Childhood Precursors of Adult lnterpartner Violence

Clyde M. Feldman, University of Arizona

Although childhood exposure t o violence in ones family of origin is one of the most consistent correlates of later adult domestic violence, Imle is known about the developmental pathways or specific mechanisms of intargenerationaltransmission. Thls article (a) reviews the current knowledge regarding early exposure t o domestic violence as precursor of later domestic violence, (b)

identifies developmental consideratlons related to the impact of exposure, and (c) descdbes several conceptual models of the influence of early exposure. Research on both adults and children is reviewed. Implications for research focus on operational definitions, sex differences, llfe-span development, relational dynamics, typologies, and mediating processes. Implications for clinicai practice focus on early socialization experience in adult treatment, and the development of early prevention programs.
Key wods: domestic vioience, family violence, spouse abuse, child abuse, maltreatment, maltreated

children, interpersonal violence, batterer, cycle of vloIence. f a i n Psycho1 Sci Prac 4:307-334, 1997J

In the past decade, we have witnessed a heightened public awareness of the kequency of domestic violence and its deleterious effects on individual and family well-being. Adult interpartner violence, in particular, has received substantially increased attention in the areas of research, practice, and social policy (see Feldman & Ridley, 1995, for overview). Violence between spouses is estimated to occur annually in one out of every six households, with
Address reprint requests and correspondenceto Clyde M. Feldman, Division of Family Studies, FCR 210, University of Arizona, Tucson, A 2 85721.

nearly one-third of all married women reporting at least one incident of physical violence during the course of their marriage (Straus & Gelles, 1986). The seriousness of these incidents is reflected in the large proportion of women suffering physical injuries as a result of domestic violence (KuR, 1993; Kurz & Stark, 1988). Furthermore, incidence and prevalence studies indicate that rates for nonmarried cohabitating partners parallel those of marital partners (Stets & Straus, 1989; Straus & Gelles. 1986; Yllo & Straus, 1981), and show high rate stabhty firom premarriage to 30 months postmarriage (OLeary et al., 1989). Wlule early survey data initially highlighted male violence toward women, there is growing evidence of m t a violence between partners (Schulman, 1979; uul Stets & Straus, 1989; Straus & Gelles, 1990). If let? untreated, both psychological abuse and minor physical forms of aggression are likely to escalate into more severe or even life-threatening violence (Murphy & OLeary, 1989; Stets, 1990). In addltion to the dlrect physical and psychological impact of interpartner violence and abuse on adult male and female victims (Straus, 1993; Walker, 1993), there is growing evidence of the more indirect, although significant, impact on children and wholefamdy functioning (Jaffe,Wolfe, & Wilson, 1990). Moreover, although the field of W y violence has developed distinct literatures, service delivery systems, and social policies for spouse, child, and elder abuse, a growing body of evidence indicates that there are important l n s among ik the three in terms of co-occurrence (Bowker, Arbitel, & McFerron, 1988; Straus & Smith, 1990), shared determinants (Gelles, 1993; Gelles & Straus, 1979). and particularly, life-span developmental processes (i.e., intergenerational transmission of violence; Widom, 1989). While close to 100 individual, relational, and societal factors have been proposed as determinants of adult

0 1997 A M E R I C A N PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION D12

0969-5893/97/55.00

307

domestic violence, perhaps the most consistent finding in family violence research is that domestically violent males (as well as female victims) are far more likely than nonviolent males to have been the victims of abuse or witness to interparental aggression as children (Gelles, 1987; Hotaling & Sugarman, 1986; Straus, Gelles, & Steinmetz, 1980). Many children are exposed early and often to violent role models. It is estimated that approximately 30% of a l l children in families either witness interparental assault, are physically abused by one of their parents, or are exposed to both (Hotaling, Straus, & Lincoln, 1989). Research on children who witness interfamilial violence and abuse has shown that these children have a far greater prevalence of clinical-level behavior and adjustment problems relative to controls not exposed to domestic violence (Jaffe et al., 1990). Moreover, there is a considerable body of evidence of the stability of aggressive behavior from childhood through adolescence and into adulthood (for reviews, see Loeber, 1982; Patterson, 1992; Quay, 1986). Abuse in early childhood has been found to be associated not only with increased aggressive behavior, but also with problems of substance abuse, anxiety, personality disorders, depression, withdrawal, and self-punishng behaviors (Grice, Brady, Dustan, Malcolm, & Kilpatrick, 1995; van der Kolk & Herman, 1987; Widom, 1989). These findings clearly demonstrate the importance of childhood precursors of later adult domestic violence and suggest some form of intergenerational transmission of interpersonal aggression and violence. Although early exposure is one the most consistent correlates of adult domestic violence, surprisingly little is known about the developmental pathways from early chddhood through adulthood, or about the specific mechanisms that contribute to the intergenerational transmission of familial violence (Jaffe, Suderman, & Reitzel, 1992; Widom, 1989). Moreover, whde the idea that violence begets violence is firmly established in the minds of professionals and the general public alike, there appears to be wide variability in whether adults will reenact the violence they experienced in childhood (Widom, 1989). Many other factors in a childs life, such as developmental stage factors, relatively stable individual characteristics (e.g., temperament), and situational factors (e.g., social support) may mediate both the impact of early exposure and the process of intergenerational transmission (Jaffe et al., 1990; Wolfe, Wekerle, & McGee, 1992).

