Thirty-six mothers with a previous history of child abuse or child neglect or with no known previous history of child maltreatment participated in an experiment designed to assess reactions to a number of aversive stimuli. Both child-related and non-child-related stressful stimuli were presented, and a number of dependent variables including measures of attributional style and annoyance were employed to assess the situations! specificity of responding. Analysis of the attributional data indicate that abusing mothers consistently ascribed more malevolent intentionality to their child than the other mothers. Situation and interaction effects were also present for the attributional measure. Results from the process annoyance measures indicate that highly significant situation effects were present. In addition, the abusing mothers were more annoyed across both the social and nonsocial stressors, suggesting that a generalized pattern of hyperresponsivity exists in this group. The present results are interpreted within a recently formulated cognitivebehavioral model of child abuse.It is now generally accepted that three factors are necessary before child abuse will occur: a person with potential for inflicting abuse, a child who is seen as an appropriate target, and stressors that precipitate the action (Kempe & Heifer, 1972). Although research on all three factors is critical to understanding child abuse, to date the first two factors have received most of the attention in the child abuse literature.Numerous attempts have been made to link the potential for abuse with parental characteristics such as psychopathology (Fontana, 1973;Wasserman, 1973), a history of having been abused (Oliver & Taylor, 1971;Spinetta & Riegler, 1972), educational background (Terr, 1970), lack of appropriate disciplinary skills (Reid, Taplin, & Lorber, 1981), and unrealistic parental expectations . Investigations of The authors wish to thank Brad Davis and Dave Kruger for their assistance in data collection and analysis and John Fade and other membere of the Monroe County, New York State, Department of Social Services for their continuing help with this project. Special thanks are also given to

No abstract

The author views J. M. Natterson's (2003) article as a return to Freud's emphasis on the centrality of love in psychoanalysis freshly conceptualized within a contemporary intersubjective perspective. Natterson's definition of love is viewed by the author as consisting of 3 independent components (attachment, recognition, and mutuality) that may harmonize or conflict. The author notes the rarity of Natterson's intimate disclosure of the specifics of his own subjectivity to the reader, and their value in advancing the understanding of psychoanalytic process and theory.A review of the literature in psychoanalysis might suggest analysts are more comfortable dealing with depression, anxiety, hate, rage, and envy than with love. Looking a bit further, one might conclude analysts are even less comfortable writing about their own intimate thoughts and feelings during the analytic encounter. Even authors in the contemporary psychoanalytic literature-with its increased emphasis on relational and intersubjective perspectives-often extol the vital role of the analyst's personality in shaping the analytic encounter in theory, but rarely if ever do they include any specifics regarding their own actual role in what took place.It would seem that the relative neglect of these topics by psychoanalysts cannot be attributed to its founder. Not only did Freud (1974, pp. 12-13) assert that psychoanalysis was "a cure through love," he outlined the importance of psychoanalytic treatment in restoring the patient's capacity to love in declaring the signposts of healthy adaptation as the capacity to "love and work." Freud eventually came to view all forms of anxiety (including castration anxiety) as variants of fears of loss of love, or loss of the loved one. Freud also explicated the ways in which both patient and analyst can impede or destroy analytic progress with concretized demands for erotic love.On the topic of self-disclosure, Freud (1900/1953) set the pace with his public selfanalysis in the dream of Irma's injection. To illustrate his method of dream interpretation, Freud disclosed numerous (and largely unflattering) details about his own personal psychology. This could not have been easy for Freud given his marginal status at that point in time, his fear of "indiscretion" on the part of his readers, and his concern that others

A significant relationship was obtained between first figure drawn on the Draw-A-Person Test and sex of experimenter of 140 male and 143 female students in introductory psychology. Of the men who made drawings of the opposite sex, most drawings were elicited by a female experimenter. A like finding held for women; most drawings of the opposite sex were elicited by a male experimenter. The impact of the sex of examiner on an individual at the time of response to the Draw-A-Person Test in a diagnostic setting should be assessed.

No abstract