Child Abuse & Neglect 27 (2003) 1033–1043

Emotional neglect and family structure:

impact on student functioning
Mary Jo Wark a , Theresa Kruczek b,∗ , Amanda Boley b,1
a
Department of Educational Psychology, Ball State University, Muncie, IN, USA
b
Department of Counseling Psychology and Guidance Services, Ball State University,
Muncie, IN 47306, USA
Received 24 April 2001; received in revised form 14 January 2003; accepted 16 January 2003

Abstract
Objective: The goal of this study was to demonstrate the relationship between retrospective reports
of child neglect, family of origin functioning, and current psychological distress. It was hypothesized
that experience of childhood emotional neglect would be associated with lower levels of cohesion and
adaptability in participants’ family of origin and greater levels of current psychological distress. Gender
effects were explored.
Method: Retrospective reports of emotional neglect in childhood were quantified by use of a parental
bonding measure, specifically by assessing level of perceived parental care. Participants were assigned
to one of three groups based on level of care scores: neglect by a primary male caregiver, neglect by
a primary female caregiver, and no neglect. These groups were compared on three variables: current
psychological functioning, retrospective report of family of origin adaptability, and retrospective report
of family of origin cohesiveness. Amount of time left in the care of others was used as a covariate based
on attachment theory literature.
Results: Data were analyzed for 69 female and 22 male undergraduate students. Participants who
reported a childhood experience of emotional neglect by a primary female caregiver described greater
current psychological distress than those reporting no neglect or neglect by a primary male caregiver.
Participants who experienced emotional neglect by a primary female caregiver, as compared to those
reporting emotional neglect by a primary male caregiver and those reporting no neglect, described lower
cohesion and adaptability in their family of origin. There were no differences between male and female
participants in terms of impact of emotional neglect.
Conclusions: This study suggests potential caregiver gender effects, regardless of respondent gender.
Perceived neglect by female, but not male caregivers, led to psychological distress in adulthood and

∗
Corresponding author.
1
Amanda Boley is now working at a residential treatment facility in Hanover, Indiana.

0145-2134/$ – see front matter © 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0145-2134(03)00162-5
1034 M.J. Wark et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 27 (2003) 1033–1043

was associated with lower cohesion and adaptability in one’s family of origin. Future research should
attempt to account for the participants’ expectations regarding male and female caregiver roles.
© 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Emotional neglect; Family structure; Psychological distress; College students

Introduction

Previous studies have reported the deleterious effects of maltreatment in childhood on

subsequent psychological functioning. According to data collected by the National Child
Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS), approximately 58% of child maltreatment cases
in 1999 were classified as child neglect (US Department of Health and Human Services, 2001).
NCANDS data from 1999 further indicated that approximately 38% of child maltreatment
fatalities were associated with child neglect. Dubowitz (1994) stated that although child neglect
is the most prevalent form of child maltreatment, “fewer than 2% of federally funded research
studies on child maltreatment focused on child neglect in 1993” (p. 556). Wolock and Horowitz
(1984) suggested that research studies are needed in the area of child neglect to determine what
types of child neglect are associated with which types of family problems.
Burgess and Conger (1978) broadly defined neglect as the “harming of a child either through
lack of care or supervision.” They further state it is difficult to clearly define neglect because
it deals with behaviors regarding caregiver-child relationships, which fall along a continuum,
and often it is not clear where a specific case falls along this continuum. Dubowitz, Black,
Starr, and Zuravin (1993) defined neglect as occurring “when the basic needs of children are
not met, regardless of cause. Basic needs include adequate shelter, food, health care, clothing,
education, protection, and nurturance.” The National Incidence Studies describe child neglect
by breaking the concept into three categories: physical, educational, and emotional neglect
(US Department of Health and Human Services, 1996). All three categories involve the ade-
quacy of care and assume that all children have basic needs that must be met.
Crittenden (1999) defined the core of emotional neglect as the “failure to connect
emotionally.” Ainsworth and Bowlby (as cited in Cassidy, 1999) described the importance
of attachment bonds in relationships, especially child-caregiver relationships. In these rela-
tionships proximity to or contact with a specific person is sought and security and comfort are
sought within the relationship. Gauthier, Stollak, Messe, and Aronoff (1996) view emotional
neglect as falling on a continuum of parent behavior designed to maintain the attachment bond.
Emotional neglect as falls on the extreme end of the continuum which ranges from “positive
interactions” to “complete disengagement between parents and their children” (Gauthier et al.,
1996). Despite the lack of a clear definition of emotional neglect, there is a general consensus
that emotional neglect is related to the attachment or formation of a cohesive bond between
a child and his/her parents. Olson, Bell, and Portner (1992) describe family cohesion as one
dimension of family functioning representing the emotional bonds between family members.
Researchers have also suggested that children’s attachment or emotional closeness with their
parents is fundamental to their psychological wellbeing. Loos and Alexander (1997) found
that young adults, emotionally neglected as children, were more likely to experience loneliness
 M.J. Wark et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 27 (2003) 1033–1043 1035