Feldman and Ridley (1995) have noted that the state of knowledge regarding early developmental precursors and predictors of later domestic violence has suffered, in part, because of a lack of attention to the interface between clinical and developmental processes, as well as to a developmental perspective in which clinical dyshnction is viewed across the full spectrum ofthe life span. The emerging field of developmental psychopathology has broad application for better understanding the developmental precursors of later adult domestic violence and abuse (for a developmental psychopathology perspective, see Achenbach, 1990; Cicchetti & Toth, 1995; Kazdin, 1989). A developmental perspective can serve to enhance our efforts in a number of ways. First, it would encourage the conceptualization of early socialization experience as a dynamic, developmental, interpersonal process (i.e., intergenerational transmission), rather than as a static, contemporary, intraindividual research variable (i.e., past history). Second, it would encourage efforts at longitudinal research focused on the relationship between characteristics and processes evident in particular developmental periods and later outcomes (Kalmuss, 1984; Widom, 1989), rather than a reliance on retrospective, correlational research designs focused predominantly on the adult as the target of study. Third, it would focus our attention on childrens processes as both qualitatively and quantitatively distinct &om those of adults (Kazdm, 1989). Because of rapid developmental changes during childhood, the developmental level of the cMd becomes an important moderator of symptom expression, sequelae, and responsiveness to treatment (Cicchetti & Toth, 1995; Jaffe et al., 1990; Shirk, 1988). The purpose of t h s article is (a) to provide a review of the current knowledge regarding early exposure to domestic violence as precursor and predictor of later domestic violence, (b) to identitjr developmental considerations related to the sequelae and course of exposure to domestic violence, (c) to describe several models of the influence of early exposure to violence and abuse on adult domestic violence between intimate partners, and (d) to discuss a number of implications and future directions for both research and clinical practice. Given these purposes, two streams of research will be presented, one focused on adults and the other on children. The conceptual models presented later in the article attempt to integrate childhood and adult factors and dynamics.

CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY: SCIENCE A N D PRACTICE

V4

N4, WINTER 1997

308

RESEARCH WITH ADULTS O N CHILDHOOD PRECURSORS OF ADULT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

Hotaling and Sugarman (1986, 1990) conducted one of the few comprehensive, empirical reviews of the risk markers of husband-to-wife violence, based on 52 casecontrol studies investigating over 40 potential correlates of adult interpartner domestic violence. Their findings indicate that for adult males who were violent, the most consistent factor was experiencing or witnessing parental violence, followed by lower socioeconomic status, tiequent alcohol use. low assertiveness, and low self-esteem. For adult female victims, witnessing or experiencing parental aggression in the family of origin and low selfesteem were the only two consistent risk markers relative to controls. They also found that the dyadic relationship was characterized by greater marital conflict, verbal aggression, status incompatibility (i.e. religious, educational, occupational), and lower family income than nonviolent controls. In fact, numerous studies have found that abusive males are far more likely to have been abused as children and to have witnessed interparental aggression as children than nonviolent males (Caesar, 1988; Gelles, 1987; Hotaling & Sugarman, 1990; Howell & Pugliesi, 1988; Kalmuss, 1984; Murphy, Meyer, & OLeary, 1993; Rosenbaum & OLeary, 1981; Rouse, 1984; Roy, 1977; Schuerger & Reigle, 1988; Straus et al., 1980; Telch & Lindquist, 1984). Moreover, the significantly greater prevalence of violence in the families of origin of domestically violent males (both witnessing and directly experiencing) has also been found in comparison to controls who were relationally distressed, but not violent (Murphy et al., 1993; Rosenbaum & OLeary, 1981; Telch & Lindquist, 1984). This suggests that witnessing and directly experiencing violence are precursors of later violence, rather than simply of later dlstress in general. A range of studies shows that &om 60% to 80% of abusive males come from violent homes, and from 20% to 30% of wives of abusive husbands report having been exposed to violence as children (for reviews, see Hotaling & Sugarman, 1986; Rosenbaum, Cohen, & Forsstrom-Cohen, 1991). Estimates are that males who have been exposed to violence in their families of origin are 3-10 times more likely to be domestically violent with a intimate partner than men with no such histories (Murphy et al., 1993; Straus et al., 1980). Research also suggests that the fiequency and severity of psychological and phys-

