# Understanding the developmental impact of psychological maltreatment through the lens of the dimensional model of adversity and psychopathology

## TL;DR

The study explores how psychological abuse and neglect affect adolescent development differently, finding that abuse is linked to poor emotion regulation while neglect does not impact working memory.

## Contribution

The study applies the dimensional model of adversity and psychopathology to differentiate the effects of psychological abuse and neglect on adolescent psychopathology.

## Key findings

- Psychological abuse strongly predicts dysfunctional emotion regulation in adolescents.
- Psychological neglect does not significantly affect working memory.
- Psychological abuse and neglect lead to distinct pathways to psychopathology.

## Abstract

Background: Psychological maltreatment is linked to negative developmental outcomes in adolescents. It includes psychological abuse (PA) and psychological neglect (PN), which are commonly studied as a pair. This study applied the dimensional model of adversity and psychopathology (DMAP), which conceptualises abuse as a threatening experience involving harm or the threat of harm that primarily impairs social-emotional processing, such as emotion regulation, while it views neglect as deprivation or absence of parental care that predominantly affects cognitive functioning, such as working memory.

Objective: In an effort to better understand the harmful nature of psychological maltreatment, this study applies the DMAP to understand whether PA and PN have differential effects paving divergent trajectories to psychopathology, hypothesising that PA predicts dysfunctional emotion regulation, whereas PN impairs working memory.

Method: A classroom-based online survey was conducted in Switzerland. The analysis incorporated a sample size of 1,207 adolescents across 82 classes. PA, PN, and dysfunctional emotion regulation were assessed using self-report, and working memory was assessed using a performance task. Hierarchical linear regression models were conducted with controls for co-occurring deprivation, threat, and other individual and family factors (e.g. socioeconomic status, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder) at level 1, and for education level and the trauma load of the school class at level 2.

Results: In modelling dysfunctional emotion regulation, PA (β = 0.45, p < .001) was the strongest predictor, whereas PN had no significant effect. In the working memory model, neither PN nor PA was significantly predictive.

Conclusion: These findings partially support the DMAP framework, underscoring psychological abuse as an important factor in dysfunctional emotion regulation and psychopathology.

Psychological abuse and psychological neglect involve distinct pathways to psychopathology, emphasising the need for differentiated research and intervention.Psychological abuse is linked to dysfunctional emotion regulation, potentially increasing the risk for psychopathology.Psychological neglect showed no association with working memory, suggesting other factors may influence cognitive development.

Psychological abuse and psychological neglect involve distinct pathways to psychopathology, emphasising the need for differentiated research and intervention.

Psychological abuse is linked to dysfunctional emotion regulation, potentially increasing the risk for psychopathology.

Psychological neglect showed no association with working memory, suggesting other factors may influence cognitive development.