Despite consensus on the existence and importance of psychological maltreatment, there is far less agreement on how it should be defined. This article reviews the current definitions, proposes a theoretical clarification of the concept, and describes its relevance for the field of developmental psychopathology. We conceptualize psychological maltreatment as the interaction between maltreating parent behaviors and the special vulnerabilities of a child, particularly his or her developmental level. Also, we restrict the definition of psychological maltreatment to verbal and nonverbal parent communication; parental acts that involve physical or sexual contact are excluded. This effort strives to minimize the redundancy with the definitions of other forms of maltreatment and facilitate research into the effects of all forms of victimization.

More than any other subtype of abuse and neglect, psychological maltreatment offers a number of unique challenges to theoreticians and researchers. Although progress has been made, contention still remains over the definition of psychological maltreatment and its relation to other forms of child abuse and neglect (Brassard, Germain, & Hart, 1987; Garbarino, Guttmann, & Seeley, 1986). Thus, the definition and operationalization of psychological maltreatment continue to be important issues that require further research and explanation. In fact, the development of standardized definitions and assessment techniques for all forms of maltreatment is crucial to increase communication across laboratories, and across disciplines.

Defining child maltreatment has never been easy. This is true irrespective of whether the focus is abuse or neglect, or whether the maltreatment in question is physical, emotional, and/or psychological in nature. Thus, McGee and Wolfe (1991) set for themselves no small task in generating an operational definition of psychological maltreatment that would be useful for research. In the main, I come away from their article believing that they have failed to advance the definitional state of the field, though admiring of their effort. In order to substantiate this point of view, I will begin by highlighting a series of concerns that I have with the definition they advance and end by raising broader questions about unstated assumptions that underlie their work.

Researchers and practitioners working in the area of child maltreatment have been frustrated by the lack of a concise definition of maltreatment, especially psychological maltreatment. The study of child abuse, neglect, sexual abuse, and other forms of maltreatment has been impeded by the failure to establish a commonly accepted definition. Numerous definitions have been developed at different times, for very different purposes and by professionals from many different disciplines, but as Giovannoni (1989) noted, their only common feature is that they are vague and ambiguous. Not surprisingly, the research findings from the field are as varied as the heterogeneous samples of maltreating individuals being investigated. The lack of an operational definition of maltreatment greatly limits the generalizability of the research findings.

McGee and Wolfe (1991) have taken on an important and very challenging topic, the meaning of psychological maltreatment and its significance for child development. They start from the definitions offered by several students of this phenomenon (Garbarino, Guttmann, & Seeley, 1986), and proceed to a formulation that they believe advances the cause of research.

The term “child maltreatment” is of relatively recent origin in its present usage: an umbrella term to refer to a variety of phenomena, child abuse, neglect, sexual abuse, and subcategories of these, including “emotional abuse” and “emotional neglect.” As such, it carries with it all of the definitional ambiguities and confusion of the terms designating the subcategories. The emphasis in this discussion is not on what is “psychological,” but rather what is “maltreatment”? However “psychological” might be defined, or whatever phenomena are subsumed under it, the first issue is the criteria under which these might be considered as “maltreatment.” Ultimately, the utility of any definition lies in the purposes for which the classification is being made. Wisely, McGee and Wolfe (1991) point to this in their opening statements in referring to “the diverse reasons for classifying psychological maltreatment” and delineate “clinical assessment and intervention and legal and statutory requirements,” as distinct from their own purpose, “to develop conceptual and operational definitions of psychological maltreatment that are suitable for research purposes.” Clarification of the different purposes of defining “mal-treatment” can avoid contamination of irrelevancies pertinent to one purpose but not another. Toward that end, I examine Address reprint requests to: Jeanne Giovannoni, School of Social Welfare, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA 90024. the definitional purposes and issues in one of the cited arenas, the “statutory and legal.” Historically, that designation of “child maltreatment” precedes both the clinical and the research endeavors. Historical precedence carries with it the danger that subsequent definers, pursuing the term for different purposes, might contaminate their own pursuits by carrying over connotations of the term inappropriate to their purposes.

The devotion of a central article in this special issue and of responses by a variety of researchers indicates that serious scholarly attention is finally being focused on psychological maltreatment. This is a topic of genuine significance to child development and psychopathology research. McGee and Wolfe's (1991) article raises important issues and applies a theoretical focus that are useful in highlighting important aspects of psychological maltreatment.

