perceptions of abuse: effects on adult psychological and social adjustment

Pergamon Child Abuse & Neglect, Vol. 20, No. 6, pp. 511-526, 1996

Copyright © 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd Printed in the USA. All rights reserved

0145-2134/96 $15.00 + .00

PII S0145-2134(96) 00033-6

PERCEPTIONS OF ABUSE: EFFECTS ON ADULT PSYCHOLOGICAL AND SOCIAL ADJUSTMENT

RACHNA VARIA, RICHARD R. ABIDIN, AND PATSY DASS

Curry Programs in Clinical and School Psychology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA

Abstract~The present study examined perceptions of abuse (psychological, physical, and sexual) and later adult psychological and social adjustment in a nonclinical sample of 173 individuals. A subgroup of abused individuals were identified (Minimizers), who reported levels of abuse above the mean, but failed to acknowledge themselves as abused. Analyses of variance revealed that abused individuals, both Acknowledgers and Minimizers, consistently had more psychological and social adjustment problems than the Nonabused group. In addition, individuals who fell in the Minimizing subgroup had more detrimental outcome than the Abused (Acknowledgers) group in a few areas, suggesting that file perception of past events (abuse) may be an important factor in determining future psychological adjustment.

Key Words--Effects of abuse, Perception of abuse, Psychosocial dysfunction.

I N T R O D U C T I O N

AN I N C R E A S I N G A M O U N T of attention has been devoted to examining the psychological sequelae of child maltreatment. Researchers are examining the spectrum of circumstances affecting the occurrence, mediating variables, impacts, and outcomes of child abuse (Beutler & Hill, 1992). Only recently however, have the more indirect and long-term effects of child abuse been explored. Expanding from a simplistic abuse-outcome model, researchers have attempted to disentangle abuse per se from other distal and concurrent confounding variables (Briere, 1992; Briere & Runtz, 1990) when examining adult functioning.

Given that perceptions and coping strategies appear to be related to the psychological functioning of abuse victims, this study explores the psychological and social adjustment of individuals who acknowledge their abuse compared to those who do not. The focus o f this study concentrates on mapping the current personality characteristics and social relationships o f individuals, in relation to their reports of experiencing as children behaviors from family members that were abusive, and their perception of having been abused. In response to Browne and Finkelhor 's (1986) call for studies to address a wider range of subjects, the current study examines these relations in a nonclinical sample.

EFFECTS OF CHILD A B U S E

Maltreated children experience anxiety, feelings o f isolation and stigma, poor self-esteem (Oates, Forrest, & Peacock, 1985), difficulty in trusting others, relationship problems

This study was supported by the Relationship Research Project--Richard R. Abidin, Principal Investigator.

Received for publication April 7, 1995; final revision received December 7, 1995; accepted December 7, 1995.

Reprint requests should be addressed to Rachna Varia, University of Virginia, Room 150, Ruffner Hall, 405 Emmet Street, Charlottesville, VA, 22903.

511

512 R. Varia, R. R. Abidin, and P. Dass

(Howes & Espinosa, 1985), and poor self-esteem and negative self-concepts (Browne & Finkelhor, 1986). Lamphear (1985), in her review of the literature regarding the effects of physical abuse on children, cites as the core resultants: deviant self-concept; troubled socialization with peers; difficulty trusting others; low self-esteem; and decreased effectiveness in comprehending complex roles. Erickson and Egeland (1987) report that abuse is inherently tied to a lack of support and nurturance which directly impacts on the child's sense of self. The abused child learns from his or her experiences that their feelings are unimportant and not worthwhile which results in low self-esteem and an impairment of a cohesive sense of identity (Steele, 1986). These deficits are theorized to relate directly to problems in the interpersonal adjustment of abuse victims as children and adults.

Role of Perception

Although the deleterious effect of child abuse have been well documented, certain inconsis- tencies remain. Researchers have cited a significant number of abused children who develop into healthy adjusted adults (Finkelhor, 1990; Steele, 1986). The complex association between abuse and later adjustment is outlined by Augoustinos (1987). Rabkin (1965) argues that "pathological parental attitudes and behaviors lead to a certain outcome not as a cause sui, but because they are perceived and reacted to in a certain way by the child, a way perhaps unrelated to the manner in which both parents and researcher construe them." Clearly, psychological processes play a significant role in the way an individual perceives and organizes his of her understanding of the world. The perceiver is not a passive observer in the face of ongoing events but an active participant in selecting and synthesizing stimuli (Michaels, Messe, & Stollak, 1983).

Coping Strategies

The way an individual perceives an event influences the coping strategy employed. Defensive denial is apparently a common coping strategy of those who have experienced abuse and it can have the effect of creating a facade of good adjustment and mental health. Shedler, Mayman, and Manis (1993) describe a group of defensive deniers, who "looked good" but were actually psychologically distressed, and minimally aware of their own needs, wishes and feelings. It seems reasonable that some abused children will cope by distorting their perceptions and denying their maltreatment at the hands of their parents. Such abused children accommodate psychologically to the betrayal by preserving the image of their family as protective and loving and therefore denying the experience of abuse. This denial, it appears can lead to an insecure-anxious internal working model of attachment which inhibits the development of trusting and intimate relationships with others later in life (Erikson & Egeland, 1987). Lein- tenberg, Greenwald, and Cado (1992) provide evidence of such disturbances in the interpersonal relationships of women who had been sexually abused in childhood.

METHOD

Subjects

The subjects consisted of a nonclinical sample of 174 parents with children between the ages of 1 and 10 who were recruited from primary care pediatric settings and public swimming pools in Charlottesville, Virginia and Northern Virginia. The subjects consisted of a community rather than a clinical sample and it is assumed that the presence of abuse or clinical pathology reflects the base-rate for the population.

Perceptions of abuse and psychological adjustment 513

Procedure

Parents were asked to participate in a voluntary research project investigating the relationship between early family environment and later social relationships. Parents were assured that their participation was completely voluntary and that the quality of the care they received at the agencies would not be affected. Parents who chose to participate were given a pre-addressed, stamped packet containing an informed consent card and a 12-page questionnaire booklet that took approximately 45 minutes to complete. The informed consent card ensured their anonymity and confidentiality and offered to provide them with the results of the study. They were asked not to consult with their spouse when answering the questions. Each family was assigned an identification number that was used to ensure confidentiality. Both spouses did not have to participate in the project. Three hundred and fourteen packets were given out with a total of 185 returned, a 59% return-rate. One hundred and seventy-four of those packets were complete sets of data and used in this study.

