Paper presented at I n t e r n a t i o n a l S o c i o -l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n World Congress. Uppsala, Sweden. August, 1978. Egeland, Byron; B r e i t e n b u c h e r , Mary and Rosenberg, Deborah. P r o s p e c t i v e study of the s i g n i f i c a n c e of l i f e s t r e s s i n the e t i o l o g y o f c h i l d abuse. J o u r n a l of C o n s u l t i n g and  C l i n i c a l Psychology. 48:195-205. 1980. Egeland, Byron and Br u n n q u e l l , Donald. An at r i s k approach to the study o f c h i l d abuse. J o u r n a l of the American  Academy of C h i l d P s y c h i a t r y . 19:219-235. 1979. Egeland, B. and Deinard, A. C h i l d care r a t i n g s c a l e . Unpublished t e s t . U n i v e r s i t y of Minnesota, 1975. Egeland, B. ; Deinard, A.; B r u n n q u e l l , D.; Phipps-Yonas, S.; C r i c h t o n , L. F i n a l Report. A p r o s p e c t i v e study of  antecedents of c h i l d abuse. N a t i o n a l Center on C h i l d Abuse and Negle c t , Denver. 1979. Egeland, Byron and Sroufe, L. A l a n . Attachment and E a r l y Maltreatment. C H i l d Development. i n p r e s s . Elmer, E l i z a b e t h . C h i l d r e n i n Jeopardy. U n i v e r s i t y o f P i t t s b u r g h P r e s s . P i t t s b u r g h 1967. Fontana, Vincent J . and Schneider, C e c e l i a . Help f o r abus-ing p a r e n t s . i n E. Arnold (ed.) Helping Parents Help  T h e i r C h i l d r e n . Brunner/Magel P u b l i c a t i o n s . New York. 1978. F r i e d e r i c h , W i l l i a m and B o r i s k i n , J e r r y A. The r o l e of the c h i l d i n abuse: a review of the l i t e r a t u r e . Amer i c a n  J o u r n a l of O r t h o p s y c h i a t r y . 46:580-591. 1976. Gabinet, L a i l l e . P revention of c h i l d abuse and n e g l e c t i n an inner c i t y p o p u l a t i o n . C h i l d Abuse and N e g l e c t . 3:809-817. 1979. Garb a r i n o , James. The human ecology o f c h i l d maltreatment: a conceptual model for r e s e a r c h . J o u r n a l of Marriage  and Family C o u n s e l i n g . 39:721-736. 1977. -139-Garbarino, James and C r o u t e r , Ann. D e f i n i n g the community context f o r p a r e n t - c h i l d r e l a t i o n s : the c o r r e l a t e s of c h i l d maltreatment. C h i l d Development. 49:604-616. 1978. Garbarino, James and Sherman, Deborah. I d e n t i f y i n g high r i s k neighborhoods. i n J . Garbarino and S. H o l l y Stocking (eds.) Supporting F a m i l i e s and P r o t e c t i n g  C h i l d r e n . Jossey-Bass. San F r a n c i s c o . 1980. Garbarino, James and S t o c k i n g , S. H o l l y , Supporting F a m i l i e s  and P r o t e c t i n g C h i l d r e n . Jossey-Bass. San F r a n c i s c o . 1980. G e l l e s , R i c h a r d . A p r o f i l e of v i o l e n c e rowards c h i l d r e n i n the United S t a t e s . i n M. Straus and R. G e l l e s (Eds). Behind Closed Doors: V i o l e n c e i n the Amer i c a n Family. Anchor/Doubleday. New York. 1979. G e l l e s , R i c h a r d . V i o l e n c e towards c h i l d r e n i n the United S t a t e s . Amer i c a n J o u r n a l of O r t h o p s y c h i a t r y . 48:6-14 1978. G i l , David. C h i l d abuse: l e v e l s of m a n i f e s t a t i o n , c a u s a l dimensions and primary p r e v e n t i o n . V i c t i m o l o g y . 2:186-194. 1977. G i l , David. V i o l e n c e A g a i n s t C h i l d r e n . Harvard U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . Cambridge, Mass. 1970. G o t t l i e b , Benjamin H. S o c i a l networks, s o c i a l support and c h i l d maltreatment. i n J . Garbarino and S.H. Stocking (Eds). Supporting F a m i l i e s and P r o t e c t i n g C h i l d r e n . Jossey-Bass. San F r a n c i s c o . 1980. Gray, Jane D.; C u t l e r , C h r i s t y A. ; Dean, Janet G.; and Kempe, C H . P r e d i c t i o n and p r e v e n t i o n of c h i l d abuse and n e g l e c t . J o u r n a l of S o c i a l I s s u e s . 35:127-139. 1979. Green, A r t h u r ; L i a n g , Vera; Gaines, Richard; and S u l t a n , Sady. P s y c h o p a t h o l o g i c a l assessment of c h i l d abusing, n e g l e c t i n g and normal mother. The J o u r n a l of Nervous and Mental Diseas e . 168:356-360. 1980. H e i f e r , Ray. The d i a g n o s t i c process and treatment programs. The O f f i c e of C h i l d Development. DHEW. Washington, D.C. 1975. - 1 4 0 -Henderson, S c o t t . The s o c i a l network, s u p p o r t and ne u r o s e s : the f u n c t i o n o f attachment i n a d u l t l i f e . B r i t i s h  J o u r n a l o f P s y c h i a t r y . 131:185-191. 1977. J a c k s o n , D.H. P e r s o n a l i t y R e s e a r c h Form Manual. Research P s y c h o l o g i s t s P r e s s . New York. 1967. J a y a r a t n e , S r i n i k a . C h i l d a b u s e r s as p a r e n t s and c h i l d r e n : a r e v i e w . S o c i a l Work. 22:5-9. 1977. Johnson, B e t t y and M o r r i s , H a r o l d . I n j u r e d c h i l d r e n and t h e i r p a r e n t s . C h i l d r e n . 18:18- . 1968. J u s t i c e , B l a i r and Duncan, D a v i d . L i f e c r i s i s as a p r e c u r -sor t o c h i l d abuse. P u b l i c H e a l t h R e p o r t s . 91:110-115. 1976. J u s t i c e , B l a i r and J u s t i c e , R i t a . The A b u s i n g F a m i l y . Human S c i e n c e s P r e s s . New York. 1976. Kempe, C.H.; S i l v e r m a n , F r e d e r i c ; S t e e l e , B r a n d t ; Droegmuel-l e r , W i l l i a m ; S i l v e r , Henry. The b a t t e r e d c h i l d s y n -drome. J o u r n a l o f the Amer i c a n M e d i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n . : 3 - l l . 1962. Kempe, Ruth S. and Kempe, C. Henry. C h i l d abuse. Harvard U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . Cambridge, Mass. 1978. K e r l i n g e r , F. and Pedhazur, E . J . M u l t i p l e R e g r e s s i o n i n B e h a v i o r a l R e s e a r c h . H o l t , R i n e h a r t and W i n s t o n . New York, 1973. K l a u s , M a r s h a l l and K e n n e l l , John H. M a t e r n a l - I n f a n t Bond-in g . C V . Mosby Company. S t . L o u i s . 