ical aggression toward a current partner are positively and linearly associated,with the frequency and severity of both witnessing marital violence and directly experiencing it in ones family of origins (Murphy et al., 1993; Sugarman, Aldarondo, & Boney-McCoy, 1996). The positive association between severity of early childhood exposure with severity of adult violence is particularly significant given the literature suggesting that adult domestic violence appears to cluster into mild (e.g., throwing things, pushing, grabbing) and severe forms (e.g., choking, beating up, using a lethal weapon), with severe violence being far less prevalent (Straus et al., 1980), but far more injurious (Cantos, Neidlg, & OLeary, 1994). Further evidence of the association of early socialization experience with later domestic violence comes from studies investigating factors that may distinguish among subtypes of domestic violence or subtypes of domestic violence perpetrators. In a recent review of typologies of domestically violent males, Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart (1994) suggest that the literature reflects three major subtypes: family-only, dysphoric/borderline, and generally violent/antisocial. Males within the family-only subtype are characterized as violent only within the family with a relatively low tiequency and severity of physical, psychological, and sexual violence, evidence either no personahty disorder or a passive-dependent personality disorder, are less likely to have alcohol/drug abuse problems, and have little or no history of criminal behavior/ legal involvement. In contrast, males within the generally violent/antisocial subtype are characterized as engaging in moderate to severe violence of many types occurring both within and outside the home, are most likely to have an antisocial personality disorder or psychopathology, are very likely to have a history of criminal behavior/legal involvement, and are very likely to have problems with alcohol/drug abuse. Across a number of studles assessing childhood family experiences retrospectively, the data consistently demonstrate that the males within the generally violent/antisocial subgroup are most likely to have witnessed physical violence between their parents, while the family-only males are the least likely to have been exposed to violence between parents (Cadsky & Crawford, 1988; Fagan, Stewart, & Hansen, 1983; Hershorn & Rosenbaum, 1991). Additionally, generally violent/antisocial males are more likely than family-only males to have experienced physical abuse as children (Cadsky & Craw-

CHILDHOOD PRECURSORS *

FELDMAN

309

ford, 1988; Fagan et al., 1983; Saunders, 1992). Regarding the dysphoric/borderline subtype, too few empirical data are currently available on exposure to violence and abuse to provide a comparison. However, based on the two most distinct subgroups, empirical typologies have provided strong evidence that witnessing and/or being the victim of abuse and violence in childhood is associated with greater (a) fkequency and severity of adult domestic violence (i.e., physical, psychological, and sexual), (b) generality of adult domestic violence (i.e., both inside and outside of home), and (c) psychopathological symptomatology (e.g., personality disorders, depression, substance abuse, anger problems). A final area of research with adults has focused on understanding both the direct and indirect influences of early exposure to violence on subsequent adult personality development and domestically violent behavior. One of the few programmatic research efforts in this areas has been the empirical work of Dutton and his colleagues (Dutton, 1994a, 1994b, 1995a; Dutton & Golant, 1995; Dutton, Saunders, Starzomski, & Bartholomew, 1994) on the development of the abusive personality. Empirical studies have typically uthzed both self-referred and courtreferred men, demographically matched controls, and partner, as well as male, self-reports ofviolence and abuse. Their research has provided initial evidence that many males who perpetrate physical and, especially, psychological abuse have experienced three co-occurring conditions in their families of origin: direct experience of abusiveness in the farmly of origin, rejection by fathers, and an insecure attachment to mothers. In addition, they have found not only that assaultive males reported greater direct abuse (particularly by fathers) than controls, but also that many manifested symptom of posttraumatic stress duorder (PTSD; Dutton, 1995a). Trauma symptoms included depression, anxiety, sleep disturbances, dissociation (e.g., flashback, dizziness), and problems with affect regulation (e.g., hypewigdance, outbursts of anger and aggression). In one study, as many as 45% of wife-assaultive males met the criteria for PTSD p u t t o n , 1995a). Another finding has been that assaultive males childhood experiences were characterized by rejecting, cold, and abusive fathers and global attacks on their selfhood, humiliation, embarrassment, and shame (Dutton & Golant, 1995, p. 83). The three most common types of shaming experiences were public scoldmg, random punishment, and generic criticism (Dutton, van Ginkel, & Starzomski,