Mothers and fathers questionnaire packets were identical. The measures in the packet which were used in this study include: a demographic information form; the Maltreatment Scales (psychological, physical, and sexual); the California Psychological Inventory (the Self-Con- trol, Tolerance, Sociability, and Good Impression, subscales); the Self-Esteem Inventory; and the Quality of Relationships Inventory.

MEASURES

Measure of Maltreatment

The Psychological and Physical Maltreatment Scales. The Psychological Maltreatment Scale (PMS) (Briere & Runtz, 1988a) consists of seven statements to which the subject is asked to respond on a scale of 0 to 6 corresponding to the frequency of events from an average year before the age of 16. The subjects were asked to respond for events that involved their mother and father on separate and identical scales. The Psychological Maltreatment Scale was designed to tap parental behaviors which are primarily verbal in nature. Alpha reliabilities for the Psychological Maltreatment Scale were found to be .87 for both mothers' and fathers' responses.

The Physical Maltreatment Scale consists of eight statements to which the subject is asked to respond to in the same fashion as the Psychological Maltreatment Scale. The Physical Maltreatment Scale utilized for this study is an adaption of Briere's scale (Briere & Runtz, 1988a) with additional items derived from the Physical Punishment subscale of the Assessing Environment III (Berger, Knutson, Mehm, & Perkins, 1988). All five of Briere's original item contents have been retained, however, two items have been collapsed into one, and wording has been changed or added. Four item contents from the Physical Punishment subscale of the Assessing Environment III scale have been added (with wording to match the other items). The Physical Maltreatment Scale is concerned with nonverbal parental behaviors which are associated with physical pain and/or physical injury. Alpha reliabilities for the Physical Mal- treatment Scale are .78 for responses involving mothers and .75 for responses involving father.

The Sexual Maltreatment Scale. This scale was created to match the rationale and scoring and structure of the other two maltreatment scales used in the study. Statements describing sexual experiences were adapted from Finkelhor's Sexual Experiences Questionnaire (Finkelhor, 1979). Subjects are asked to respond to 10 statements on a frequency scale identical to the other two maltreatment scales for the worst year prior to the age of 16. Subjects were restricted to experiences involving a perpetrator who was at least 5-years older than they.


Measures of Personality

The California Psychological Inventory ( Gough, 1957). The California Personality Inventory (CPI) was developed to "assess the kind of everyday variables that ordinary people use in their daily lives to understand, classify, and predict their own behavior and that of others" (Gough, 1987, p. 1 ). The CPI has been used extensively both in clinical practice and research and has established reliability and validity. The scales were created to measure universal characteristics that are relevant to the daily demands of the social environment. High scores are associated with the conventionally favored interpretation of the constructs.

Self-Control. The Self-Control subscale of the CPI is made up of 37 true/false statements and has an alpha reliability of .80. High scores indicate that the subject tries to control emotions and temper, and takes pride in being self-disciplined. Low scores are obtained by subjects who have strong feelings and emotions and make little effort to hide them, speaking out when angry or annoyed.

Tolerance. The Tolerance subscale of the CPI consists of 33 true/false items with an alpha reliability of .68. High scores indicate a subject is tolerant of others' beliefs and values even when different from or counter to their own beliefs. Low scores are obtained by subjects who are not tolerant of others, and are suspicious and skeptical about what they say.

Good Impression. The Good Impression subscale consists of 40 true/false statements. High scores on the Good Impression subscale indicate that the subject wants to make a good impression and tries to do what will please others. Low scores identify a subject who insists on being himself or herself, even if this causes friction or problems. Standard scores above 65, and raw scores above 30 indicated a "fake good" presentation. Alpha reliability for the Good Impression subscale is .77.

Self-Esteem Inventory. The self-esteem inventory used in this study combines 20 items from the 25 item Self-Esteem Inventory, Adult Form (Coopersmith, 1981 ), with seven items developed by Briere and Runtz (1990) to measure the narrower construct of self-esteem issues relevant to abuse victims. The 20 items from the Coopersmith were presented first, and the additional seven items followed. Ahmed, Valliant, and Seindle (1985), reported on the psychometric properties of Coopersmith' s inventory. Homogeneity of the scale was assessed by factor analysis, and correlation of each test item with the total test score. Alpha reliability was .75 for the whole scale. The 20 items used in this study represent items from the four factors that resulted from Ahmed and colleagues factor analysis.

As Ahmed and his colleagues conclude, "i t may be suggested that self-esteem is an extremely situation-related t r a i t . . . [and] individuals may not maintain similar levels of self-esteem in all areas" (Ahmed, Valliant, & Swindle, 1985, p. 1,240). Briere and Runtz (1990) addressed this issue by developing a specific abuse related self-esteem measure consisting of seven statements which they believed tapped this narrower aspect of self-esteem. These seven items reflecting self-criticism, guilt, and perceived undeservingness were added to the 20 items of the Ahmed revision of the Coopersmith. Preliminary results indicate that this narrow-band, item, measure is successful in measuring self-esteem in abuse victims (Briere & Runtz, 1990).

Measures of Adult Relationship

The Quality of Relationships Inventory (Pierce, Sarason, & Sarason, 1991 ). This scale consists of 25 items designed to measure the perceived quality of specific relationships as reflected in the subscales of support, depth, and conflict. The first dimension, support, measures the extent


to which the individual can rely on the other person for support. The second dimension, depth, assesses the extent to which the person believes that they and the other person are committed to the relationship and place a positive value on it. The third dimension, conflict, measures the extent to which the individual experiences angry or ambivalent feelings toward the other person. Pierce, Sarason, and Sarason (1991) report alpha reliabilities of .85 for the support dimension, .91 for depth, and .84 for conflict.