1976. K l e i n , M i c h a e l and S t e r n , Leo. Low b i r t h weight and the. b a t t e r e d c h i l d syndrome. Amer i c a n J o u r n a l o f D i s e a s e s of C h i l d r e n . 122:15-18. 1971. K r e i n d l e r , Simon. P s y c h i a t r i c t r e a t m e n t f o r the abu s i n g p a r e n t and the abused c h i l d . Canadian P s y c h i a t r i c  A s s o c i a t i o n J o u r n a l . 21:275-279. 1976. Lee, Gary R. E f f e c t s o f s o c i a l networks on the f a m i l y . i n W.R. B u r r , R. H i l l , I . Nye and I . R e i s s (eds.) Contem-p o r a r y T h e o r i e s About the F a m i l y . V o l . I . Free P r e s s . New York. 1979. -141-L e i n h a r d t , Samuel. S o c i a l Networks; A Developing Paradigm. Academic Press, Inc. New York. 1977. Litwak, Eugene and S z e l e n y i , Ivan. Primary group s t r u c t r u e s and t h e i r f u n c t i o n s : k i n , neighbors and f r i e n d s . Amer-ic a n S o c i o l o g i c a l Review. 34:465-481. 1969. L o r r a i n , F r a n c o i s and White, H a r r i s o n C. S t r u c t u r a l equiva-lence of i n d i v i d u a l s i n s o c i a l networks. i n L e i n h a r d t (ed.) S o c i a l Networks: A Developing Paradigm. Aca-demic Press, Inc. New York. 1977. Lynch, Margaret. Ann o t a t i o n : the prognosis of c h i l d abuse. J o u r n a l of C h i l d Psychology and P s y c h i a t r y . 19:175-180. 1978. Maden, Marc and Wrench, David. S i g n i f i c a n t f i n d i n g s i n c h i l d abuse r e s e a r c h . V i c t i m o l o g y . 2:196-224. 1977. Matas, Leah; Arend, Richard and Sroufe, L. A l a n . C o n t i n u i t y of a d a p t a t i o n i n the second year: the r e l a t i o n s h i p between q u a l i t y of attachment and l a t e r competence. C h i l d Development. 49:547-556. 1978. M c C a l l i s t e r , Lynne and F i s c h e r , Claude S. A procedure for surveying p e r s o n a l networks. S o c i o l o g i c a l Methods and  Research. 7:131-148. 1978. Moos, Rudolf H. Family Environment S c a l e Manual. C o n s u l t -ing P s y c h o l o g i s t s Press, Inc. Palo A l t o . 1974. O'Hearn, Thomas P a t r i c k . A comparison of f a t h e r s i n abusive s i t u a t i o n s with f a t h e r s i n non-abusive s i t u a t i o n s . ^ D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l . V o l . 35;* 783591 January, 1975. O l i v e r , J.E. and Cox, Jane. A f a m i l y kindred with i l l used c h i l d r e n : the burden on the community. B r i t i s h J o u r n a l  of P s y c h i a t r y . 123:81-90. 1973. O l i v e r , J.E. and T a y l o r , Audrey. F i v e g e n e r a t i o n s of i l l t r e a t e d c h i l d r e n i n one f a m i l y p e d i g r e e . Br i t i s h J o u r -n a l of P s y c h i a t r y . 119:473-480. 1971. Ostbloom, Norman and Crase, S e d a h l i a J a s p e r . A model for c o n c e p t u a l i z i n g c h i l d abuse c a u s a t i o n and i n t e r v e n t i o n . S o c i a l Casework. 61:164-172. 1980. - 1 4 2 -P a p a t o l a , Kathleen. Methodological Problems i n C h i l d Abuse Research. Unpublished Manuscript. 1980. P a p a t o l a , Kathleen. A S o c i a l Networks Inventory and Scoring Guide. Unpublished T e s t . 1980. Parke, R.D. and Collmer, C.W. C h i l d abuse: An i n t e r d i s c i p l i -nary a n a l y s i s . In E.M. Hetherington (ed.) Review of  C h i l d Development Research. V o l . 5. Chicago, Univer-s i t y of Chicago P r e s s . Chicago. 1975. P a t t i s o n , E. M a n s e l l ; Llamas, Robert and Hurd, Gary. S o c i a l network mediation of a n x i e t y . P s y c h i a t r i c Annals. 9:56-67. 1979. P e l t o n , LeRoy H. C h i l d abuse and n e g l e c t : the myth of c l a s s l e s s n e s s . Amer i c a n J o u r n a l of O r t h o p s y c h i a t r y . 48:608-616. 1979. P i l l i n g , D oria and P r i n g l e , Mia Kellmer. C o n t r o v e r s i a l Issues i n C h i l d Development. Paul E l e k , L t d . London. 1978. Polansky, N., Borgman R., and DeSaix, C. Roots of F u t i l i t y . Jossey-Bass, Inc. London. 1972. Reed, J u d i t h . Working with abusive p a r e n t s : a parent's view. C h i l d r e n Today. 3:6-9. 1975. Rosenfeld, A l v i n A. and Newberger, E l i H. Compassion v s . c o n t r o l i n Chess and Thomas (eds.) Annual p r o g r e s s i o n  c h i l d p s y c h i a t r y and c h i l d development. Brunner/Mazel P u b l i s h e r s . New York. 1978. Sandgrund, A l i c e ; Gaines, Richard and Green, A r t h u r . C h i l d abuse and mental r e t a r d a t i o n : a problem of cause and e f f e c t . Amer i c a n J o u r n a l of Mental d e f i c i e n c y . 79:327-330. 1974. S c h a f f e r , Rudolph. Mother i n g . Harvard U n i v e r s i t y Press. Cambridge, Mass. 1977. Seligman, M. E. H e l p l e s s n e s s . W. H. Freeman. New York, 1975. S p i n e t t a , John J . P a r e n t a l p e r s o n a l i t y f a c t o r s i n c h i l d abuse. J o u r n a l of C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l Psychology. -143-46:1409-1414. 1978. Stack, C a r o l B. A l l Our K i n . Harper and Row, P u b l i s h e r s . New York. 1974. S t e e l e , Brandt F. Experience with an i n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y con-cept, i n R.E. H e i f e r and C H . Kempe (eds.) C h i l d  Abuse and N e g l e c t . B a l l i n g e r P u b l i s h i n g Company. Cam-b r i d g e , Mass. 1976. S t e e l e , Brandt F., and P o l l a c k , C a r l . A p s y c h i a t r i c study of parents who abuse i n f a n t s and small c h i l d r e n , i n R.E. H e i f e r and C H . Kempe (eds.) The B a t t e r e d C h i l d . Second e d i t i o n . U n i v e r s i t y o f Chicago Press. Chicago. 