1994). Moreover, a positive relationship was found between reported rejecting and shaming experiences and more severe, extensive, and fiequent trauma symptom (Dutton, 1994a). Findings also suggest that these males have insecure adult attachment styles, specifically a fearhlly attached style characterized by hypersensitivity to rejection, chronic anger, and high levels ofjealousy. This attachment style has been found to be more strongly associated with partner reports of verbal/psychological abuse (r = .52), and with current PTSD symptomatology (r = .50) than any other attachment style (i.e. secure, preoccupied, dismissing; Dutton et al., 1994). Interestingly, the study found that only 20% of the psychologically abusive males had a secure attachment style. Across a number of studies, the programmatic research suggests that feeling rejected and shamed by ones father is the single most significant contributor to wife assault, followed by being physically abused particularly by ones father, and being fearfully attached to female partners, in that order (Dutton, 1995~). This research w d be dmussed more fully in a later section on the trauma-attachment model. In a similar vein, Stith and Farley (1993) have developed and initially tested a predictive model of severe marital violence that includes early history of exposure to violence as a key precursor. The authors found that mens witnessing of marital violence in childhood had indirect effects on their own violence through three paths lower self-esteem, decreased sex-role egalitarianism, and more approving attitudes toward marital violence. Decreased sex-role egalitarianism and approval of marital violence, in turn, were found to contribute directly to severe marital violence. One issue of significance in research with adults has been whether experienced or observed aggression in childhood is more strongly related to subsequent marital aggression. Unfortunately, studies often fail to distinguish between these two types of exposure, and those that do often do not attempt to assess the differential impact of experienced versus observed aggression (Kalmuss, 1984; Pagelow, 1981; Straus et al., 1980). One exception is a study by Kalmuss (1984), which analyzed data from a national probability sample of 2,143 families using retrospective self-report. The occurrence of marital aggression over the past year was assessed with the Conflict Tactics scale (CTS; Straus, 1979, 1990). She found that observing hitting between ones parents doubled the odds of either husband-wife or wife-husband marital aggression, in

CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGI: SCIENCE A N D PRACTICE

V4 N4, WINTER 1997

310

comparison to only being hit as a teenager. Importantly, however, the probability of marital aggression was dramatically increased when respondents had experienced both types of family aggression. Based on a few studies that have assessed the association between both types of early exposure and the severity of current domestic violence, it appears that witnessing early violence may better discriminate between severe and minor assault than does directly experiencing it (Hotaling & Sugarman, 1990; Pagelow, 1984). Specifically, Hotaling and Sugarman (1990). using the same probability sample as the Kalniuss study, examined family of origin history of experienced aggression (i.e., mothers/fathers use of physical punishment) and observed aggression (i.e., hitting between mother and father) among four groups of men: no-assault, verbal only (e.g,, insults), minor physical only ( e g , grabbing, pushing, throwing), and severe physical (e.g., punching, beating up, threatening/using a weapon). They found that severely assaultive males could be differentiated from each of the other groups by their greater fiequency of having witnessed violence between parents in their f d y of origin. Interestingly, directly experiencing physical abuse in childhood was most characteristic of minor physically aggressive men, who were significantly different only from the verbally assaultive men. The question of gender differences in the intergenerational transmission of family violence has also been a significant issue and a topic of some debate. A small number of retrospective studies of adults involved in violent and abusive relationships have produced mixed results. Pagelow (1981) found intergenerational effects for men, but not for women. Exposure to their fathers beating their mothers was related to mens subsequent perpetration of wife abuse, but not to womens victimization by such abuse. In contrast, Gelles (1976) found that physical aggression in the childhood family increased the likelihood that men would perpetrate and that women would be victimized by later wife abuse. The study by Kalmuss (1984). discussed above, tested a sex-specific hypothesis of later family violence and found that children appear to model parental marital aggression in a generalized, nonsex-specific manner. Modeling appears to communicate the general acceptability of aggression between family members, for both boys and girls, rather than particular rules about which sex parent is an appropriate victim and perpetrator. The author found that exposure to fathers hitting mothers increased the likelihood of both husband-

wife and wife-husband aggression in the next generation. However, mother-to-father violence was not tested.
Methodological Issues