Definition of Maltreatment and Maltreatment Groups

For the purpose of this study, the scores within each maltreatment area were summed across an individual's responses involving their mothers and fathers, and then Summed across items within a scale to form a total maltreatment score for each type of maltreatment. Four subgroups of subjects were identified based on their responses to the abuse questionnaires: Nonabused ( Accurate ); Nonabused (Maximizers); Abused ( Acknowledgers ); and Abused ( Minimizers ). The groups were established in the following manner. All subjects in responding to the maltreatment scales were questioned about particular incidents of abuse and asked to rate the frequency of occurrence of each within a 1 year time frame. Following completion of each of the maltreatment scales, subjects were asked whether they "bel ieved" that they had been either psychologically, physically, or sexually abused and responded " Y e s " or "N o . " The Nonabused group consisted of individuals whose weighted score for abuse fell below the weighted mean of the sample and who also stated they were not abused. The Maximizers group consisted of individuals whose weighted score for abuse fell below the weighted mean of the sample, but who assigned themselves the label of being abused. The Abused group consisted of individuals whose weighted abused score fell above the weighted mean of the sample and who also stated that they were abused. The Minimizers group consisted of individuals whose weighted abuse score fell above the mean of the sample, but who stated that they were not abused. Consistent reporters, whether abused or nonabused individuals, were those whose self reports of incidents of abusive experiences were congruent with their self definition of being abused or not. The means were determined through a weighting system which used the product of the ranking of the seriousness of the abuse by the frequency of each type of abuse. Due to the small group size of the Maximizers group, they were not included in the data analysis of this study.

Data Analysis

The design of this study utilized one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and chi-square analyses using a SPSS 4.1 statistical program to examine differences among the subgroups of responders in terms of both personality traits and the quality of their social relationships. Analyses were conducted in four different ways. First, total abuse as the sum of the three types of abuse (Verbal, Physical, and Sexual) was examined and then each type of abuse was analyzed separately.

The focus of these analyses map out the current personality characteristics and social relationships of the groups in relation to their perceptions of being abused versus the occurrence of events which are by definition a part of abuse (the reality of abuse).

RESULTS

When aggregating the three types of abuse together, 78 subjects fell in the Nonabused group, 43 in the Abused group, and 47 in the Minimizing group. When the verbal abuse data was examined, 92 individuals fell in the Nonabused group, 36 subjects were labeled verbally


Abused, and 38 subjects were categorized as Minimizers. For Physical abuse data, 126 subjects were defined as Nonabused while 12 subjects were grouped in the Abused category. Physically abused subjects were not included in the analyses of variance due to their relatively small subgroup size. General trends in terms of the means and standard deviations of the physically abused subgroup are reported. Thirty-five individuals were labeled as Minimizers. Examination of the sexual abuse data resulted in 149 subjects being defined as Nonabused, while 11 met the criteria for the Abused category. Twelve subjects were considered Minimizers.

No significant demographic differences were found among the abuse groups, with the notable exception of gender (explained below). Caucasians comprised 80.5% of the individuals, and 91.4% of the sample was married; 72.4% of the responders were employed and 79.2% of the subjects had at least some high school education, with 62% of these people having some level of education beyond high school. The average age was 34.7 years (SD = 6.3/Range 18-48 years). Responders with an income of less than $20,000 comprised 10.3%; 56.3% of individuals had an income between $20,000 and $60,000, while 33.3% of subjects had an income of over $60,000. The subjects had an average of 2.76 siblings (SD = 1.9). The average number of years married was 8.7 years (SD = 5.2), while the number of years of being in a relationship with their spouse was greater with the average being 11.8 years (SD = 5.5). Subjects reported an average of 13.15 years (SD = 9.0) as the total length of their relationship with their best friend.

Of the total sample of subjects, 62.1% were female. A chi-square analysis found that significantly more males fell in the Minimizing group than would be expected when examining both total maltreatment (3, N = 173) = 16.74, p < .001 and Verbal abuse separately (3, N = 173) = 12.10, p < .007. No gender effects were found for either the Physical or Sexual abuse categories.

MEASURES OF PERSONALITY

California Psychological Inventory

Self-Control. The statistical analysis of the three aggregated types of abuse, Total Abuse, revealed that the Nonabused group scored significantly higher than both the Minimizers and Abused groups, F(2, 165) = 11.93, p < .00 on the California Personality Inventory factor of self-control. The same difference was found when examining Verbal abuse separately, with the Nonabused group having significantly higher scores than both the Minimizers and Abused groups, F(2, 163) = 10.12, p < .000. In the Physical abuse category, the Nonabused group had higher scores than the Minimizing group, F(2, 170) = 4.42, p < .01. No differences among the groups were found when Sexual abuse was examined separately, F(2, 169) = 3.94, p < .02 (Table 1).

Tolerance. Significant differences were found among the groups on the CPI factor of tolerance. The Nonabused group scored significantly higher than the Minimizing group when total abuse scores were compared, F(2, 165) = 5.25, p < .01. For Verbal abuse, no differences were found among the three groups in relation to tolerance levels, F(3, 163) = 1.63, p < .20. In contrast, the Nonabused group had significantly higher tolerance scores than the Minimizing group for the Physical abuse category, F(2, 170) -= 5.55, p < .005. In relations to Sexual abuse, both the Nonabused and Abused group had significantly higher tolerance scores than the Minimizing group, F(2, 169) = 12.02, p < .00 (Table 1 ).

Sociability. No differences were found among the groups on the sociability factor based on the Total abuse score, F(2, 165) = .40, p < .674; the Verbal abuse score, F(2, 163) = .58,


Table 1. Mean Differences in the Serf-Control, Tolerance, Sociability, and Good Impression Factors of the California Psychological Inventory (CPI) by Abuse Category Based on Their Perceptions of Maltreatment

Perceptions of Maltreatment

1. Non-abused 2. Abused

Abuse Category Mean SD Mean SD

3. Minimizers Group. Comp.

Mean SD Signif. F

Self-Control Total Maltreatment 24.5 4.7 20.5 5.4 20.8 5.5 1 > 2, 3* Verbal Abuse 24.1 4.9 20.9 5.4 20.2 5.3 1 > 2. 3*** Physical Abuse 23.2 5.0 20.0 6.8 20.6 6.0 1 > 3** Sexual Abuse 22.9 5.4 19.8 3.2 19.3 6.4 n.s.