1976. S t e r n , D a n i e l . The F i r s t R e l a t i o n s h i p . Harvard U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . Cambridge, Mass. 1977. Ten B e n s e l , Robert. Rights of C h i l d r e n and Youth: Abuse and  N e g l e c t . Course S y l l a b u s . P u b l i c Health 5-616. Min-n e a p o l i s , Minn. 1979. Thomas, Alexander; B i r c h , Herbert G.; Chess, S t e l l a ; Hert-zog, Margaret and Korn, Sam. B e h a v i o r a l I n d i v i d u a l i t y  i n E a r l y Childhood. New York U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . New York. 1963. Thomas, A.; Chess, S.; B i r c h , H. Temperament and behavior  d i s o r d e r s i n c h i l d r e n . New York U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . 1968. T o l s d o r f , C h r i s t o p h e r C. S o c i a l networks, supporting and copin g : an e x p l o r a t o r y study. Family Process. 15:407-417. 1976. Vaughn, B.E.; Egeland, B.; Sr o u f e , L.A. and Waters, E. I n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n infant-mother attachment at 12 and 18 months: s t a b i l i t y and change i n f a m i l i e s under s t r e s s . C h i l d Development. 50:971-975. 1979. Waters, E v e r e t t . The r e l a t i o n s h i p and s t a b i l i t y o f i n d i v i d -u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n infant-mother attachment. C h i l d  Development. 49:483-494. 1978. Waters, E v e r e t t ; Egeland, Byron and Vaughn, B r i a n . R e l a -t i o n s h i p s between neonatal behavior and infant-mother attachment i n an ec o n o m i c a l l y disadvantaged sample. i - 1 4 4 - , C h i l d Development. 51:208-216. 1980. Y e l a j a , Shanker. The abused c h i l d ... a reminder o f d e s p a i r . Canadian W e l f a r e . 49:78. 1973. Young, L e o n t i n e . Wednesday's C h i l d r e n . M c G r a w - H i l l Book Company. New York. 1964. Young, M. and W i l l m o t t , P. F a m i l y and K i n s h i p i n E a s t Lon-don . Ro u t l e d g e and Kegan P a u l . London. 1957. Z i g l e r , Edward. C o n t r o l l i n g c h i l d abuse i n A m e r i c a . i n D.H. G i l (ed.) C h i l d Abuse and V i o l e n c e . AMS P r e s s , I n c . New York. 1979. -145-Appendix A - 1 4 6 -Table A Two Way Analysis of Variance Variable: Family Continuity Source Sum of Squares DF Mean Square Abused Abusing 577.36 800.37 1 1 577.36 800.37 6.35 8.80 .013 .004 Two-^ way interaction Explained Residual Total 36.37 1413.75 8274.48 9688.24 3 91 94 36.37 471.25 90.92 103.06 .39 .531 5.18 .002 Table B Two Way Analysis of Variance Variable: Network Support Source Sum of Squares DF Mean Square Abused Abusing 6245.67 9.82 1 1 6245.67 9.82 9.69 .002 .01 .902 Two-way interaction 616.028 616.028 .956 .331 Explained Residual Total 6871.52 61228.92 61800.44 3 95 98 2290.50 664.51 694.90 3.55 .017 Table C Two Way Analysis of Variance Variable: Life Stress Source Sum of Squares DF Mean Square Abused Abusing 1146.13 580.36 1 1 1146.13 580.36 32.01 16.21 .001 .001 Two-way interaction 118.82 118.82 3.31 .072 Explained Residual Total 1845.32 3400.75 5246.07 3 95 98 615.10 35.79 53.53 17.18 .001 Appendix B -150-Table A Instruments, Authors and Dates of Administration Instrument Author Administration Maternal Early Treatment Papatola (1980) 9/80-6/81 Personality Research Form Jackson (1967) 6/76-12/77 b IPAT Anxiety Scale Cattel and Scheir (1963) 6/76-12/77 b Strange Situation Ainsworth and Wittig (1969) 5/78-6/79 d Family Environment Scale Moos (1974) 9/80-6/81 Life Events Inventory Egeland and Deinard (1977) 9/79-5/81 c Social Networks Inventory Papatola (1980) 9/80-6/81 Child Care Rating Scale Egeland and Deinard 9/80-6/81 a a administered at either 42 or 48 month testing b administered at 3 month testing c administered at 42 month visit d administered at 24 month visit M a t e r n a l E a r l y T r e a t m e n t -152-SUPPLE 2D'T TO 42 U,M AU MQilTI! 1MTERVIEWS The questions should be inserted into the interview in the following manner: 42 Months; After question number 14. 48 iionths: After question number i] (then continue with question number 8a). Often, the way parents feel about their own children has something to do with the way their parents f e l t about then. I'd l ike to spend a few minutes talking with you about the way you were raised, and how you were d isc ip l ined. 1. F i r s t of a l l , thinking back, do you think your parents were oood parents? i'hy or why not? I. l.'hat are some of the things they did that make you feel that way about them? (Let the mother talk about both pood things and bad things i f she wants to.) - 1 5 3 -3. Did you always know when your parents were anqry w i t h y o u ? ( I f yes, ask how, i f no, continue.) a. How? ( P r o b e — e . q . , how di«.i you know they were upset: Did they do some-th i n g s p e c i f i c ? Do not t r y to qive exanples of t h i n q s parents would do when anary, e.g., do not say, "Did they h i t you or slap you?" This i s l e a d i n r f the responses and could i n v a l i d a t e the information.) 4. In g e n e r a l , how were you d i s c i p l i n e d ? ( P r o b e — b u t a n a i n , s t i c k w i t h the ques-t i o n how and t r y not to g i v e examples.) ii. Do you ever remember n e t t i n g spanked so hard by your parents t h a t a b r u i s e was l e f t ? -154--3-6; As a-kid, do you ever remember getting burned or cut by your non or dad when they were "trying to teach you a lesson?" 7. Did your r,;on or dad ever hit you hard enough to cause a broken bone anywhere? 8. Did you ever have to go to the doctor's office after your mom or dad d isc i -plined you because they hurt you? - 1 5 5 -9. Did you ever f e e l l i k e you wanted to no to the doctor's a f t e r someone d i s c i -p l i n e d you, but d i d n ' t get to go? 10. u i d you ever spend time i n a f o s t e r home? I f yes: a. How many? b. !iow long i n each one? c. How long i n f o s t e r hones a l t o g e t h e r ? 11. How was a f f e c t i o n show between you and your f a t h e r ? -156-13. Did you ever f e e l l i k e they were seeking types of a f f e c t i o n you v.'ere u n w i l l i n g to g i v e ? 