In commenting on the controversy surrounding the nomination of Samuel Huntington to the National Academy of Sciences, Diamond (1987) noted the disparate problems faced by scientists as they operationalize the concepts they use in their research. Diamond proposed that the process of operationalization was much more complex in the “soft” social sciences than in the “hard” physical sciences. Based on the level of this complexity, he concluded that the dichotomization of the sciences into hard and soft was incorrect. He suggested that they should be classified as hard and easy, with the social sciences comprising the hard category and the physical sciences the easy category.

The slogan, “words can hit as hard as fists,” has brought home to many Americans the importance of combating psychological maltreatment of children. Most everyone agrees that psychological maltreatment is a problem worth understanding and eliminating. Despite this consensus, relatively little research has been done on psychological maltreatment, at least not under that rubric. Why should such an important topic evade rigorous and intense study? One reason may be that researchers have been hampered by the lack of a generally accepted definition. According to Hart, Germain, and Brassard (1987), “Sufficiently rigorous operational definitions do not presently exist and they therefore deserve first priority in psychological maltreatment work” (p. 16).

Over the last 5 years, the topic of psychological maltreatment has received increasing attention and recognition in the developmental literature. The phenomenon was not discovered 5 years ago, of course: certain aspects of it have been investigated and discussed in conjunction with research on physical abuse and neglect for many years. Only recently, however, have many researchers and clinicians begun to argue that psychological maltreatment should be studied as a distinct phenomenon, rather than simply as one type or facet of child maltreatment (Garbarino, Guttman, & Seeley, 1986). In order to draw attention to this topic, some have even claimed that psychological maltreatment has more serious consequences for the child than physical or sexual abuse do (Hart & Brassard, 1987). Although empirical support for this claim is lacking, we know from other research that “nonphysical” experiences, such as abrupt and extended parent-child separations or marital discord, can have pervasive and long-lasting adverse influences on a child's development (Hess & Camara, 1979; Hetherington, Cox, & Cox, 1982; Rutter, 1979).

Broken bones, cigarette burns, and profound malnourishment are unambiguous signs of child maltreatment, but defining the causes and consequences of psychological maltreatment is a more challenging task. For child advocates who are concerned with optimizing the developmental potential of each youngster, defining psychological maltreatment is an essential first step, and McGee and Wolfe (1991) should be commended for undertaking such a challenging but necessary task.

McGee and Wolfe's (1991) article has emerged at a critical time, a period during which child abuse and neglect has been declared a national emergency. In the last decade, reports of child abuse have increased dramatically. Unfortunately, the resources available to address the needs of maltreated children have not kept pace with the demand. This distressing state of affairs has caused some social policy theorists to conclude that only the most seriously abused and neglected children should be identified and served so as not to weaken further an already fragile service delivery system (Besharov, 1988; Wald, 1975). In fact, in the absence of greatly enhanced resources, some child advocates have argued that intervention into family life in other than life threatening circumstances may prove to be more detrimental than helpful (Goldstein, Freud, & Solnit, 1979).

Over the past 30 years, hundreds of millions, perhaps billions, of dollars have been spent on research related to child maltreatment. Yet, with some notable exceptions, this research has produced disappointingly little information that is relevant to policy-makers. In part, this reflects the difficulty of doing policy-relevant research, a problem exacerbated by the unwillingness of most funding sources to support the types of large-scale research projects needed to answer many policy questions. However, part of the blame lies with the research community itself. Too often, researchers have failed to understand the policy issues at stake. As a result, they have not asked the right questions or utilized appropriate research designs. In fact, they often have failed to conceptualize adequately the questions they were trying to address.

Including our own (McGee & Wolfe, 1991), there are 13 articles in this volume on psychological maltreatment — and there appear to be 13 different opinions regarding the subject. Psychological maltreatment and its measurement are controversial topics. We were delighted that our article served to stimulate such thoughtful discussion. Unfortunately, there are several instances in the critiques where we were quoted out of context or our arguments were misconstrued. We do not have the space to deal with every such instance; rather, we will respond to the general themes arising from the articles. The first theme concerns the role of research on psychological maltreatment in the social policy process. The second theme deals with assumptions regarding measurement. We provide a brief description of our own research efforts in an effort to illustrate how we are dealing with the problems inherent in our definition.