While the findings in the previous section suggest a strong link between early socialization experience and later occurrence of interpartner violence and abuse, caution should be exercised in drawing conclusions based on the above studes. At least five issues are especially noteworthy. First, a number of family violence scholars (Kalniusc, 1984; Widom, 1989) have noted the weaknesses ofrrtrospective study designs with adults and their vulnerability, in particular, to both recall and social desirability biases. When subjects are asked to recall events that occurred from 10 to over 20 years ago, a considerable degree of inaccuracy is likely to occur. More importantly, people may well forget or redefine their behaviors in accord with their current circumstances and situations. Given societys disapproval of various forms of family violence, adults involved in such behavior may reconstruct their childhood families as aggressive, to be consistent with and explain their present behavior. Conversely, adults who do not engage in marital aggression may be ashamed of an aggressive family of origin and, thus, may reconstruct their family as nonviolent. Although the reporting bias may operate in either direction, some scholars have argued that the retrospective approach is more likely to result in an underestimate of the actual rate of occurrence of childhood abuse and violence (Egeland, 1993). One reason is that some individuals believe that the harsh treatment they received is acceptable or normal and do not perceive ( themselves as having been the victims ofabuse (Zeanah 8 Zeanah, 1989). Another reason is that some individuals tend to describe their childhood in global, positive, and even idealized terms as part of a defensive strategy or dissociative symptomatology they develop to cope with traumatic childhood experiences (Main & Goldwyn, 1984). A second issue related to the retrospective assessment of early exposure to violence and abuse, noted earlier, is that most studies either do not assess or do not distinguish between different types of early exposure to domestic violence (e.g., being victimized, observing, perpetrating) or different levels of severity of exposure. Therefore, study results and conclusions are inherently based on highly variable operational definitions of exposure, regarding both type and level. A closely related issue is that few standardized assessment instrumens measuring adult report of

CHILDHOOD PRECURSORS

FELDMAN

311

family of origin violence and abuse currently exist (e.g., Recollections of Early Childrearing; Penis, Jacobsson, Lindstrom, von Knorring, & Pems, 1980; Ross, Campbell, & Clayter, 1982), so the various measures employed are not easily comparable in content, reliability, and validity. The most common assessment method, by far, has been the locally developed interview. A third issue involves the assessment of concurrent adult domestic violence. The large majority of the studies discussed define their sample of concurrently domestically violent individuals by virtue of a subject having inflicted at least one instance of a physically aggressive act during some predefined period of time, typically the previous 6 months to 1 year. Research studies typically do not discriminate between an unusual, single instance and a repeated, hequent occurrence, between different ways violence is manifest across time or partners, between minor and severe consequences of violence (i.e., injury), or between different combinations of types of abuse @sychological vs. physical). Furthermore, virtually all studes employ operational definitions based on overt behavior, which do not directly address differences in perceived circumstances, motivation, intent, or purpose associated with the act. Given that studies typically dichotomize interpartner violence regarding presence or absence, Samples may be relatively heterogeneous regarding severity of violence, in terms of either number of aggressive acts, types of acts, or injury-related outcomes. The vast majority of studies have typically employed either the CTS (Straus, 1979, 1990), structured in-person interviews, telephone interviews, or police records to assess adult domestic violence occurrence. The CTS is, by far, the most widely used assessment instrument in the domain of interpartner violence and abuse (Straus, 1993; Yllo, 1993). The CTS is a 19-item measure of partners reports of abusive and aggressive behavior over the previous 12 months. Although considered to be a reliable, vahd, and easy-touse standard across diverse types of studies and population samples (Barling, OLeary, Joudes, Vivian, & MacEwen, 1987; Straus, 1990), it has been the focus of substantial criticism (Dobash & Dobash, 1988; Kurt, 1993; Tolman, 1989). Criticism has focused on (a) its underlying assumption of a conflict resolution continuum; (b) its M u r e to measure injury outcomes, conflict resolution status, or the intent and purpose for aggression (e.g., self-defense); (c) its combining and thereby equating what appear to be distinctly different aggressive acts (e.g., bit, kicked, hit, hit with a fist, tried to hit); (d) its limited