3 s , I f . tie know now th a t sexual a c t i v i t y among dads and daughters and brothers and s i s t e r s i s much more common than we thought before. I'm wondering i f you ever experienced sexual c o n t a c t w i t h e i t h e r your f a t h e r o r brother. l j . Did e i t h e r of your parents ever leave you f o r lone periods o f time without t e l l i n g you where they were going? (Do not give examples and l e t the mother"determine what a long period o f time i s . Don't i n t e r p r e t t h a t f o r her, but make sure t h a t i f she says yes she e x p l a i n s the s i t u a t i o n as c l e a r l y as p o s s i b l e . ) -157-16. Did you ever have to go a lone: t i n e witho-.it r c t t i n n fed? (Annin, l e t the mother i n t e r p r e t t h i s h e r s e l f . ) -153-Child Care Rating Scale -159-C h i l d ' s ilane A"e ' Date Observed Observer  CHILD CARE RATIMG SCALE I. Acts of Commission A) P h y s i c a l ( a l l iter.s under " p h y s i c a l " are d i v i d e d i n t o 2 s u b d i v i s i o n s : a) any occurrence, and b) a d m i t t e d l y i n t e n t i o n a l ) . . human b i t e s broken bones b r u i s e s major: l a r o e o r numerous j s e r i o u s b r u i s e s 2) minor: one or two s m a l l e r b r u i s e s burns s c r a t c h e s or cu t s w e l t s one more than one sca r s henatona Parental C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s evidence o f v i o l e n c e i n the household a) q u e s t i o n a b l e b) r e l a t i v e l y c e r t a i n ( p o t h e r / f a t h e r r e p o r t ) mother br u i s e d o r beaten a) p o s s i b l y i n t e n t i o n a l , i n f l i c t e d b) r e l a t i v e l y c e r t a i n i n t e n t i o n a l l y i n f l i c t e d p o t h e r / f a t h e r r e p o r t s ha m l no c h i l d n o t h e r / f a t h e r r e p o r t s f e a r i n n she/he w i l l harm the c h i l d n o t h e r / f a t h e r r e p o r t s f a t h e r / p o t h e r o r ot h e r harnino the c h i l d - 1 6 0 - ~ ________ mother/father verbally..abuses the c h i l d ( i n t e n s i t y , frequency, a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s ) ; mother/father r a i s e voice f o r behavior t h a t the c h i l d does not a p p r e c i a t e the appropriateness of mother/father observed being e x c e s s i v e l y rouoh vn"th the c h i l d ( i f rapport i s cood, as!; mother/father i f they have ever had to d i s c i p l i n e the baby. A l s o , ask what they do when baby c r i e s ) mother/father make comments t h a t c h i l d can't he d i s c i p l i n e d mother/father make u n r e a l i s t i c demands of c h i l d C) C h i l d C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ' c h i l d s t a r t l e s , l o oks t e r r i f i e d , p u l l s hac!:, becomes anxious when mother/father moves suddenly toward him/her or r a i s e s h e r / h i s v o i c e Acts of Omission A) P h y s i c a l o v e r a l l n u t r i t i o n a l l e v e l o f c h i l d ( m a l n u t r i t i o n ) poison a v a i l a b l e to c h i l d h i s t o r y o f poison i n g e s t i o n e x t e r n a l i n f e c t i o n s , sores and bedsores, e.g., b i t e s , s c r a t c h e s , eczema, e t c . , t h a t become i n f e c t e d diaper rash p e r s i s t e n t ( 4 3 hours) and/or untreated D) P h y s i c a l Care unwashed s e a s o n a l l y improperly dressed extremely d i r t y c l o t h i n n C) L i v i n n C onditions house extremely messy, d i r t y dishes unwashed (extreme) s p o i l e d or r o t t i n g food s i t t i n g around rarbane p i l e d up i n house and/or yard -161-- . 1 -s o l l e d , s t a i n e d c r i b - - e . g . , sheet i n s e c t s o r rodents protecting the c h i l d from natural dangers ; what does.nother a l l o w c h i l d to p l a y w i t h : what has Mother done to p r o t e c t c h i l d f r o n such dangers as stairs, e l e c t r i c a l c o r d s , sharp o b j e c t s , e t c . improper s l e e n i n n arrangements f o r c h i l d - d e s c r i b e D) P a r e n t a l C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s mother l e a v e s baby a l o n e unattended when she l e a v e s the n p a r t n e n t o r house n o t h e r l e a v e s baby w i t h o t h e r s i n d i s c r i m i n a t e l y - i n a p p r o p r i a t e c a r e t a k e r mother l e a v e s baby w i t h o t h e r s f r e q u e n t l y and f o r leno p e r i o d s o f t i n e f a i l u r e t o f o l l o w recommended c a r e p lans n r o v i d e d by emergency r o o n , c l i n i c s o r o t h e r h e a l t h c a r e workers ( e . g . , n u r s e s , s o c i a l w o r k e r s , d i e t i c i a n ^ , e t c . ) c o n s t a n t source o f f r i c t i o n i n the hone: c h a o t i c hone l i f e -d r i n k i n g , drugs p r i n c i p a l c a r e t a k e r d o e s n ' t check c h i l d when c h i l d i s awake no o r few a p p r o p r i a t e t h i n g s f o r baby t o p l a y w i t h n o t h e r d o e s n ' t i n t e r a c t w i t h baby o t h e r than a t f e e d i n g t imes c h i l d not taken whenever p a r e n t noes out - o e n e r a l l a c k o f e x p e r i e n c e and s t i i . i u l a t i o n , p a r e n t s see c h i l d as burden p a r e n t a l d i s o r g a n i z a t i o n o r poor judgment d e t r i n e n t a l to the c h i l d ( e . g . , p a r e n t s unable to p l a n b u c k e t , no n o m a ! r o u t i n e f o r c a r i n g f o r the c h i l d ) r e g a r d i n g c h i l d c a r e hone nana^ci ient i n d i f f e r e n c e o r unwil1 inqness t o a c c e p t f a c t t h a t c h i l d has prob parent o p e n l y r e p o r t s r e s e n t i n c o r d i s l i k i n n c h i l d c h i l d , has been t h r e a t e n e d w i t h severe p h y s i c a l h a m nunerous v i s i t s t o c l i n i c o r cr.iergency roon f o r i n a p p r o p r i a t e reasons - 1 6 2 -f a i l u r e to Keep r o u t i n e h e a l t h c a r e a n o i n t m e n t s f a i l u r e t o f o l l o w through w i t h e p i s o d i c h e a l t h care apnointmonts f a i l u r e to f o l l o w throunh w i t h c o n s u l t a t i v e h e a l t h care anpointnents apparent c h r o n i c i l l n e s s o r a c c i d e n t s not M v e n r e q u i r