Tolerance Total Maltreatment 22.4 4.7 20.8 4.4 19.6 5.9 1 > 3* Verbal Abuse 21.9 4.9 20.9 4.3 20.2 5.1 n.s. Physical Abuse 21.9 4.7 19.0 3.9 19.4 5.0 I > 3** Sexual Abuse 21.7 4.6 20.6 4.6 15.0 3.7 1, 2 > 3***

Sociability Total Maltreatment 20.7 4.6 20.1 4.8 20.0 5.1 n.s. Verbal Abuse 20.7 4.4 20.1 5.1 19.8 5.1 n.s. Physical Abuse 20.8 4.4 21.2 5.2 18.7 5.4 1 > 3* Sexual Abuse 20.6 4.6 20.0 6. I 17.7 5.1 n.s,

Good Impression Total Maltreatment 19.7 5,3 16.3 6.1 16.6 5.8 1 > 2, 3** Verbal Abuse 19.5 5.5 16.7 6.3 15.7 5.2 1 > 2, 3** Physical Abuse 18.4 5.5 18.7 8.0 15.9 6.2 1 > 3* Sexual Abuse 18.5 5.8 15.4 4.8 14.8 5.3 n.s.

*p ~ .05; **p ~ .01; ***p ~ .001.

p < .56; and the Sexual abuse score, F ( 2 , 169) = 2.24, p < .109. However, significant differences were found within the Physical abuse analysis with the Nonabused group scoring higher than the Minimizing group, F ( 2 , 170) = 3.05, p < .05 (Table 1).

Of the three categories of abuse, physical abuse was not factored across the comparison groups due to its small subgroup size. Nevertheless, general trends were revealed that were

consistent with the abused group across the other categories of abuse.

Good Impression. The Nonabused group scored significantly higher than both the Minimizing and Abused groups on the Good Impression subscale of the CPI for total abuse, F ( 2 , 165) = 7.12, p < .001 and Verbal abuse, F ( 2 , 163) = 7.61, p < .001. Within the Physical abuse

category, the Nonabused group had higher scores than the Minimizers, F (2 , 170) = 2.56, p < .081. Although not included in the analyses, the physically Abused group had the highest

mean score on the Good Impression subscale. Finally, within the Sexual abuse category, no significant differences were found among the four subgroups, F (2 , 169) = 3.59, p < .03, ns (Table 1 ).

Self-Esteem Inventory. Significant differences were found in the levels of total self-esteem

which examined self-attitude across factors of tolerance and confusion, sociability, view of life, and family relations. The Nonabused group reported the highest level of self-esteem for both the total abuse and verbal abuse data set, F (2 , 164) = 11.24, p < .000 and F (2 , 162) = 10.04, p < .000 respectively. In terms of Physical abuse, the Nonabused group reported

higher scores than the Minimiz ing group, F (2 , 169) = 4.84, p < .009. When examining Sexual abuse separately, the Nonabused group was found to have significantly higher levels


of self-esteem than the Minimizing group, F(2, 168) = 5.8, p < .004. No other comparison was significant (Table 2).

MEASURES OF ADULT RELATIONSHIP

The Quality of Relationships Inventory

Spousal support. Degree of spousal support was found to be significantly higher for both the Nonabused and Minimizing groups compared to the Abused group for total abuse, F(2, 164) = 5.91, p < .003 and for Verbal abuse, F(2, 162) = 8.64, p < .000. The Nonabused group had significantly higher scores than the Abused group when examining Sexual abuse alone, F(2, 168) = 5.07, p < .007. No differences were found for Physical abuse, F(2, 169) = 3.27, p < .040 (Table 3).

Friend support. No significant differences were found among groups for the total abuse data set nor for any of the subtypes of abuse measured on the friend support dimension of the QRI: Total Abuse, F(2, 162) = .05, p < .95; Verbal abuse, F(2, 160) = .27, p < .77; Physical abuse, F(2, 167) = 1.35, p < .26; or Sexual abuse F(2, 166) = 1.42, p < .24.

Spousal depth. When comparing the three types of abuse with each other, both the Nonabused and Minimizing groups were found to have higher scores on the degree of depth in the spousal relationship compared to the Abused group, F(2, 164) = 6.46, p < .002. For Verbal abuse, both the Nonabused and Minimizing groups had higher scores than the Abused group, F(2, 162) = 8.96, p < .000. Neither the Physical abuse, F(2, 169) = 1.59, p < .208, ns, nor the Sexual abuse, F(2, 168) = 2.8, p < .063, n s analysis yielded significant differences in respect to the depth dimension of the spousal relationship (Table 3).

Friend depth. No significant differences among groups were found for total abuse nor any subtypes of abuse with respect to the degree of depth in a friend relationship: Total Abuse, F(2, 162) = .15, p < .862; Verbal abuse, F(2, 160) = .60, p < .552; Physical abuse, F(2, 167) = .28, p < .76; or Sexual abuse, F(2, 166) = 1.93, p < .15.

Spousal conflict. The Abused group scored significantly higher than the Nonabused group on level of conflict with spouse for both the Total abuse and Verbal abuse data sets: Total abuse, F(2, 164) = 5.37, p < .006; Verbal abuse, F(2, 162) = 8.10, p < .000. No significant

Table 2. Mean Differences in the Total Self-Esteem Factor of the Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory Among Groups by their Perceptions of Maltreatment





Mean SD Signif. F

Total Self-Esteem Total Maltreatment 89.0 15.9 73.7 20.5 75.5 24.3 1 > 2, 3*** Verbal Abuse 87.8 16.1 73.4 21.6 75.0 24.1 l > 2, 3*** Physical Abuse 84.2 19.1 75.7 24.5 72.6 23.0 1 > 3** Sexual Abuse 83.3 19.8 72.7 23.5 63.6 23.7 1 > 3**

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p --< .001.


Table 3. Mean Differences in the Spousal Support and Depth Dimensions of the Quality of Relationships Inventory Among Groups by Their Perceptions of Maltreatment





Mean SD Signif. F

Spousal Support Total Maltreatment 24.1 3.8 21.4 5.2 23.5 3.4 I, 3 > 2** Verbal Abuse 24.1 3.6 20.8 5.3 23.6 3.5 1, 3 > 2*** Physical Abuse 23.7 3.9 21.0 5.8 22.3 4.3 n.s. Sexual Abuse 23.5 4.0 20.5 6.6 20.4 5.1 1 > 2*

Spousal Depth Total Maltreatment 21.2 3.1 19.4 4.1 22.0 2.7 1, 3 > 2** Verbal Abuse 21.4 3.0 19.0 4.1 21.7 2.8 1, 3 > 2*** Physical Abuse 21.1 3.1 19.3 4.8 20.9 3.6 n.s. Sexual Abuse 21.1 3.2 18.6 5.0 20.1 4.6 n.s.