and social isolation as compared to their non-neglected peers. This study also found a gen-
der effect in that paternal emotional neglect was related to loneliness in men. Lipschitz et al.
(1999) found that a significant number of adolescent inpatients reporting emotional neglect
experienced suicidal ideation and self-mutilation. These studies suggest that emotional neglect
during childhood may be associated with poor psychological functioning in adolescence and
young adulthood. Detrimental effects similar to those associated with emotional neglect have
been linked to poor attachment such as: social isolation, difficulties in school, and feelings of
despair (Collins & Gunner, 1990; Crittenden, 1992). In addition, Bowlby (as cited in Loos &
Alexander, 1997) states that parents’ lack of interest or consistently failing to meet the emo-
tional needs of a child may result in negative self-evaluations later in life. Ultimately, adults
who experienced poor attachment during childhood may struggle to provide emotionally for
their own children (Crittenden, 1992). It appears as though there is an intergenerational cycle
of emotional neglect as well as a cycle of physical abuse.
In addition to studies of attachment, researchers have also considered the relationship be-
tween various family structures during childhood and later psychological functioning. Burgess
and Conger (1978) examined family interaction in abusive and neglectful families and com-
pared them to normal families. Their study found support for the contention that the in-
teractional styles of neglectful mothers and fathers may differ. Neglectful mothers in the
study tended to exhibit the most negative interactions with other family members (Burgess &
Conger, 1978). Neglectful fathers had fewer interactions overall with family members and the
interactions they did have were less positive than the interactions of nonabusive fathers.
Olson, Bell, and Portner (1992) proposed a Circumplex Model of marital and family sys-
tems with two continuum dimensions: adaptability and cohesiveness. Family relationships
depicted on extreme ends of each continuum are considered less functional than family re-
lationships near the middle. They defined adaptability as the “ability of a marital or family
system to change its power structure, role relationships, and relationship rules in response
to situational and developmental stress” (p. 1). As contrasted with healthy adaptability, rigid
familial relationships are characterized by one individual exerting a disproportionate amount
of control in the family. Crittenden (1999) stated that emotionally neglectful homes tend to be
highly structured or less adaptable. Wolfe (1985) described neglectful parents as responding to
child-rearing demands by avoidance or disengagement. Disengagement is one of the negative
relational patterns in Olson’s (1993) cohesion continuum. Disengagement is characterized
by emotional isolation as well as intellectual and physical isolation. In a disengaged family,
members are minimally involved with each other. Individual members function separately and
independently (Olson, 1993). It seems likely emotional neglect would occur more often in
families characterized by low levels of adaptability and cohesion than in families with more
balanced relationships.
While there is not a clear and consistent definition of emotional neglect, there is a general
consensus that emotional neglect is related to the attachment or formation of a bond between a
child and his/her parents. As poor attachment is thought to reflect emotional neglect, the present
investigation used a measure of parental bonding to quantify emotional neglect. Further, while
cohesion and adaptability in families seem conceptually linked to emotional neglect, there have
been no known investigations to date which systematically assess the relationship between
emotional neglect and these dimensions of family functioning. Previous studies have also
1036 M.J. Wark et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 27 (2003) 1033–1043