e d medical a t t e n t i o n E) C h i l d C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . weight height ' . head circumference Two standard d e v i a t i o n s above o r -below the nean f o r c h i l d r e n a t t h a t ane III)... P o s s i b l e C h i l d C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s R e s u l t i n g f r o n Abuse o r f l e ^ l e c t head banner or r o c k e r e x c e s s i v e f e a r o f st r a n g e r s e x c e s s i v e c l i n o i n o e x c e s s i v e c r y i n n a f t e r s i x r x . i t h s — e x t r e m e apathy . c l i l l r f doesn't seek comfort f r o n mother when hurt o r upset s l e e p i n g d i s t u r b a n c e s t e r e o t y p i c , o b s e s s i v e , s e l f - s t i m u l a t i n q behavior IV) D e s c r i p t i o n 3 iu ' Imprsssions o f the Caretaker, an:! ."one S e t t i n g -163-Personality Research Fo -164-Name Directions Below you w i l l f i n d a series of statements which a person mip.ht use to describe him/herself. Read each statement and decide whether or not i t describes you. I f you agree with a statement or decide that i t does describe you, answer TtiUFi I f you disagree with a statement or f e e l that i t i s not descriptive of you. answer FALSE. Answer every statement either true or false*, even i f you are not completely sure of your answer. 1. I RO out of ray way to prevent anyone from getting the best of me. 2. I t i s usually quite easy f o r tne to admit I an wron?,. 3. Often-1 stop i n the middle of one a c t i v i t y i n order to s t a r t something e l s e . 4. I f I f e e l s i c k , I don't l i k e to have friends or r e l a t i v e s fuss over me. T F T F T F T F T F T F T F F T F T F 5. I have never bought anything i n a store. 6. I am quite able to ma?ce correct decisions on d i f f i c u l t questions. 7. "Then I bump into a piece of f u r n i t u r e , I don't usually get angry. 8. I would pet into a Ion?? discussion rather than admit I am wrong. 9. I an careful to consider a l l sides of an Issue before taking action.T 10. I would l i k e to ba married to a protective and sympathetic person 11. I could e a s i l y count from one to twenty-five. 12. I am never able to do things as w e l l as I should. 13. I think that c e r t a i n people deserve to be put i n t h e i r places. ' 14. I don't mind having my mistakes pointed out to me at times when other people can hear. 15. I often say the f i r s t thir.f? that comes into my head. 16. I prefer not beinp dependent on anyone for assistance. 17. I can run a mile i n less than four minutes. T F -165-F F F -2-T F T F T ? T F T F T F T F T F T 18. i*y l i f e i s f u l l of interesting a c t i v i t i e s . 19. I seldom feel l i k e h i t t i n g anyone. 20. People find i t very hard to convince me that I an wrong on a point. 21. t am pretty cautious. 22. 1 try to share ny burdens x^ith someone who can help ne. 23. I have never talked to anyone by telephone. 24. I believe people t e l l l i e s any time i t i s to their advantage. 25. ^hen 1 am i r r i t a t e d , I l e t i t be known. 26. I usually l e t unkind things sorr.eone mif>ht say about me pass without making any reply. 27. "hen-1 f?o to the store, I often come home with things I had not intended to buy. 28. The person I marry won't have to spend much time taking care of me. 29. I usually wear something warm when I go outside on a very cold day. T 30. If someone gave ne too much change I would t e l l him/her. T F 31. I rarely get angry either at myself or at other people. T F 32. I don't like people to joke about what they feel are my weaknesses. T F 33. Barely, i f ever, do I do anything reckless. T F 34. I want to be sure someone t r i l l take care of me when 1 am old. T F 35. I make a l l my own clothes and shoes. T F 36. I would be willing to do something a l i t t l e unfair to pet something that was important to ne. T F 37. Stupidity makes me anpry. T F 30. If faced by a pood argument, I am usually willing to change ny position even on important issues. 39. f*any of my actions see-* to be hasty. 40. I usually make decisions without consultinp others. T F T F T F 166--3-41. I have never brushed or cleaned my teeth. T F 42. I get alonp, with people at parties quite well. T F 43. I would never start a fight with someone. T F 44. 1 am on guard against people who mip.ht try to make a bi?, thinp, T F of tay mistakes. 45. Emotion seldom causes me to act without thinking. T F 46. I lik e to ask other people's opinions concerning my problems. T F 47. Thinps with supar in them usually taste sweet to me. T F 48. I did many very bad thinps as a child. T F 49. I have been known to f l y into a rage i f thinps didn't go as I had planned. T F 50. Most of the people with whom I am in contact Ignore any minor errors I make. T F 51. I have often broken things because of carelessness. T F 52. I prefer to face my problems by myself. T F 53. Sometimes I see cars near my home. T F 54. I am glad I grew up the way I did. T F 55. If someone does something I don't l i k e , I seldom say anything. T F 56. I tend to react stronply to remarks which find fault with my personal appearance. T F 57. I have a reserved and cautious attitude toward l i f e . T F 58. If I ever think that I am i n danger, my f i r s t reaction Is to look for help from somaone. T F 59. I have never had any hair on my head. T F 60. I often question whether l i f e i s worthwhile. T F 61. I often make people angry by teasing them. T F 62. If someone finds fault with me I just listen quietly. T F S3. Most people feel that I act impulsively. T F - 1 6 7 --4-64. When I was a c h i l d , I . - l i s l i k e d i t i f my mother was always worrying about me. T F 65. I have traveled away from my home town. T F 66. I am always prepared to do what i s expected of me. T F 67. I avoid c r i t i c i z i n g others under any circumstances. T F 68. When people say Insulting things about me I usually get back at them by pointing out th e i r f a u l t s . T F 69. My