4 International Journal of Cultic Studies Vol. 4, 2013
highest number of instruments, including its
measurement since the pioneer Conflict Tactics
Scales of Straus (1979). In an extensive study of
partner-violence scales, Strauchler, McCloskey,
and Malloy (2004) conclude that the scales are
much more focused on physical violence than on
psychological factors such as control or threats,
despite the fact that health professionals
consider these latter factors essential to
understanding the abusive relationship. Some
studies have investigated the parallelism
between psychological abuse in partners and
psychological abuse in cults (Andersen,
Boulette, &Schwartz, 1991 Boulette, 1980
Boulette &Andersen, 1985 Graham, Rawlings,
&Rimini, 1988 Herman, 1992 Romero, 1985
Schwartz, Andersen, &Strasser, 2000 Ward,
2000 Wolfson, 2002), listing some of the most
common abuse forms for both of them this
research led other authors to discuss the abusive-
partner relationship as a cult relationship, or to
consider that relationship between the
dominating person and the dominated person as
a “one-on-one cult” (Tobias &Lalich, 1994, pp.
16, 17).
Psychological abuse at the workplace, also
known as workplace bullying or mobbing, has
attracted significant interest and social relevance
in recent years (Escartín, Arrieta, &Rodríguez-
Carballeira, 2009 Zapf, Escartín, Einarsen,
Hoel, &Vartia, 2011). Unlike the other two
forms, this type of abuse appears to search for
the individual, not to subdue, but to exclude
him/her, similarly to the cases of bullying at
school. Leymann (1990) and Olweus (1994),
respectively, promoted the studies on both types
of abuse, mobbing and bullying, from Northern
European countries. Although exclusion is the
objective of abuse, the strategies used to achieve
it are strategies to dominate the other person,
and in this regard they have some parallelism
with those approaches cults or partners apply.
An example of this is the investigation that
reduces to four the psychological abuse factors
at work: (a) verbal aggression, (b) undervaluing,
(c) isolation-exclusion, and (d) coercion
(Fendrich, Woodword, &Richman, 2002). We
also must remember that many other variables
characteristic of the organization interact with
and influence the mobbing event in the work
environment. For instance, a study by Einarsen,
Raknes, and Matthiesen (1994) showed a
significant relationship between mobbing and
several work-environment measures that
suggested low worker satisfaction (a) with the
leadership, (b) with the control of work, (c) with
the social environment, (d) with the role conflict
experienced, (e) with the ambiguity of role, (f)
with the challenging tasks, and (g) with the work
overload.
One objective of this study is to analyze the
three psychological abuse areas (in groups, with
partners, and in the workplace) specifically, but
also simultaneously and from the common
perspective of abuse for dominating the other,
either for subduing or for exclusion purposes.
This viewpoint will allow us to highlight more
clearly the common and distinctive parts in the
psychological-abuse strategies in the different
areas.
Approaches to the Assessment of
Psychological Abuse
One of the greatest challenges, which
researchers and professionals recognize, is the
assessment of psychological abuse. Some of the
characteristics that can help explain this
challenge are the cultural component of its
definition, such that the same behavior can be
considered abusive in one context and
nonabusive in another the beliefs and values of
specific groups, which set different limits on the
tolerance and acceptance of abuse the
subjective component of the perception of abuse
and its possible intentional nature, which can
lead to clear disagreements in the interpretation
of the same behavior (Follingstad &DeHart,
2000) the frequent external invisibility of those
behaviors that do not leave any mark, unlike
with physical aggression (Auburn, 2003) the
wide range of intensities of the abusive
behaviors, which reflect a continuum, from the
most subtle to the most explicit (Marshall, 1999
Vitanza et al., 1995), and create difficulties in
being able to clearly perceive the most subtle
establishing a limit of frequency that
distinguishes between some isolated actions of
an abusive nature and the systematic repetition
of a pattern of behavior of clear psychological
abuse (Murphy &Hoover, 1999 Tolman, 1992)
highest number of instruments, including its
measurement since the pioneer Conflict Tactics
Scales of Straus (1979). In an extensive study of
partner-violence scales, Strauchler, McCloskey,
and Malloy (2004) conclude that the scales are
much more focused on physical violence than on
psychological factors such as control or threats,
despite the fact that health professionals
consider these latter factors essential to
understanding the abusive relationship. Some
studies have investigated the parallelism
between psychological abuse in partners and
psychological abuse in cults (Andersen,
Boulette, &Schwartz, 1991 Boulette, 1980
Boulette &Andersen, 1985 Graham, Rawlings,
&Rimini, 1988 Herman, 1992 Romero, 1985
Schwartz, Andersen, &Strasser, 2000 Ward,
2000 Wolfson, 2002), listing some of the most
common abuse forms for both of them this
research led other authors to discuss the abusive-
partner relationship as a cult relationship, or to
consider that relationship between the
dominating person and the dominated person as
a “one-on-one cult” (Tobias &Lalich, 1994, pp.