* p ~ .05; **p ~ .01; ***p ~ .001.

differences were found in relations to either the Physical abuse category, F(2, 169) = 3.53, p < .032 or the Sexual abuse category, F(2, 168) = 2.10, p < .13 (Table 4).

Friend conflict. Minimizers reported significantly higher scores on the level of conflict with a friend than the Nonabused group, F(2, 162) = 5.68, p < .004 for Total abuse. No significant differences were found in level of conflict with a friend among groups when examining Verbal abuse, F(2, 160) = 1.90, p < .15; Physical abuse, F(2, 167) = 2.79, p < .06; and Sexual abuse data sets, F(2, 166) = .87, p < .42 (See Table 4).

DISCUSSION

The results as a whole support the observation that nonabused individuals have better personality adjustment, and healthier social relationships than both the consistent (abused and

Table 4. Mean Differences in the Spousal and Friend Conflict Dimensions of the Quality of Relationships Inventory Among Groups by Their Perceptions of Maltreatment


1. Non-abused 2. Abused 3. Minimizers Group Comp.

Abuse Category Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Signif. F

Spousal Conflict Total Maltreatment 24.7 5.8 28.6 8.1 26.8 5.7 2 > l* Verbal Abuse 24.6 5.7 29.4 8.3 27.1 5.8 2 > 1"* Physical Abuse 25.5 6.1 29.8 6.9 27.7 7.5 n.s. Sexual Abuse 26.0 6.3 27.1 8.9 30.2 9.2 n.s.

Friend Conflict Total Maltreatment 16.1 3.6 17.3 4.1 18.7 4.9 3 > 1 * * Verbal Abuse 16.5 4.0 17.6 4.3 18.0 4.6 n.s. Physical Abuse 16.7 3.8 17.3 4.2 18.6 5.1 n.s. Sexual Abuse 17.0 4.0 16.4 4.8 18.6 5.2 n.s.

* p ~ .05; **p --< .01; ***p ~ .001.


acknowledges abuse) and inconsistent (abused but denies/minimizes abuse) perceivers of abuse. The psychological profile of the Nonabused group is that of a more conscientious, moderate, responsible, and patient set of individuals when compared to subjects in the Abused or Minimizing groups, who can be described as more impulsive, temperamental, headstrong, demanding, and rebellious.

Examination of the consistency of reports of abuse revealed that consistent perceivers who were not abused are significantly better adjusted than, both the consistent perceivers who were abused and the inconsistent perceivers, the Minimizers. Further, it appears that consistent perceivers, both abused and nonabused, are better adjusted in terms of a few personality functioning and social relationships variables than inconsistent perceivers, the Minimizers. The poorer adult psychological adjustment of the Minimizers is consistent with the findings of Leintenberg, Greenwald, and Cado (1992) who reported that unhealthy personality characteristics and social relationships are associated with avoidant coping strategies in relation to the suppression of childhood sexual abuse experiences.

Personality Variables

Given that the California Psychological Inventory was developed on a nonclinical sample, as was the case in this study, it appears reasonable to interpret the results of the present study in a manner consistent with the CPI manual's interpretation guide (Gough, 1987). The Nonabused group would thus be judged to be better psychologically adjusted in terms of personality factors than both the Abused group and the Minimizing group.

Self-Control (Gough, 1987, p. 45). Individuals falling in the Nonabused group try harder to control their emotions and temper, and take a greater pride in being self-disciplined than subjects falling in the other two groups. Individuals categorized in the Abused and Minimizing groups have lower levels of self-control, have strong feelings and emotions, and make little effort to hide them, speaking out when angry or annoyed.

Tolerance (Gough, 1987, p. 66). The nonabused individuals were found to be more tolerant of others' beliefs and values even when different from or counter to their own beliefs. In contrast, the results suggest that those who minimized their abuse history are not as tolerant of others, and are more suspicious and skeptical about what they say. The Nonabused group is more trusting, cooperative, fair-minded, reasonable, and reliable than the Minimizing group, who are more distrustful, suspicious, fault-finding, resentful, and prejudiced.

Individuals with no history of abuse had significantly higher tolerance scores than those in the Minimizing group, while the Abused group did not factor in as having significantly lower tolerance scores. This finding suggests that differences in terms of tolerance may at least be a partial result of minimizing the impact of the abuse, indicating that the perceptual set may be a greater predictor of lower tolerance than the actual history of abuse per se. The inconsistency of perception may be contributing to increased suspiciousness and distrust, which exceeds tolerance problems due to abuse alone.

In the Sexual abuse category, both the Nonabused and Abused groups demonstrated higher levels of tolerance than the Minimizing group, indicating that individuals who are unable or unwilling to admit to their past history may have the most problems in their social interactions as pertaining to tolerance issues. The higher tolerance level in the sexually abused group is an unanticipated finding and we are unable to fully interpret its significance. The characteristics associated with lower levels of tolerance, such as suspiciousness and distrust, have been cited in the literature as being linked with those who have been abused (Braver, Bumberry, Green, & Rawson, 1992; Cole & Putman, 1992).


The higher level of intolerance of the minimizers suggests that these individuals may have even greater difficulty with trust in the arena of interpersonal relationships than individuals who have been similarly abused but who acknowledge themselves as victims. The combination of poorer levels of self-control and tolerance of the Minimizing group suggests personality characteristics that can impede forming meaningful relationships with others. Compared to the Nonabused and Abused groups, the Minimizing group does not appear to incorporate as much of a thoughtful analysis to their actions and experiences. The lack of congruity of the Minimizers' perceptions and experiences may be contributing to a reactionary style.

Sociability (Gough, 1987, p. 55). Within the Physical abuse category, individuals with no reports of abuse demonstrated higher levels of sociability than individuals inconsistently perceiving the occurrence of abuse. The subjects who minimize their physical abuse history relative to the sample as a whole are not as sociable with others, suggesting that these individuals are shy and uneasy in social situations.

The uneasiness and awkwardness in social situations of minimizers in the present study is congruent with the findings of George and Main (1979) which indicated that abused children tend to avoid interactions with others and fend off friendly gestures, and is consistent with their suggestion that these behaviors often carry through into adult relationships, as was reported by Lamphear (1985).