thinking i s usually careful and purposeful. T F 70. I l i k e to be with people who take a protective attitude toward me. T F 71. I have never ridden i n an automobile. T F 72. tly d a i l y l i f e includes many a c t i v i t i e s I d i s l i k e . T F 73. Sometimes I f e e l l i k e smashing things. T F 74. I don't mind being teased about s i l l y things I have done. T F 75. Sometimes I get several projects started at once because I don't think ahead. T F 76. I would rather act on my own than have a superior help me. T F 77. I have never f e l t sad. T F 78. I am one of the lucky people who could t a l k with my parents about my problems. T F 79. I f someone hurts me, I j u s t t r y to forget about i t . T F 80. I f someone accused me of making a mistake, I would c a l l attention to his/her mistakes. T F 81. I am not one of those people who b l u r t out things without t h i n k i n g . ! F 82. I usually t e l l others of my misfortunes because they might be able to as s i s t me. T F 83. I t r y to get at least some sleep every night. T F 84. Many things make me f e e l uneasy. T F 85. I get a k i c k out of Beeing someone I d i s l i k e appear f o o l i s h i n front of others. T F -168-- 5 -86. I don't get angry when people laugh at my errors. T F 87. I find that thinking things over very carefully often destroys half the fun of doing them. T F 88. As a child, I disliked having to be dependent on other people. T F 89. Sometimes I feel thirsty or hungry. T F 90. I am careful to plan for my distant goals. T F 91. I rarely swear. T F 92. I never allow anyone to talk me down on an important issue. T F 93. I generally rely on careful reasoning i n making up my mind. T F 94. I often seek other people's advice. T F 95. I have attended school at some tine during my l i f e . T F 96. I find It very d i f f i c u l t to concentrate. T F -169-L i f e Events Inventory -170-iame Data I n t e r v i e w e r LIFE EVENTS SCHEDULE: 30 month r e v i s i o n , 4 2 , 4 8 , G4, and CO months Check i f any o f these t h i n g s have happened to the mother and f a t h e r d u r i n g the p a s t 12 months. Use a r e f e r e n c e p o i n t such as b i r t h d a y , season o f y e a r , h o l i d a y , e t c . , t o help mother r e c a l l events over the p a s t y e a r . The s c a l e i s t o be read t o the mother and f i l l e d 1n by the i n t e r v i e w e r . Pause a f t e r you read each i tem and g i v e the mother p l e n t y o f t ime t o t h i n k o f each event . t!hen n e c e s s a r y , probe f o r f u r t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n , p a r t i c u l a r l y 1f i t r e l a t e s t o drug o r a l c o h o l problems. 1. Unemployed mother Husband/boyfriend d e s . r a b 1 - howjong b o y f r i e n d i n home? d e s i r a b l e reason f o r unemployment b o y f r i e n d 1n home! reason f o r unemployment 2 . Job changes i n l a s t year (#) (mother o r husband/boyfr iend?) Changes i n hours D e s i r e d o r undes ired Changes i n work c o n d i t i o n s ~ Changes i n r e s p o n s i b i l i t y Promotion Change i n type o f work ~ 'ouble w i t h w e l f a r e paperwork money de layed (how lonci)__ money reduced money taken away 4. Trouble w i t h s u p e r i o r s o r cont inued t e n s i o n a t work ( e x p l a i n the t r o u b l e and the r e s u l t s o f the problems) 5 . Moved d u r i n g t h e p a s t 12 months Pates ( E x p l a i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s , e . g . , e v i c t i o n , move to parents) o . Purchas ing own home ( t a k i n g our mortgage) 7. Quarrel w i t h ne ighbors ( e x p l a i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s , was p h y s i c a l f o r c e used?) 3 . Income decreased s u b s t a n t i a l l y (25%) l i f e t h r e a t e n i n g ? change i n l i v i n g s tandards? " ( d e s c r i b e ) 9 . G e t t i n g i n t o debt beyond means o f repayment Any r e p o s e s s i o n s o r l e g a l a c t i o n s ? -171-Life Events Schedule - Paye Z 10. Honey problems (shortage so that yoj have trouble managing) ______ l i f e threatening? ' 11. Arguments about how money 1s spent frequency of f ights Severity of fights 12. You or Inr.edlate family member convicted of minor violations who was involved and how close Is the relationship _ what are the results? Speeding Dili Assaults Parking Tickets Accidents Jrug Possession Theft Prostitution Rape Other -. 13. Ja i l sentence of immediate family (includes workhouse). !Jho? (how close 1s the relationship?)____ How long? 14. You or immediate family involved in physical f ight with whom I low often ___ (probe for drug or alcohol involvement) 15. Immediate family member drinking heavily Who and how close is the relationship [ Impact 16. Immediate family member attempts suicide (or claims considering suicide Hho and how close i s the reTaTiWsTvTp? 17. Death of immediate family member or close friend Who and how close is the relationship? Id. Immediate family member seriously 111 with what • Uho and how close Is the relationship ~ 19. Gain of new family member (immediate) (birth or marriage) who member of mother's household? 20. Husband or boyfriend Intoxicated frequently (alcohol or drugs) frequency of occurrence • explain any harm on home l i f e have you ever threatened to leave because of your husband/boyfriend's drug or alcohol abuse? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 21. Serious restr ict ion of social l i f e probe for severity due to lack of money no babysitter husband/boyfriend rest r ic t social l i f e 22. Period of homelessness (no permanent residence) where stayed during period reason for homelessness separation from chi ld involved? 23. Serious physical i l l ness or injury of mother, chi ld or father requiring hospital izat ion. Treatment ^ what how long ' " -172-L i fe Events Schedule - Pane 3 24. Prolonged 111 health of mother, ch i ld or father requiring treatment by a doctor " what how long 25. Miscarriage during what month mother's acceptance 25. Abortlon v d u r lng what month acceptance 27. Pregnancy mother's acceptance^ 28. Marriage (of mother) when 29. 