16, 17).
Psychological abuse at the workplace, also
known as workplace bullying or mobbing, has
attracted significant interest and social relevance
in recent years (Escartín, Arrieta, &Rodríguez-
Carballeira, 2009 Zapf, Escartín, Einarsen,
Hoel, &Vartia, 2011). Unlike the other two
forms, this type of abuse appears to search for
the individual, not to subdue, but to exclude
him/her, similarly to the cases of bullying at
school. Leymann (1990) and Olweus (1994),
respectively, promoted the studies on both types
of abuse, mobbing and bullying, from Northern
European countries. Although exclusion is the
objective of abuse, the strategies used to achieve
it are strategies to dominate the other person,
and in this regard they have some parallelism
with those approaches cults or partners apply.
An example of this is the investigation that
reduces to four the psychological abuse factors
at work: (a) verbal aggression, (b) undervaluing,
(c) isolation-exclusion, and (d) coercion
(Fendrich, Woodword, &Richman, 2002). We
also must remember that many other variables
characteristic of the organization interact with
and influence the mobbing event in the work
environment. For instance, a study by Einarsen,
Raknes, and Matthiesen (1994) showed a
significant relationship between mobbing and
several work-environment measures that
suggested low worker satisfaction (a) with the
leadership, (b) with the control of work, (c) with
the social environment, (d) with the role conflict
experienced, (e) with the ambiguity of role, (f)
with the challenging tasks, and (g) with the work
overload.
One objective of this study is to analyze the
three psychological abuse areas (in groups, with
partners, and in the workplace) specifically, but
also simultaneously and from the common
perspective of abuse for dominating the other,
either for subduing or for exclusion purposes.
This viewpoint will allow us to highlight more
clearly the common and distinctive parts in the
psychological-abuse strategies in the different
areas.
Approaches to the Assessment of
Psychological Abuse
One of the greatest challenges, which
researchers and professionals recognize, is the
assessment of psychological abuse. Some of the
characteristics that can help explain this
challenge are the cultural component of its
definition, such that the same behavior can be
considered abusive in one context and
nonabusive in another the beliefs and values of
specific groups, which set different limits on the
tolerance and acceptance of abuse the
subjective component of the perception of abuse
and its possible intentional nature, which can
lead to clear disagreements in the interpretation
of the same behavior (Follingstad &DeHart,
2000) the frequent external invisibility of those
behaviors that do not leave any mark, unlike
with physical aggression (Auburn, 2003) the
wide range of intensities of the abusive
behaviors, which reflect a continuum, from the
most subtle to the most explicit (Marshall, 1999
Vitanza et al., 1995), and create difficulties in
being able to clearly perceive the most subtle
establishing a limit of frequency that
distinguishes between some isolated actions of
an abusive nature and the systematic repetition
of a pattern of behavior of clear psychological
abuse (Murphy &Hoover, 1999 Tolman, 1992)