domain of items that address psychological and emotional abuse (e.g., intimidation, domination, violence against property, pets, etc.); and (e) its exclusion of acts of sexual aggression (e.g., physically forcing partner to have sex). To a large degree, these criticisms have been the catalyst for a recent flowering of newly developed instruments that have significantly expanded on the CTS and have attempted to address many of the limitations noted above. A sampling of these recently published instruments includes the Abusive Behavior Index (Shepard & Campbell, 1992), the Severity of Violence Against Women/Men scales (Marshall, 1992a, 1992b), the Measure of Wife Abuse (Rodenburg & Fantuzzo, 1993), and the Partner Abuse scale PhysicaVNon-Physical (Hudson, 1992). Addtionally, a number of modifications of the CTS have also been developed and utilized in research and treatment programs (e.g., Pan, Neidig, & OLeary, 1994). These instruments are just beginning to demonstrate their reliability, validity, and uthty, and will no doubt enhance our methodologic sophistication. A fourth issue associated with this body of research is the heterogeneity of the subject populations, both withn and across studes. Subject populations differ substantially in terms oftype ofviolence (e.g., physical, psychological), socioeconomic status, sample origin (clinical vs. c o m u nity), client referral status (courtlmandated vs. self/voluntary), and concurrent psychological problems including alcohol abuse, depression, personality disorders, and so on. Famdy violence research with adult domestically violent individuals has been criticized for h h n g to describe sample characteristics, and more often for employing highly heterogeneous subject samples without examining subpopulation differences (Rosenbaum, 1988; Rosenfeld, 1992). Socioeconomic status, for example, has been found to be associated with rates of violence (Straus & Gelles, 1986), while subtype differences have been shown to have a significantly M e r e n t occurrence of childhood early exposure to violence (Cadsky & Crawford, 1988; Hershom & Rosenbaum, 1991). Such Merences may help to explain the different rates of occurrence of exposure to violence across different studies, as well as provide information about the direct and indirect influences of early exposure on subsequent adult behavior. A final point of importance is that many domestically violent individuals do not come fiom violent backgrounds (Caesar, 1988), and many nonviolent individuals do. Understanding these two subgroups is paramount to understanding the number and type of developmental

CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGk SCIENCE A N D PRACTICE

V 4 N 4 , WINTER 1997

311

pathways. Those individuals who have been exposed to abuse and violence, but do not go on to reenact it in their adult lives, are a particularly noteworthy group for study, and will be discussed in the next section.
RESEARCH W I T H CHILDREN AND ADOLESCENTS O N C H I L D H O O D PRECURSORS OF ADULT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

The primary evidence regarding the impact of early exposure and childhood precursors of later domestic violence comes fiom investigations of the impact of witnessing violence in the family of origin. Research on children suggests that at least 3.3 million children witness violence between their parents annually (Carlson, 1984). While individuals in domestically violent relationshps frequently report trying to shield children fiom interspousal confllct, interviews with children fiom violent homes suggest that over 80% see and hear the scenes of conjugal violence (Holden & Ritchie, 1991; Rosenberg, 1987). Witnessing violence appears to have multifaceted and wide-ranging effects on the normal pattern of chldrens cognitive, behavioral, and emotional development (see Jafe et al., 1990, for review). One recent empirical study of children of battered women found that family violence (father to mother, and parent to child) accounted for 56% of the variance in child psychopathology based on mothers reports (McCloskey, Figueredo, & Koss, 1995). Across a number of studies of children of battered and abused women, the disruptions have been manifested in increased anxieties (Alessi & Hearn, 1984). lower selfesteem (Hughes & Barad, 1983), attention deficit/hyperactivity and obsessive-compulsive symptomatology (McCloskey et al., 1995), suicidal gestures (Hughes, 1986), impaired social interaction and problem-solving competencies (Rosenberg, 1987), poor school performance (Hughes, 1986), and particularly, increased aggressiveness and oppositional behavior (Christopoulos et al., 1987; J d e , Wolfe, Wilson, & Zak, 1986; McCloskey et al.. 1995; Rosenbaum & OLeary, 1981). A series of studies by Jaffe and his colleagues has provided an in-depth view of the problems experienced by children who witness family violence gaffe et al., 1990; Jaffe, Wolfe, Wilson, & Slusczarzck, 1986; Wolfe, Jaffe, Wilson, & Zak, 1985; Wolfe, Zak, Wilson, &Jaffe, 1986). Their empirical work has employed standardized measures, such as the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL; Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1983), as well as matched comparison groups of children who have not witnessed vio-