3oyfriend(s) moves out # of times des1red?_ Boyfr1end( s) move 1n # of times des1red?_ Mother moves out # of tiir.cs desired? Mother moves in * of times desired? 30. Other people moving in and out # of times desired? 31. Increase 1n number of arguments, or severe arguments with spouse (or boyfriend/ g i r l f r iend) (severe enough to have affected the relationship) how serious? • physical f ights 32. Have you ever been frightened by your husband/boyfriend or other family members who c i resistances how severe # of times past year_ 33. Increase 1n number of arguments or severe f ights with close friend (severe enough to have affected the relationship) Explain .  34. Trouble with relat ives ( e . g . , in-laws) who and how close 1s the relationship how serious , 35. Marital separation or break-up (Includes on-going relationship with boyfriend) desired or undesired were l i v ing together ?_ 36. Divorce Mutual or contested 37. . larital reconci l iat ion # of times 3d. Custody, v is i ta t ion problems Explain ( e . g . , father wants v is i tat ion rights , 39. Separation of mother and chi ld (explain) Further elaboration, i f necessary: Note any other stressful events that way have occurred in mother's l i f e -173-Social Networks Inventory -174-1) On the f o l l o w i n g c h a r t , please l i s t the f i r s t names of a l l those people who are important to you. People who are important t o us may not always oe the persons we l i k e , but they may p l a y a major r o l e i n our l i v e s . These people should be l i s t e d , too. A f t e r you l i s t the n.v.ie, please l i s t t h e i r sex, t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p to you ( f r i e n d , husband, b o y f r i e n d , r e l a t i v e ) , and how long you've known t h a t person. You don't have to f i l l i n a l l the soaces, but i f you need more room, you can use the other s i d e of t h i s sheet. iiar.ie Sex R e l a t i o n Tine Known • • 2) flow, f o r each person on your l i s t , I'd l i k e you to r a t e o v e r a l l how h e l p f u l each one i s to you. i!ame b Very h e l p f u l : t h i s person makes my l i f e e a s i e r and b e t t e r U s u a l l y h e l p f u l 3 2 1 Sorre times H e l p f u l only Very u n h e l p f u l : h e l p f u l one i n a t h i s person whi 1 e makes ny l i f e more d i f f i c u l t . 3) I'hat I'd l i ke to know now, 1s how many of your friends know each other. To do that, 1*11 place an "x" in the square where two names meet i f they know each other. N N \ \ \ \ \ \ 1 . - , \ \ \ 1 — ; , . — » — • \ i ! \ \ \ i \ N s. \ \ x > N y 4) On t h i s l i s t , p l e a s e l i s t how e a s y o r d i f f i c u l t i t i s f o r y o u t o g e t t h e s e t h i n g s d o n e . s o m e o n e t o b a b y -s i t t h e c h i l d r e n V e r y e a s y / n e v e r a o r o b l e m ; - : a l p c u t wnen t h a r a 1 s an e m e r g e n -c y w i t h t h e k i d s <-:et someone t o d o t h e s h o p o i n n o r p i c k up a f e w c h i n o s a t t h e s t o r e -p r e t t y e a s y n o t a p r o b l e m v e r y o f t e n p r o b l e m a b o u t h a l f t h e t i n e b o r r o w s n a i l a m o u n t s o f m o n e y t a k e the k i d s f o r a w h i l e s o t h a t y o u c a n h a v e a b r e a k h e l p o u t when t h e k i d s a r e s i c k h e l p o u t w i t h t r a n s p o r -t a t i o n when y o u g e t s t u c k b o r r o w t h i n g s l i k e c l o t h e s , l a u n d r y b a s k e t s , i r o n s ~ : ' , . , , , L , g e t s o m e o n e t o w a t c h t h e k i d s i f y o u w a n t t o go o u t a t n i g h t p r e t t y h a r d ; u s u a l l y a p r o b l e m v e r y h a r d ; c a n n e v e r f i n d a n y o n e OC Family Environment Scale -179-FAMILY ENVIRONMENT SCALE, FOR*! K You are to decide which o f these statements are true o f your f a m i l y and which are f a l s e . I f you th i n k the statement i s true or mostly true of your f a m i l y , make an X on the T ( t r u e ) . I f you t h i n k a statement i s f a l s e or mostly f a l s e of your f a m i l y , make an X on the F ( f a l s e ) . You may f e e l t h a t some of the statements are true f o r some f a m i l y members and f a l s e f o r others. Mark T i f the statement i s true f o r most members. Hark F i f the s'tatement i s f a l s e f o r most members. I f the members are evenly d i v i d e d , decide what i s the stronger o v e r a l l impression and answer a c c o r d i n g l y True False 1. Family members r e a l l y help and support one another. T F 2. Family members o f t e n keep t h e i r f e e l i n g s to themselves. T F 3. He f i g h t a l o t i n our f a m i l y . T F 4. We don't do things on our own very o f t e n i n our f a m i l y . T F 5. We f e e l i t i s important to be the best a t whatever you do. T F 6. We o f t e n t a l k about p o l i t i c a l and s o c i a l problems. T F 7. Vie spend most weekends and evenings a t home. T F 8. Family members attend church, synagogue, or Sunday School f a i r l y o f t e n . T F 9. A c t i v i t i e s i n our f a m i l y are p r e t t y c a r e f u l l y planned. T F 10. Family members are r a r e l y ordered around. T F 11. We o f t e n seem to be k i l l i n g time a t home. T F 12. He say anything we want to around home. T. F 13. Family members r a r e l y become openly angry. T F 14. In our f a m i l y , we are s t r o n g l y encouraged to be independent. T F 15. G e t t i n g ahead i n l i f e i s very important i n our f a m i l y . T F 16. He r a r e l y go to l e c t u r e s , plays or con c e r t s . T F 17. Friends o f t e n come over f o r dinner or to v i s i t . T F 18. Vie don't say prayers i n our f a m i l y . T F 19. We are g e n e r a l l y very neat and o r d e r l y . T F 180 1. 