International Journal of Cultic Studies Vol. 4, 2013 3
From the viewpoint that the final objective of
physical and psychological abuse is to achieve
domination and control of the victim, some
authors consider a separation between these
different forms of abuse—physical and
psychological—to be artificial, when physical
abuse also causes psychological damage
(Tolman, 1992). This trend to nondistinction,
together with the difficulties in establishing an
operational definition of psychological abuse
that is useful for both health professionals and
jurists, helps us understand why psychological
abuse until recently was not studied as a single
entity and differentiated from physical abuse
(Jory, 2004 O’Leary, 1999 Tolman, 1992
Vitanza et al., 1995). Other reasons for the
delay may have been the social tolerance for
some types of behaviors that can be included in
psychological abuse (Vissing et al., 1991 cited
by Hamby &Sugarman, 1999) a trend among
professionals to consider psychological abuse as
a secondary concern to physical aggression,
assuming implicitly that the consequences of
psychological abuse were less severe and more
transient (Arias &Pape, 1999) the development
of many of these abusive behaviors in the area of
personal intimacy, together with the trend of
aggressors and victims to hide those behaviors
and the “invisibility” of some victims having
less prominent social positions (Jory &
Anderson, 2000).
A major issue for us to consider here is the
significant influence of social and cultural
variables that characterize each social context
when we interpret what psychological abuse is
or not. And this is all the more so true in a
world with increasing interrelations between
people with different values, beliefs, and
cultures of origin.
Study Areas in Psychological Abuse
The use of psychological-abuse strategies is to
some extent at risk of occurring in any
relationship of ongoing interaction between two
or more people. A variable that facilitates abuse
and is often present is when the abuser has a
priori some capacity of power and control over
the other party. This study focuses its analysis
on three possible types of abusive relationships:
those that can occur in manipulative groups,
such as in coercive cults over a member or
follower those that can occur in an unequal
partner relationship, usually from a man to a
woman and those that can occur toward a
worker at a workplace, usually from someone
with a higher status. However, we can find the
application of psychological abuse in other types
of paired relationships, such as teacher-student
or therapist-patient this abuse may range from
possible totalitarian dynamics of some of the so-
called “total institutions” (Goffman, 1961) to
more generic forms, as with the case of the
“psychological war” strategies, or under the
control or interventionism of a dictatorial
government system.
The studies on manipulative or cult groups have
a background in the research in the mid-20th
century, which Schein, Schneier, and Barker
(1961) and Lifton (1961), among others, did on
coercive persuasion and thought reform,
respectively. They performed these studies after
the Chinese implemented imprisonment and
indoctrination for reeducation of US soldiers
they captured during the Korean War, in which
many prisoners adopted Chinese perspectives
and experienced what was later called Stockholm
syndrome, or positive feelings toward their
captors. Subsequently, these studies had been
used since the late ’70s to investigate the
possible parallelisms with psychological
manipulation strategies or “brainwashing” that
some cults supposedly implemented to attract
and subdue group members (Andersen, 1983
Clark, Langone, Schecter, &Daly, 1981
Langone, 1982, 1985, 1988 Rodríguez-
Carballeira, 1992 Singer, 1984, 1988 West &
Singer, 1980). The most recent contributions to
the matter focus on the development of the
Group Psychological Abuse Scale (Chambers,
Langone, Dole, &Grice, 1994 Almendros,
Carrobles, Rodríguez-Carballeira, &Jansà,
2004) that we will discuss below.
The subject of domestic violence has been
studied particularly in the past 30 years, mainly
concerning partner violence. Within this
context, psychological abuse has been studied in
most cases as a simple complement of physical
violence. However, with regard to the other two
abuse environments discussed herein,
assessment of psychological abuse comprises the
From the viewpoint that the final objective of
physical and psychological abuse is to achieve
domination and control of the victim, some
authors consider a separation between these
different forms of abuse—physical and
psychological—to be artificial, when physical
abuse also causes psychological damage
(Tolman, 1992). This trend to nondistinction,
together with the difficulties in establishing an
operational definition of psychological abuse
that is useful for both health professionals and
jurists, helps us understand why psychological
abuse until recently was not studied as a single
entity and differentiated from physical abuse
(Jory, 2004 O’Leary, 1999 Tolman, 1992
Vitanza et al., 1995). Other reasons for the
delay may have been the social tolerance for
some types of behaviors that can be included in
psychological abuse (Vissing et al., 1991 cited
by Hamby &Sugarman, 1999) a trend among
professionals to consider psychological abuse as
a secondary concern to physical aggression,
assuming implicitly that the consequences of
psychological abuse were less severe and more
transient (Arias &Pape, 1999) the development
of many of these abusive behaviors in the area of
personal intimacy, together with the trend of
aggressors and victims to hide those behaviors
and the “invisibility” of some victims having
less prominent social positions (Jory &
Anderson, 2000).
A major issue for us to consider here is the
significant influence of social and cultural
variables that characterize each social context
when we interpret what psychological abuse is
or not. And this is all the more so true in a
world with increasing interrelations between
people with different values, beliefs, and
cultures of origin.
Study Areas in Psychological Abuse
The use of psychological-abuse strategies is to
some extent at risk of occurring in any
relationship of ongoing interaction between two
or more people. A variable that facilitates abuse
and is often present is when the abuser has a
priori some capacity of power and control over
the other party. This study focuses its analysis
on three possible types of abusive relationships:
those that can occur in manipulative groups,
such as in coercive cults over a member or
follower those that can occur in an unequal
partner relationship, usually from a man to a
woman and those that can occur toward a
worker at a workplace, usually from someone
with a higher status. However, we can find the
application of psychological abuse in other types
of paired relationships, such as teacher-student
or therapist-patient this abuse may range from
possible totalitarian dynamics of some of the so-
called “total institutions” (Goffman, 1961) to
more generic forms, as with the case of the
“psychological war” strategies, or under the
control or interventionism of a dictatorial
government system.
The studies on manipulative or cult groups have
a background in the research in the mid-20th
century, which Schein, Schneier, and Barker
(1961) and Lifton (1961), among others, did on
coercive persuasion and thought reform,
respectively. They performed these studies after
the Chinese implemented imprisonment and
indoctrination for reeducation of US soldiers
they captured during the Korean War, in which
many prisoners adopted Chinese perspectives
and experienced what was later called Stockholm
syndrome, or positive feelings toward their
captors. Subsequently, these studies had been
used since the late ’70s to investigate the
possible parallelisms with psychological
manipulation strategies or “brainwashing” that
some cults supposedly implemented to attract
and subdue group members (Andersen, 1983
Clark, Langone, Schecter, &Daly, 1981
Langone, 1982, 1985, 1988 Rodríguez-
Carballeira, 1992 Singer, 1984, 1988 West &
Singer, 1980). The most recent contributions to
the matter focus on the development of the
Group Psychological Abuse Scale (Chambers,
Langone, Dole, &Grice, 1994 Almendros,
Carrobles, Rodríguez-Carballeira, &Jansà,
2004) that we will discuss below.
The subject of domestic violence has been
studied particularly in the past 30 years, mainly
concerning partner violence. Within this
context, psychological abuse has been studied in
most cases as a simple complement of physical
violence. However, with regard to the other two
abuse environments discussed herein,
assessment of psychological abuse comprises the