suggested differential effects on current functioning for paternal versus maternal emotional
neglect (e.g., Loos & Alexander, 1997). Finally, Bowlby’s theory would suggest the amount of
time a child is in the care of others might impede attachment by minimizing opportunities for
proximity and contact. In light of the literature reviewed, research hypotheses for the present
study were as follows:
1. Individuals reporting a childhood experience of emotional neglect by a primary male or
by a primary female caregiver will display higher levels of current psychological distress
than those without neglect experiences.
2. Individuals reporting a childhood experience of emotional neglect will describe their
family of origin as lower in cohesion than those without neglect experiences.
3. Individuals reporting a childhood experience of emotional neglect will describe their
family of origin as lower in adaptability than those without neglect experiences.
4. Females reporting a childhood experience of emotional neglect by a primary female
caregiver will display higher levels of current psychological distress and will describe
their family of origin as lower in cohesion as compared to those experiencing no neglect or
neglect by a primary male caregiver. Males reporting a childhood experience of emotional
neglect by a primary male caregiver will display higher levels of current psychological
distress and will describe their family of origin as lower in cohesion as compared to
those experiencing no neglect or neglect by a primary female caregiver.

Methods and procedures

Participants

Participants were recruited from the undergraduate research pool at a midsized, public
university in the Midwest of the United States. Participants volunteered for the study as one of
several options for obtaining class credit to fulfill the research participation component of their
undergraduate psychology course. Data were collected from 99 female and 35 male college
undergraduates. Data from 43 participants were not used as those subjects reported physical
and/or sexual abuse during childhood.

Measures

Demographic sheet. The demographic sheet was developed by the authors and utilized to
screen out subjects with a history of physical and/or sexual abuse. In addition, the measure
was used to gain pertinent demographic information on participants, including how often
the participant was left in the care of others. In order to assess this variable, participants were
asked, “How often were you left in the care of someone else?” and provided with the following
response choices: Never, Rarely, Sometimes, Often or Very Often. Subjects who reported
physical abuse were identified by the following question: “Taking your whole childhood (from
birth to 16 years) did you ever receive physical injuries from the discipline used by your parents
(that is, bruises, welts, cuts, lacerations, burns, broken bones, dental injuries, head injuries,
etc.)?” Subjects who reported sexual abuse were identified by the following question: “Taking
 M.J. Wark et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 27 (2003) 1033–1043 1037

your whole childhood (from birth to 16 years of age) was there every any sexual contact
between you and an adult or older person (forced to watch sexual acts, raped or otherwise
penetrated, made to pose for seductive or sexual photographs, etc.)?” Subjects who indicated
that they were physically and/or sexually abused on these questions were not utilized in the
analyses of the present study because histories of physical and/or sexual abuse might obscure
the effects uniquely due to neglect.

The Parental Bonding Instrument (PBI). The Caring subscale of the Parental Bonding In-
strument, which consists of 12-items, was used to measure subjects’ perception of emotional
neglect by parents. Factor loadings of the two subscales of the PBI, Caring subscale and Over-
protection, clearly established the scales as distinct factors from each other and can be used
independently (Parker, 1983). The caring construct displayed two distinct poles with affec-
tion, emotional warmth, empathy and closeness on the positive end and emotional coldness,
indifference, and rejection on the negative end. Items on the Caring subscale (e.g., “spoke
to me with a warm and friendly voice,” “was affectionate to me,” and “frequently smiled at
me”) are rated on a 4-point Likert scale (1 = very like to 4 = very unlike). Scores on the
Caring subscale can range from 0 to 36 with a low score (i.e., mother figure cutoff score = 27;
father figure cutoff score = 24) indicating perceived emotional neglect (G. Parker, personal
communication, 2002). On the Caring subscale, past research reported test-retest reliability
as ranging from .76 to .92, and internal consistency as .96 for both parents (Parker, 1983).
Subjects completed the PBI separately for their father figure and mother figure.

The Family Cohesion and Adaptability Scale II (FACES-II). The FACES-II (Olson et al.,
1992) is a 30-item questionnaire, which measures two constructs of the Circumplex Model.
The Cohesion scale measures emotional bonding or connections between family members. The
Adaptability scale assesses the flexibility of the family system, and to what extent the system
is able to change. Items are rated on a 5-point scale (1 = almost never to 5 = almost always).
Scale scores range from 16 to 80 for the Cohesion scale and 14–70 for the Adaptability scale.
Scale scores are then used to assign participants to one of 8 levels of family functioning on each
of the two dimensions. Cohesion level scores can be used to categorize participants in terms
of family functioning as follows: 1–2 = Disengaged, 3–4 = Separated, 5–6 = Connected,
7–8 = Very connected. Adaptability level scores can be used to categorize participants in
terms of family functioning as follows: 1–2 = Rigid, 3–4 = Structured, 5–6 = Flexible and
7–8 = Very flexible. Midrange scores are considered healthier functioning. Past research has
reported internal consistency reliabilities for family cohesion as .91, and family adaptability as
.80 (Olson et al., 1992). The FACES-II was used to assess subjects’ perception of their family
structure during their childhood, from their earliest memory to 16 years of age.