20. There are very few r u l e s to f o l l o w i n our f a m i l y . T F 21. lie put a l o t o f energy i n t o what we do at home. T F 22. I t ' s hard to "blow o f f steam" at heme without u n s e t t i n q somebody. T F 23. Family members sometimes get so angry they throw t h i n o s . T F 24. We th i n k things out f o r ourselves i n our f a m i l y . T F 25. Hew much money a person makes i s not very important to us. T F 26. Learning about new and d i f f e r e n t things i s very important i n our f a m i l y . T F 27. Nobody i n our f a m i l y i s a c t i v e i n s p o r t s s L i t t l e League 3 bowling, e t c . T F 28. We o f t e n t a l k about the r e l i g i o u s meaning, of Christmas, Passover. or other h o l i d a y s . T F 29. I t ' s o f t e n hard to f i n d things when you need them i n our household. T F 30. There i s one f a m i l y member who makes most of the d e c i s i o n s . T F 31. There i s a ..feeling .of togetherness i n our f a m i l y . T F 32. We t e l l each other about cur personal problems. T F 33. Family members hardly ever I c e t h e i r tempers. T F 34. !*c- come and co f;s vn v-ant to i n our f a m i l y . T F 35. We b e l i e v e i n competition and "may the best man win." T F 36. We are not th a t i n t e r e s t e d i n c u l t u r a l a c t i v i t i e s . T F 37. We o f t e n go to movies, sports events, camping, e t c . T F 38. We don't b e l i e v e i n heaven or h o l l . T F 39. Being on time i s very important i n our f a m i l y . T F 40. There are set ways of doing things at home. T F 41. We r a r e l y v o l u n t e e r when something has t c be done a t home. T F 42. I f we f e e l l i k e doing something on the spur of the moment, we o f t e n j u s t pick up and go. T F 433 Family members o f t e n c r i t i c i z e dach other. T F 44. There i s very l i t t l e p r i v a c y i n our f a m i l y . T F I B I -3-45. tie always s t r i v e to do things j u s t a l i t t l e b e t t e r the next T F time 46. Ue r a r e l y have i n t e l l e c t u a l d i s c u s s i o n s . T F 47. Everyone i n our f a m i l y has a hobby or two. T F 48. Family members have s t r i c t ideas about what i s r i g h t and wrong T F 43. People change t h e i r minds of t e n i n our f a m i l y . T F 50. There i s a strong emphasis on f o l l o w i n g r u l e s i n our f a m i l y . T F 51. Family members r e a l l y back each other up. T F 52. Someone u s u a l l y gets upset i f you complain i n our f a m i l y . T F 53. Family members sometimes h i t each other. T F 54. Family members almost always r e l y on themselves when a T F problem comes up. 55. Family members r a r e l y worry about job promotions, school T F grades, e t c . 56. Someone i n our f a m i l y plays a musical instrument. T F 57. Family members are not very involved i n r e c r e a t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s T F o u t s i d e work or sc h o o l . b o . 'le b e l i e v e there are some things you j u s t have to take on f a i t h . T F a9. Family members make sure t h e i r rooms are neat. T F 50. Everyone has an equal say i n f a m i l y d e c i s i o n s . T F 61. There i s very l i t t l e group s p i r i t i n our f a m i l y . T F G2. Honey and paying b i l l s i s openly t a l k e d about i n our f a m i l y . T F 63. I f there's a disagreement i n our f a m i l y , we t r y hard to smooth T F t h i n g s over and keep the peace. 64. Family members s t r o n g l y encourage each other to stand up f o r T F t h e i r r i g h t s . CS. In our f a m i l y , we don't t r y that hard to succeed. T F 66. Family members o f t e n go to the l i b r a r y . T F 67. Family members sometimes attend courses or take l e s s o n s f o r T F some hobby or i n t e r e s t (outside of s c h o o l ) . 182 - 4 -63. In our f a m i l y each person has d i f f e r e n t ideas about what i s T F r i g h t and wrong. 69. Each person's d u t i e s are c l e a r l y defined i n our f a m i l y . T F 79. !fe can do whatever we want to i n our f a m i l y . T F 71. I'e r e a l l y get along w e l l with each other. T F 72. lie are u s u a l l y c a r e f u l about what we say to each other. T F 73. Family members o f t e n t r y to one-up or out-do each other. T F 74. I t ' s hard to be by y o u r s e l f without h u r t i n g someone's T F f e e l i n g s i n our household. 75. "'.lork before pla y " i s the r u l e i n our f a m i l y . T F 76. hatching T.V. i s more important than reading i n our f a m i l y . T F 77. Family members go out a l o t . T F 73. The B i b l e i s a very important book i n our home. T F 79. Money i s not handled very c a r e f u l l y i n our f a m i l y . T F 80. Rules are p r e t t y i n f l e x i b l e i n our household. T F 81. There i s p l e n t y of time and a t t e n t i o n f o r everyone i n T F our f a m i l y . 82. There are a l o t of spontaneous d i s c u s s i o n s i n our f a m i l y . T F 83. In our f a m i l y , we b e l i e v e you don't ever get anywhere by T F r a i s i n g your v o i c e . 84. Ue are not r e a l l y encouraged to speak up f o r ourselves i n T F our f a m i l y . 85. Family members are o f t e n compared w i t h others as to how w e l l T F they are doing a t work or school. S6. Family members r e a l l y l i k e music, a r t and l i t e r a t u r e . T F 87. Our main form of entertainment i s watching T.V. or l i s t e n i n g T F to the r a d i o . 33. Family members b e l i e v e that i f you s i n you w i l l be punished. T F f.3. Dishes are u s u a l l y done immediately a f t e r e a t i n g . T F 90.' You can't get away w i t h much i n our f a m i l y . T F 183 • Appendix C 184 Table A Correlation Matrix of Variable Set Abusd. Absng. Host. Cont. Rigid. Sze. Dens. . LS Sup. Abused • .51 -.18 .23 .05 .07 .15 -.44 .28 Abusing -.05 .36 -.05 .11 -.01 -.51 .16 H o s t i l i t y -.26 -.00 .00 -.03 .22 .03 Continuity -.00 .05 .10 - .12 .29 R i g i d i t y -.15 .17 -.08 .14 Size ' -.31 -.03 -03 Density .00 .16 L i f e Stress -.25 Support 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0076969/manifest

Comment

Related Items