Self-Esteem

The nonabused individuals reported the highest levels of self esteem compared to any of the other groups. This finding is consistent with the literature which has repeatedly demonstrated the deleterious effects of abuse on self-esteem (Briere & Runtz, 1990; Browne & Finkelhor, 1986; Erickson & Egeland, 1987; Gross & Keller, 1992). Subjects falling in the Nonabused group consistently rated themselves as having a better self-attitude than individuals in either the Abused or Minimizing groups.

Across a number of different categories, the nonabused individuals have the greatest levels of self-esteem compared to both groups of people who consistently and inconsistently report abuse. The poor self-esteem of both the Minimizing and Abused groups is consistent with other research findings (Lamphear, 1985; Oates, Forrest, & Peacock, 1985) which have documented a more deviant self-concept for those who have been abused.

Since the Minimizers reported the poorest levels of self-esteem in the sexual abuse category, the inconsistency of perception may be an important lead as to why they experience later psychological adjustment. If they inaccurately encode or distort experiences relative to their sense of self, this process is likely to impair their self esteem. It is possible, as suggested by Erickson and Egeland (1987), that inconsistency of perception may negatively impact the creation of an integrated sense of self.

Good Impression (Gough, 1987, p. 63). Nonabused individuals find it more important to make a good impression than individuals falling in the other groups. They also try to do what will please others while subjects falling in the Abused or Minimizing groups insist on defying conventionality, even if this causes friction or problems.

The lack of' trying to make a good impression indicates that the minimizers may not deliber- ately be trying to "look good" by denying they had been abused. Rather, it provides more support for the hypothesis that they may have difficulty appropriately interpreting and internalizing conventional behavior. The misinterpretation of events, reflected in the inconsistent style of perception may have negative consequences, above and beyond the trauma of abuse, and may for these individuals represent a maladaptive reaction to the trauma. One could also


argue that minimizers do not endorse a high number of good impression items because these questions ask them to respond about their own behavior rather than explain away the behavior of others.

Adult Relationships

The Nonabused group report healthier adult relationships than either the Abused or Minimiz- ing groups. Consistent with other research findings, the Abused group reported problems with their interpersonal relationships (Howes & Espinosa, 1985). The Nonabused group reported receiving more support from their spouses than both the Abused and Minimizer groups. Nonabused individuals and people who minimized their abuse both have stronger beliefs in how much their spouses are committed to the relationship and place a more positive value on it compared to abused individuals. This is the only variable on which the minimizers responded in the conventionally perceived positive direction. In a way, this response is consistent with the minimizers tendency to deny problems in their close family relationships. The Abused group as expected report more angry or ambivalent feelings toward their spouses compared to the Nonabused group. In contrast to their perceived relationships with their spouses, the Minimizers felt more angry and had more conflicts with their friends.

The Minimizers may not report as many spousal difficulties because they may be misperceiv- ing the actual dynamics of the relationship, just as they inconsistently reported the occurrence of abuse. The higher rates of conflict with friends may result as a function of the poorer tolerance, self-control, and sociability levels of the minimizers compared to the other groups.

The Abused group may report greater difficulty with their marital relationships than the Minimizing group because they have more of an externalizing style or are more realistic in acknowledging problems. Individuals who perceive themselves as abused may externalize more of their difficulties as being rooted in an interactional rather than as personal deficit. In contrast, the Minimizers may utilize more of an internalizing mode of perceiving their problems. They may not report difficulties with their spouse because they view the conflict or lack of support as more of their fault, rather than as a problem in the relationship. The minimizing style may be functional to positive social relationships. Minimizers may be utilizing a coping strategy which enables them to better accommodate others by either denying the existence of problems or having lower expectations of others.

Gender Effects

The significantly higher number of males falling in the Minimizing group indicates that men are more likely to utilize a denying coping strategy to deal with past abuse. Men are taught to deny their affect because being emotional is not considered masculine (Huston, 1983; Skitka & Maslach, 1990). Perhaps, the lack of emotional expression can lead to an employment of more avoidant and minimizing coping strategies in an attempt to obscure earlier trauma. Through societal sex role expectations, males are taught to deal with emotionally difficult events in a very different manner than females (Bem, Martyna, & Watson, 1976).

ALTERNATIVE PERSPECTIVES ON THE MINIMIZER PHENOMENA

This study adds to the accumulation of research documenting the detrimental effect of abuse on later personality and social adjustment. Importantly, it demonstrates that linkages can be found in nonclinical samples. The results consistently demonstrated that nonabused individuals reported significantly better psychological health and functioning than individuals reporting abuse. Among abuse victims however, there exists a subgroup of abused individuals who report


relatively high levels of abuse but fail to label themselves as abused, and their inconsistency of perception is associated with a few personality and social deficits above and beyond that of the Abused group.

With regard to the Minimizers, three perspectives will be considered: 1 ) An internalizing style; 2) Coping strategy: Defensive denial model; and 3) Misattribution.

Internalizing style. Minimizers have more problems with self-esteem, while people identifying themselves as abused acknowledge greater difficulties with their social relationships. Mini- mizers may be functioning within more of an internalizing framework in dealing with the world. In contrast, individuals falling in the Abused group may utilize more externalizing tactics in their perceptions of both self and others. The differing perceptions of abuse may be rooted in the internalizing/externalizing dichotomy which effects personality adjustment and social relationships.

Consistent with the findings of others, individuals in the Abused group demonstrated the most problems with relationships with their spouses in terms of support, depth, and conflict (Alexander, 1992b; Briere & Runtz, 1988a; Browne & Finkelhor, 1986; Steele, 1986). The Abused group may have more difficulties with their social relationships because they are more inclined to perceive their conflicts as being externally generated. By admitting to the label of having been abused, they may be better equipped to protect their self-esteem than those who minimize. Indeed, the Minimizing rather than the Abused group reported the lowest levels of self-esteem in the Sexual abuse category.

Minimizers may be people who have internalized their history of abuse, and therefore perceive their abusive experiences as something inherently negative about themselves. Their internalization of the negative events in their lives, rather than the exploration of alternative possibilities for their difficulties, may help explain their poorer self esteem, self-control, and tolerance levels and may be reflections of their internalizing the confusion and anger they have about the abuse.