The SCL-90-R. The SCL-90-R (Derogatis, 1994) is a 90-item self-report measure which has
respondents rate psychological symptoms on a 5-point scale (0 = not at all to 4 = extremely)
indicating level of distress with regard to a specific psychological symptom. Although the
instrument has nine symptom dimensions and three global indices of distress, the validity of
the symptom dimensions has been questioned and many argue that the SCL-90-R is appropriate
only as a general measure of distress (Todd, Deane, & McKenna, 1997). Due to the concerns
1038 M.J. Wark et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 27 (2003) 1033–1043

with the specific symptom dimensions, only the Global Severity Index (GSI) was utilized in
the current study. The GSI of the SCL-90-R was chosen as a measure of the subject’s general
psychological functioning due to its wide usage in both clinical and research practice (Beutler
& Crago, 1983). The GSI is the most often used SCL-90-R global index when a single measure
of psychological distress is warranted (Derogatis, 1994).
The GSI is calculated by summing the scores on the nine symptom dimensions and additional
items then dividing by the total number of responses. The obtained raw score is converted into
a standard T score using appropriate norm groups. The SCL-90-R normative data for the
college population was used in the present study. Gender differences are consistently found in
the SCL-90-R raw scores, and therefore separate norms are provided for males and females.
The reliability and validity of the GSI have been well established (Derogatis, 1994). The
manual for the SCL-90-R reports this instrument has highly acceptable levels of convergent
and discriminant validity. The majority of scales on the SCL-90-R have an internal consistency
coefficient between .80 and .90, and test-retest reliability between .70 and .90 (Derogatis,
1994).

Procedure

The university’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) reviewed and approved the study prior to
data collection for compliance with ethical and procedural guidelines. Copies of the informed
consent form, the demographic sheet, and all other measures were presented in a standardized
order to all participants. Before signing the informed consent form, participants were told
about potential risks involved in the study (e.g., anxiety related to recalled events), as well as,
procedures utilized in the study (e.g., guided imagery activity). Researchers involved in the data
collection were instructed to follow a standard anxiety response procedure (e.g., contacting
an on-call staff psychologist at the student counseling clinic) if a participant exhibited anxiety
during data collection. The SCL-90-R was always presented before the PBI and FACES-II to
avoid contaminating reports of current psychological functioning by introducing a potentially
confounding experience, the recall of what might be negative or painful aspects of the subjects’
past experiences.
Following the presentation of the SCL-90-R, a guided imagery activity was utilized to en-
courage participants to focus on their childhood. Childhood was defined as the time between
their earliest memory and age 16. Since this study was asking participants to reflect on rela-
tionships that occurred in the past, the researchers sought to use the guided imagery activity to
help them access their perspective from that time. Participants were then asked to complete the
PBI and FACES-II, based on this retrospective perception of their childhood family relation-
ships. On completion of all measures, subjects were given a debriefing form which reviewed
the potential risks of the study and provided contact information for free counseling services
in the event the study created any distress.
After the data were collected, participants were categorized according to emotional ne-
glect status based on their responses to the Caring subscale of the PBI. Three comparison
groups were generated based on participants’ characterization of their relationship with their
primary male and primary female caregiver: (1) not emotionally neglected, (2) emotionally
neglected by their primary male caregiver, and (3) emotionally neglected by their primary
 M.J. Wark et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 27 (2003) 1033–1043 1039