lence. As a group, these studies have revealed a number of important findings. First, children who had witnessed violence had a prevalence rate of clinical level behavior and adjustment problems on the CBCL (70+) 2.5 times greater than nonexposed controls. Among the violenceexposed group, 34% of boys and 20% of girls demonstrated a level of adjustment problems warranting significant clinical intervention, with only 27% of children falling into a low-problem group (<55). Second, the level of physical violence in the family significantly predicted both child social competence and child behavior problems. Third, both abused and exposed male children had significantly higher internalizing (i.e., withdrawn, depressed) and externalizing (i.e., tantrums, aggression) scores than a nonabused, nonexposed comparison group, suggesting that boys who had recently been exposed to family violence had a level of emotional and behavioral problems that resembled those who had themselves been physically abused. Moreover, children appear to have greater internalizing problems (signs of crisis reaction) closer in time to the violent event, but demonstrate higher externalization problems later in time (i.e., 4-6 months afier). Fourth, children exposed to violence have inappropriate views on the acceptability and utility of violence as a means to conflict resolution, blame themselves for the onset of family violence, and feel worry and responsibility for protecting both their mothers and younger siblings fiom the violence. A small set of studies have also examined the prevalence of exposure to violence in the f h d y of origin among children and adolescents who were violent offenders. Bach-y-Rita and Veno (1974) reported that 53% of their cases of habitually violent juvenile offenders had observed their parents engaged in physical combat. Sorrells (1977) noted that the families of 31 youths charged with homicide or attempted homicide in Cahfornia were violent and chaotic. Lewis, Shanok, Pincus, and Glaser (1979) found that 79% of the violent children they studied reported witnessing extreme violence between their parents, whereas only 20% among a group ofnonviolent offenders had. Harstone and Hansen (1984) found that 23% of the fathers of violent youths had engaged in wife battering. Although witnessing violence appears to be a more common form of exposure to family violence than directly experiencing abuse (Carlson, 1984), there is clear empirical evidence that children who witness interpartner violence are at greater risk of child abuse by both parents,

CHILDHOOD PRECURSORS *

FELDMAN

313

but particularly by the father (Bowker et al., 1988;Jouriles, Murphy, & OEeary, 1989; McCloskey et al., 1995; Stark & Flitcraft, 1988). Straus and Smith (1990) found that child abuse is 18 times more likely to occur in homes where there is violence between the parents. Furthermore, Straus et al. (1980) found as many as 40% of the victims of physical child abuse are also exposed to spouse abuse. A large body of research now exists that has documented the wide-rangng, deleterious effects of physical chld abuse (see Cicchetti & Carlson, 1989; Cicchetti & Toth, 1995; Starr & Wolfe, 1991). A substantial number of studies have consistently found that abused children, in comparison to nonabused children, manifest more aggressiveness toward siblings and caregivers, in fantasy and fiee play, and in school settings (see Widom, 1989, for review). Additionally, abused children, in comparison to controls, have also been found to evidence a range of other problems &om early childhood through adolescence, including insecure attachments to caretakers (Crittenden & Ainsworth, 1989), depression (Kazdin, Moser, Colbus, & Bell, 1985; Toth, Manly, & Cicchetti, 1992), poor selfconcept and sociaVintellectual deficits (Vondra, Barnett, & Cicchetti, 1990), social detachment and withdrawal (Kaufinan & Cicchetti, 1989), decreased social competence and prosocial behavior (Manly, Cicchetti, & Barnett, 1994), less empathy toward distressed peers (Main & George, 1985), and hostile attributional styles (Dodge, Pettit, Bates, & Valente, 1995; Rieder & Cicchetti, 1989). Two studies, in particular, are noteworthy in providing relatively unique information regardmg the influence of early physical abuse on child outcomes, particularly later aggressive behavior. Dodge et al. (1995) examined the effects of physical abuse during the first 5 years of life on both conduct problems and social information processes 5 years prospectively. Based on teacher ratings of 584 children using the CBCL (Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1983), the authors found that abused children had conduct problem scores that averaged three-quarters of a standard deviation higher than the nonabused chlldren. Moreover, among the abused group 28% were classified as having clinically deviant conduct problems (T score > 70), in contrast with only 6% of the nonabused group. More intriguing, however, was evidence that the abused children appeared to develop four types of biased social information processing patterns, which were directly associated with their greater conduct problems up to 4