The differential pattern of problems experienced by the Minimizing and Abused groups appears consistent with these differing styles (internalizing/externalizing) of perceiving and interacting with the world. Pierce, Sarason, and Sarason ( 1991 ), hypothesize that early gestalt formation can guide later behavior to fit a similar mold of interaction. The different manner in which individuals perceive or integrate an experience into memory in addition to the experiences themselves, is likely to affect later psychological adjustment in distinct ways.

Coping strategy: Defensive denial model. The Minimizers may be working within a framework of a defensive denial model as postulated by Shedler, Mayman, and Manis (1993). From that perspective, Minimizers can be viewed as a subgroup of abused individuals, defensive deniers, who "looked good" on the surface but were actually psychologically distressed. The "looking good" is demonstrated by their belief that their abusive experiences as children did not warrant the label of maltreatment, while these same behaviors are reasonably defined as abuse by others.

Consistent with the findings of Femina, Yeager, and Lewis (1990) which identified a subgroup of abused respondents who failed to label themselves as having been abused, the minimizers may be utilizing denial as a coping strategy. The denial may be a result of the embarrassment of trying to protect their parents, or a sincere desire to forget that the event (s) ever took place. The Minimizers may have used an avoidant coping strategy early in life, but are now suffering from the negative effects of this method of coping. Suppression and avoidant coping strategies have consistently been found to be maladaptive for psychological adjustment (Billings & Moos, 1981; Parkes, 1984; Wirtz & Harrell, 1987).


Misattribution. Misattribution provides another perspective for understanding the poor adjustment of the Minimizing group. Minimizers may inaccurately perceive parent caregiving as either positive or negative, or rejecting or accepting. Perhaps, a rejected child perceives behavior as more abusive, and an accepted child perceives the same type of behavior as less abusive. These differences in attribution style may impact and color both later perceptions of self as well as interactions with others when they are occurring.

The impact of the specific abuse may be secondary to the interpretation of the relationship context. Consistent with the hypothesis set forward by Femina, Yeager, and Lewis (1990), the minimization may be a method of interpreting the abuse as deserved punishment, attempting to exert interpretive control so as to assign some type of meaning to the abuse. Pre-existing biases or perceptions of self and others which formed during and prior to the abusive period may interact with subsequent experience so as to affect the victim's retrospective perceptions.

The misattribution hypothesis is consistent with Bowlby's (1980) theory that internal working models of some relationships can be maladaptive in the long term because some people, due to their insecure attachment, will not test alternate strategies to deal with the world. Without testing different methods of perceiving and interacting with others, some individuals may not receive corrective feedback. Misattribution may not only be affecting victims perception of having been abused, but may also be impacting their current view of their relationships. Therefore, even though the minimizers report relatively high levels of distress across a number of different areas of their functioning, they may not label these difficulties as problems, particularly as it relates to attachment figures such as parents and spouses. The misattribution of attachment figures' motives may produce a compromised but pervasive style (internal working model) that sets up basic discrepancies in many subsequent perceptions.

CONCLUSION

It appears that the perception of child abuse is linked to both the personality characteristics of individuals and to the quality of relationships in relatively healthy individuals. The ability to demonstrate such linkage reinforces the notion that the victims of child abuse pay a price despite the fact that they may be able to function within normal limits. Among abuse victims there appears to be a subgroup who minimize their childhood experiences of maltreatment; and it appears that this method of coping may be related to even more detrimental personal and social adjustment problems than occurs in individuals who acknowledge their abuse experiences. Clearly, there are different perspectives on how the minimizing phenomena might occur and how it might influence development, assuming the phenomena is not a methodological artifact.

The labeling of individuals who do not consider themselves as abused but who report relatively high levels of abuse as Minimizers slants the study in a certain direction. By defining the Minimizers as the inconsistent perceivers, the Abused group is automatically set up as the consistent perceivers. However, the entire paradigm of the study can be switched, so that the Abused group could be viewed from the perspective of being Over-reactors since the level of abuse reported in the sample was relatively low and they labeled themselves as abused. Perhaps the Minimizers should in fact be more appropriately labeled as Acceptors. They may be people who genuinely do not perceive their childhood experiences as warranting the label of abuse although they apparently suffer its effects. The overall interpretation of the effects of perception on adjustment may have been enhanced if the Maximizers group had been large enough to be factored into the analyses.

Another methodological limitation of this study is the criteria used to form the different groups. Creating the perception subgroups was based on a relative criteria of judging what


constituted abuse versus nonabuse. The absence of an external criterion for defining abuse can

be interpreted as both a strength and a weakness. The subjects were compared against each

other to determine their perception group. The relative scale was based on the mean of the

entire sample. Creating the groups by a standard deviation or a cut-off would create stronger

boundaries between the subgroups, Nevertheless, despite using the mean as the cut off between groups, differences in perception and functioning were identified.

Beyond methodological limitations, it should be emphasized that this study is exploratory in nature. It is not clear whether the perception style is causing maladjustment or whether the

maladjustment may be contributing to a distorted perception of self and others. A causal relationship can not be asserted from this study. What is reported suggests that it may be possible to identify meaningful subgroups of abused individuals who perceive abuse experi-

ences differently. Researchers are strongly encouraged to take the interpretations and percep-

tions of the abuse victims into account when designing research. Future research should attempt to examine perceptual styles of abuse victims as covariates when examining outcomes.

Acknowledgement--The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of other project staff, Cynthia Jenkins, William Belt, and Christina Riebeling, in data collection and preparation.

REFERENCES

Ahmed, S. M. S., Valliant, P. M., & Swindle, D. (1985). Psychometric properties of Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 61, 1235-1241.

Alexander, P. C. (1992b). Introduction to the special section on adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 60(2), 165-166.

Augoustinos, M. (1987). Developmental effects of child abuse: Recent findings. Child Abuse & Neglect. 11 (1), 15- 27.

Bem, S. L., Martyna, W., & Watson, C. (1976). Sex typing and androgyny: Further explorations of the expressive domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 1016-1023.

Berger, A. M., Knutson, J. F., Mehm, J. G., & Perkins, K. A. ( 1988 ). The self-report of punitive childhood experiences of young adults and adolescents. Child Abuse & Neglect, 12(2), 251-262.