female caregiver. Forty-nine subjects reported no neglect (either by primary male or female
caregiver). Thirty-two participants characterized their relationship with their primary male
caregiver as neglectful and 19 participants characterized their relationship with their primary
female caregiver as neglectful. As only 9 participants reported neglect by both caregivers, and
this investigation sought to evaluate the experience of emotional neglect by the same sex care-
giver, subjects experiencing emotional neglect by both primary caregivers were not analyzed
as a separate group.
A preliminary analysis was conducted to ascertain whether any of the demographic variables
significantly correlated with the dependent measures. As predicted, amount of time spent in
the care of others was the only demographic variable found to correlate significantly with
the dependent measures and it was used as a covariate in the final analysis. Experience of
neglect (no neglect, female caregiver neglect, and male caregiver neglect) and participant
gender (male, female) were used as independent variables in a 3 × 2 multivariate analysis
of covariance (MANCOVA) with amount of time spent in the care of others serving as a
covariate. The dependent measures were current psychological functioning (as measured by
GSI of SCL-90-R) and participants’ perception of cohesion and adaptability in their family of
origin (as measured by FACES II Cohesion and Adaptability scales).

Results

Participants in the study were 69 female and 22 male undergraduate students. Of the 91
participants included in the final analysis, 77 (82.8%) were Caucasian, 9 (9.7%) African
American, 3 (3.2%) Hispanic, 1 (1.1%) Other, and 1 (1.1%) did not indicate ethnicity. Subjects’
ages ranged from 18 to 48 with an average age of 21.90.
The results of the multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) supported a significant
overall effect F(3, 71) = 118.58, p < .001. Significant differences were found for all three
dependent measures: GSI F(8, 71) = 2.164, p < .05, FACES II-Cohesion F(8, 71) = 7.07,
p < .001, and FACES II-Adaptability F(8, 71) = 4.31, p < .0001. The amount of time
spent in other’s care was significantly related to psychological distress as measured by GSI
F(1, 71) = 3.99, p < .05. Amount of time spent in other’s care was not related to the
adaptability and cohesion measures of the FACES II. There were no gender differences for
any of the dependent variables. Univariate statistics revealed significant differences for three
comparisons (see Table 1). Results of the univariate comparisons are reviewed in order of the
study’s hypotheses.
Hypothesis 1 predicted that individuals reporting a childhood experience of emotional
neglect by a primary male or by a primary female caregiver would display higher levels of
current psychological distress (as measured by the GSI) than those without neglect experiences.
This hypothesis was supported with the experience of neglect was by a female caregiver
F(1, 71) = 10.99, p < .001, but not when the neglect was by a male caregiver. Hypothesis
2 predicted that individuals reporting a childhood experience of emotional neglect would
describe their family of origin as lower in cohesion than those without neglect experiences.
Again the results supported this hypothesis when the neglect experience was with a female
caregiver F(1, 71) = 9.66, p < .01, but not with a male caregiver. The same trend was seen
1040 M.J. Wark et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 27 (2003) 1033–1043

Table 1
History of neglect group differences
Neglect No neglect (N = 49)
Male caregiver (N = 32) Female caregiver (N = 19) M SD
M SD M SD
∗∗∗
GSI 57.41 10.18 64.89 9.10 56.61 9.82
FACES-adaptability 4.27 1.88 3.11∗∗ 1.54 5.90 1.64
FACES-cohesion 4.00 1.77 3.11∗ 1.96 5.20 1.74
∗
p < .05.
∗∗
p < .01.
∗∗∗
p < .001.

when testing Hypothesis 3. Individuals reporting a childhood experience of emotional neglect

by a female caregiver described their family of origin as lower in adaptability F(1, 71) = 5.49,
p < .05, but not when the neglect was by a male caregiver.
Hypothesis 4 predicted that females reporting a childhood experience of emotional neglect
by a primary female caregiver (as opposed to neglect by a primary male caregiver) would
display higher levels of current psychological distress and would describe their family of origin
as lower in cohesion and adaptability. This hypothesis further predicted that males reporting
a childhood experience of emotional neglect by a primary male caregiver (as opposed to
neglect by a primary female caregiver) would display higher levels of current psychological
distress and would describe their family of origin as lower in cohesion and adaptability. The
results did not support this hypothesis. However, it should be noted there were only 22 male
participants.

Discussion

The purpose of the current study was to examine the relationship between perceived emo-
tional child neglect and adult psychological functioning. The relationship between perceived
emotional neglect and recollections of family of origin functioning was also investigated.
Participants who experienced emotional neglect by a female caregiver during childhood re-
ported higher levels of current psychological distress. According to Loos and Alexander (1997)
emotional neglect in childhood has a significant impact on adult self-esteem and social com-
petence. Thus, the lack of affection found in emotionally neglectful parent-child relationships
has long standing consequences for later psychological adjustment. Due to the large percent-
age of females in the study sample, and the previous research findings linking adult female
psychological functioning to female perpetrated maltreatment (Loos & Alexander, 1997), it is
not surprising that a significant link was found between maternal emotional neglect and adult
psychological functioning in the current study.
Further, participants reporting perceived emotional neglect during childhood reported lower
cohesion and adaptability within their family of origin structure. Olson et al. (1992) de-
scribed family cohesion as the emotional attachment shared between family members. Family
 M.J. Wark et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 27 (2003) 1033–1043 1041

adaptability was defined as the level of flexibility within the family system. Therefore, it is not
surprising that emotional neglect, which is characterized by low levels of expressed affection,
was described more often in family systems lacking cohesiveness and adaptability. Crittenden
(1999) reported that emotional neglect is more likely to occur in rigidly structured family
systems. Hence, the findings in the current study support prior research findings suggesting
that in homes lacking warmth and flexibility subjects are more likely to experience caregivers
as emotionally neglectful.
Results from the current study suggest several avenues for future research. Although past
child maltreatment research has focused more on child abuse than child neglect (Dubowitz,
1994; Wolock & Horowitz, 1984), recent studies suggest that emotional neglect may be asso-
ciated with deleterious psychological effects similar to those associated with other forms of
child maltreatment (Brunner, Parzer, Shuld, & Resch, 2000; Lipschitz et al., 1999). Overall,
little emphasis has been placed on child neglect within the literature and emotional neglect
has received even less attention (Loos & Alexander, 1997). Findings from the current study
suggest that emotional neglect during childhood may have long-standing negative effects on
the psychological functioning of young adults. The present study was a preliminary step to-
ward more extensively investigating the long-term deleterious effects of childhood emotional
neglect.
Limitations existed in the present study that need to be addressed by future research. One
limitation in the present study was the retrospective nature of the study design. Although
guided imagery was utilized to encourage participant recall of childhood events, retrospec-
tive self-reports can belie accurate recall. Longitudinal research in the area of emotional ne-
glect would provide further insight into the long-term impact of parenting practices lacking
warmth and caring by eliminating the limitations inherent in retrospective studies. Due to
the limited number of instruments designed to measure retrospective reports of parental care,
future research is needed to develop instruments that accurately assess childhood emotional
neglect. While parental bonding seems a relevant theoretical construct for assessing emo-
tional neglect, and the PBI has previously been used to measure childhood experience of
neglect by a caregiver, the instrument needs further psychometric assessment to establish
its relevance as an index of neglect. Parker (1990) expressed concern that personality vari-
ables and mood states could influence PBI scores. Continued research on the PBI needs to
be conducted in order to substantiate further its construct validity as a measure of emotional
neglect.
Another area for future investigation involves the significant relationship between how often
the participant was left in the care of others and current psychological distress. The present
study merely asked participants to indicate the frequency with which they were left in the
care of others. Future research should explore other relevant aspects of this variable within
the context of emotional neglect. Examples of mediating factors might include reasons for
being in the care of another, number of additional caregivers and relationship to the other
caregiver(s). It will be important to ascertain what other relevant aspects of being in the care
of others contribute to feelings of emotional neglect and adult psychological distress.
Additionally, there were limitations related to the study’s sample. One limitation involves
the use of college students to study this phenomenon and the under-representation of male
participants in the current study. Given a larger male sample size, a more accurate estimate could
1042 M.J. Wark et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 27 (2003) 1033–1043