Beutler, L. E., & Hill, C. E. (1992). Process and outcome research in the treatment of adult victims of childhood sexual abuse: Methodological issues. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 60 (2), 204- 212.

Billings, A. G., & Moos, R. H. ( 1981 ). The role of coping responses and social resources in attenuating the stress of life events. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 4, 139-157.

Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss, Vol. 3: Loss. London: Hogarth. Braver, M., Bumberry, J., Green, K., & Rawson, R. (1992). Childhood abuse and current psychological functioning

in a university counseling center population. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 39(2), 252-257. Briere, J. (1992). Methodological issues in the study of sexual abuse effect. Journal of Consulting and Clinical

Psychology, 60(2), 196-203. Briere, J., & Runtz, M. (1988a). Multivariate correlates of childhood psychological and physical maltreatment among

university women. Child Abuse & Neglect, 12,(3 ), 331-341. Briere, J., & Runtz, M. (1990). Differential adult symptomatology associated with three types of child abuse histories.

Child Abuse & Neglect, 14,357-364. Browne, A., & Finkelhor, D. (1986). Impact of child sexual abuse: A review of the research. Psychological Bulletin,

99( 1 ), 66-77. Cole, P. M., & Putman, F. W. ( 1992 ). Effect of incest on self and social functioning: A developmental psychopatholog-

ical perspective. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 60 (2), 174-184. Coopersmith, S. (1981). Self esteem inventories. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Erickson, M. F., & Egeland, B. (1987). A developmental view of the psychological consequences of maltreatment.

School Psychology Review, 16(2), 156-168. Femina, D. D., Yeager, C. A., & Lewis, D. O. (1990). Child abuse: Adolescent records versus adult recall. Child

Abuse & Neglect, 14,227-231. Finkelhor, D. (1979). Sexually victimized children. New York: The Free Press. Finkelhor, D. (1990). Early and long-term effects of child sexual abuse: An update. Professional Psychology Research

and Practice, 21(5), 325-330. George, C., & Main, M. (1979). Social interactions of young abused children: Approach, avoidance, and aggression.

Child Development, 50,306-318. Gough, H. G. (1957). California psychology invento O' manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press.


Gough, H. G. (1987). California personality inventory: Administrator's guide. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psycholo- gists Press.

Gross, A. B., & Keller, H. R. (1992). Long-term consequences of childhood physical and psychological maltreatment. Aggressive Behavior, 18, 171-185.

Howes, C., & Espinosa, M. P. ( 1985 ). The consequences of child abuse for the formation of relationships with peers. ChiM Abuse & Neglect, 9,497-404.

Huston, A. C. (1983). Sex-typing. In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.), P. H. Mussen (Series Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Volume 4. Socialization, personality, and social development (pp. 387-467). New York: Wiley.

Lamphear, V. S. (1985). The impact of maltreatment on children's psychosocial adjustment: A review of the research. Child Abuse & Neglect, 9,251-263.

Leintenberg, H., Greenwald, E., & Cado, S. (1992). A retrospective study of long-term methods of coping with having been sexually abused in childhood. Child Abuse & Neglect, 16,399-407.

Michaels, G. Y., Messe, L. A., & Stollak, G. E. (1983). Seeing parental behavior through different eyes: Exploring the importance of person perception processes in parents and children. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 107( 1 ), 3-60.

Oates, R. K., Forrest, D., & Peacock, A. (1985). Self-esteem of abused children. Child Abuse & Neglect, 9, 159- 163.

Parkes, K. R. (1984). Locus of control, cognitive appraisal, and coping in stressful episodes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(3), 655-668.

Pierce, G. R., Sarason, I, G., & Sarason, B. R. (1991), General and relationship-based perceptions of social support: Are two constructs better than one? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(6), 1028-1039.

Rabkin, L. Y. (1965). The patient's family: Research methods. Family Process, 4, 105-132. Skitka, L. J., & Maslach, C. (1990). Gender roles and the categorization of gender relevant behavior. Sex Roles,

22(3), 133-150. Shedler, J., Mayman, M., & Manis, M. (1993). The illusion of mental health. American Psychologist, 48( 11 ), 1117-

1132. Steele, B. F. (1986). Notes on the lasting effect of early child abuse throughout the life cycle. Child Abuse & Neglect,

10,228-291. Wirtz, P. W., & Harrell, A. V. (1987). Victim and crime characteristics, coping responses, and short- and long-term

recovery from victimization. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55,866-871.

R~surn6---Cette 6tude a examin6 le lien entre la fa~on dont la victime per~oit les mauvais traitements--soient psychologiques, physiques ou sexuels--qui lui sont inflig6s en enfance, et son adaptation sociale et psychologique en age adulte. L'6chantillon comprenait 173 personnes venues de milieux non cliniques. Parmi ce groupe, on a identifi6 un sous-groupe dit "minimiseurs", lesquels ont 6t6 victimes de mauvais traitements d6passant la norme mais qui ne se consid6raient pas des enfants abus6s. L'analyse d6montre que les personnes victimes, tant celles qui minimisent que celles qui reconnaissent leurs exp6riences de mauvais traitements, vivent des probl~mes d'adaptation sociale et psychologiques plus remarquables que les personnes non abus6es. De plus, les "minimiseurs" connaissent certaines s6quelles plus graves, ce qui porte h croire que la perception des 6v6nements pass6s serait un facteur important au niveau de l'adaptation psychologique.

Resumen--El presente estudio examin6 las percepciones de abuso (psicol6gico, ffsico y sexual) y el posterior ajuste psicol6gico y social en el estado adulto, en una muestra no-clfnica de 173 sujetos. Se identific6 un subgrupo de sujetos que habfan sufrido abuso (llamados "Minimizadores" ), que informaban de niveles de abuso por encima de la media, pero que no se reconocian a sf mismos como abusados. Los anfilisis de varianza revelaron que los sujetos abusados, tanto los "Reconocedores" como los "Minimizadores", tenfan consistentemente m~is problemas de ajuste psicol6gico y social que el grupo de No-abusados. Adem~is, los sujetos del subgrupo de "Minimizadores" presentaban problemas m~is graves que el grupo de abusados "Reconocedores" en unas pocas fireas, 1o que sugiere que la percepei6n de los eventos pasados (abuso) puede ser un factor importante para determinar el ajuste psicol6gico futuro.

perceptions of abuse: effects on adult psychological and social adjustment

Documents