be obtained regarding male perceptions of parent-child relationship quality and the effects
of emotional neglect on males. The low number of male participants might be one reason
the anticipated gender effect was not supported. Future research with males could provide
further insight into the effects of emotional neglect in this population. Further, increasing the
sample size and expanding the target sample beyond college students would provide better
representation of the general population by accessing a wider cross-section of cultural and
economic influences.
Finally, this study suggests potential caregiver gender effects, regardless of respondent
gender. Perceived neglect by female, but not male caregivers, led to psychological distress in
adulthood and was associated with lower cohesion and adaptability in one’s family of origin.
Future research should attempt to account for the participants’ expectations regarding male
and female caregiver roles. Perhaps participants who expect their male caregiver to provide
emotional responsiveness would be more likely to perceive a lack of emotional nurturance as
neglectful. The role of gender role stereotypes in the experience of emotional neglect needs to
be explored further.
Although child abuse has long been the focus of research studies, little emphasis has been
placed on child neglect. Despite the long-term negative implications of emotional neglect, it
has received inadequate attention in the literature. Although the immediate impact of physical
abuse is more easily quantified due to the presence of bruises and other physical injuries,
the results of the current study suggest emotional neglect imparts long-term psychological
consequences that may impair functioning throughout the lifespan. The current study further
suggests there is a relationship between dimensions of family functioning and experience of
emotional neglect by a primary female caregiver.

References

Beutler, L. E., & Crago, M. (1983). Self-report measures of psychotherapy outcome. In M. J. Lambert, E. R.
Christensen, & S. S. DeJulio (Eds.), The assessment of psychotherapy outcome (pp. 453–497). New York:
Wiley.
Brunner, R., Parzer, P., Shuld, V., & Resch, F. (2000). Dissociative symptomatology and traumatogenic factors in
adolescent psychiatric patients. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 188, 71–77.
Burgess, R. L., & Conger, D. D. (1978). Family interaction in abusive, neglectful, and normal families. Child
Development, 49, 1163–1173.
Cassidy, J. (1999). The nature of the child’s ties. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment:
Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 3–20). New York: Guildford Press.
Collins, W. A., & Gunner, M. R. (1990). Social and personality development. Annual Review of Psychology, 41,
387–416.
Crittenden, P. M. (1992). Quality of attachment in the preschool years. Development and Psychopathology, 4,
209–241.
Crittenden, P. M. (1999). Child neglect: Causes and contributors. In H. Dubowitz (Ed.), Neglected children
(pp. 47–68). London: Sage Publications.
Derogatis, L. R. (1994). Symptom Checklist-90-Revised: Administration, scoring, and procedures manual (3rd ed.).
Minneapolis, MN: National Computer Systems.
Dubowitz, H. (1994). Neglecting the neglect of neglect. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 9, 556–560.
Dubowitz, H., Starr, R. H., & Zuravin, S. (1993). A conceptual definition of child neglect. Criminal Justice and
Behavior, 20, 8–26.
 M.J. Wark et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 27 (2003) 1033–1043 1043

Gauthier, L., Stollak, G., Messe, L., & Aronoff, J. (1996). Recall of childhood neglect and physical abuse as
differential predictors of current psychological functioning. Child Abuse & Neglect, 20, 549–559.
Lipschitz, D. S., Winegar, R. K., Nicolaou, A. L., Hartnick, E., Wolfson, M., & Southwick, S. M. (1999). Perceived
abuse and neglect as risk factors for suicidal behavior in adolescent inpatients. The Journal of Nervous and
Mental Disease, 187, 32–39.
Loos, M. E., & Alexander, P. C. (1997). Differential effects associated with self-reported histories of abuse and
neglect in a college sample. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12, 340–360.
Olson, D. H. (1993). Circumplex Model of marital and family systems: Assessing family functioning. In F. Walsh
(Ed.), Normal family processes (2nd ed., pp. 104–137). New York: Guilford Press.
Olson, D. H., Bell, R., & Portner, J. (1992). FACES II. St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota, Family Social
Science Department.
Parker, G. (1983). Parental overprotection: A risk factor in psychological development. New York: Grune & Stratton.
Parker, G. (1990). The parental bonding instrument: A decade of research. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric
Epidemiology, 25, 281–282.
Todd, D. M., Deane, F. P., & McKenna, P. A. (1997). Appropriateness of SCL-90-R adolescent and adult norms
for outpatient and nonpatient college students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 44, 294–301.
US Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children, Youth, and Families. (1996). Third
National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
US Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children, Youth, and Families. (2001). Child
maltreatment 1999. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
Wolfe, D. A. (1985). Child abusive parents: An empirical review and analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 462–482.
Wolock, I., & Horowitz, B. (1984). Child maltreatment as a social problem: The neglect of neglect. American
Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 54(4), 530–543.

Résumé/Resumen

French- and Spanish-language abstracts not available at time of publication.