years later. The first type of processing pattern is an encoding error, whereby the child is defensively hypervigilant to hostile cues and does not attend adequately to relevant nonhostile cues. The second type is a hostile attribution bias, whereby the child perceives hostile motivation on the part of others when it may not exist. When confionted with a new aversive stimulus that is ambiguously motivated, they may simply ascribe a meaning that is consistent with a preexisting expectation of hostility. The third type is one whereby the child acquires a large repertoire of highly accessible aggressive responses to interpersonalproblems, so that when provoked, aggressive retaliatory responses are readily brought to mind. The final processing pattern is one whereby the child comes to believe that aggressive behaviors can lead to positive outcomes for the attacker, both instrumental (e.g., getting ones way) and intrapersonal (e.g., feeling good about ones aggression). Dodge et al. (1995) note that while not all abused chddren acquire all of these processing patterns, the odds that an abused child will acquire more than one . . . are almost four times greater than those for a nonabused child @. 10). A second study by Manly et al. (1994) is one ofthe few that has assessed the specific impact of fiequency, severity, and chronicity of maltreatment on child outcome. The authors compared 5-1 1-year-old children who had been either physically abused, sexually abused, and/or physically neglected with children who were not maltreated. They found that the greater the fiequency or the severity of maltreatment, the greater the childs behavior problems and the poorer the childs social competence. Furthermore, the longer the duration of the maltreatment, the more likely the child was to initiate aggression and fights, based on peer-rating/nomination. An interesting pattern associated with the fiequency and severity of maltreatment also emerged:

A t high levels o severity, thefrequency ofthe maltreatment did f not seem to have much ofan impact in child outcome. Thus, when the maltreatment experience was severe enough, w e n an isolated or infrequent occurrence had a detrimental impact on the childs functioning. In contrast, at low levels ofseverity, the morefrequent the maltreatment episodes, the more ofa decline was evident in the childs adaptation. (Manly et al., 1994, p . 138)
As with the literature on adults, the relative role that experiencing and witnessing abuse play in child outcomes

CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY: SCIENCE AND PRACTICE

V4 N4, WINTER 1 9 9 7

314

and ultimately later domestic violence behavior is an important, albeit complex, issue. Unfortunately, empirical data on children and adolescents addressing this question are quite limited (Manly et al., 1994). Researchers who have investigated chddren who have witnessed abuse within the family have reported that these children sometimes resemble physically abused children, sometimes resemble nonabused control children, and sometimes fall between the two (Christopoulos et al., 1987; Hughes, 1988; Hughes, Parlunson, & Vargo, 1989; Wolfe et al., 1986). Two studes that have directly compared chldren who only witnessed, only experienced, or experienced and witnessed abuse did not find that these chddren consistently Mered from each other on a variety of measures such as behavior problems and depression (Hughes et al., 1989; Stemberg et al., 1993). Wore and McGee (1994), however, found that while no particular form of abuse (psychological, physical, neglect, and witnessing adult abuse), occurring during early and middle chddhood, contributed substantially to overall behavioral adjustment at ages 11-16, adjustment was signlficantlyassociated with the co-occurrence of maltreatment experiences. Specifically, for boys, adjustment problems were worse when both psychological abuse (e.g., ridicule/denigration, threats of extreme punishment) and physical abuse (e.g., slaps, hits with object, punches) were high. Adjustment problems was also highly elevated for the combination of high partner abuse and low child neglect for boys. Girls' adjustment, on the other hand, appeared to be a function of a combination of psychological abuse and neglect (e.g., poor nurturance, inadequate care). Overall, our knowledge about the distinctive and additive effects of experiencing different types of domestic violence remains h i t e d , and has been hampered by a number of methodologic factors that d be &cussed later. Clearly, a growing body of evidence points to a strong link between various forms of early exposure to violence and a variety of subsequent, deleterious childhood outcomes, particularly conduct problems. Additionally, the stability of aggressive and antisocial behavior from early childhood through young adulthood is now well established (Loeber, 1982; Patterson, 1992; Quay, 1986). Unfortunately, prospective, longitudnal studies specifically linking early childhood exposure or childhood aggression to adult domestic violence remain rare. One exception is a study by Huesmann, Eron, Lefkowitz, and Walder (1984), whch followed children prospectively for

up to 22 years. The authors found a significant correlation between peer-nominated aggression at age 8 and spousereported partner abuse at age 30. Furthermore, the rate of domestic violence against adult partners among those males highest in peer-nominated aggression was 3.5 times that of males with the lowest peer-nominated aggression.
Developmental and Gender-Related Differences In Children's Adjustment

Despite the diversity of reactions children may develop after exposure to recurring violence, several identified factors appear to influence symptom manifestation and adjustment of chddren. In addition to the amount of violence witnessed and whether they were a victim as well as an observer, the age and gender of the chdd have been found to be important factors. While research is s t i l l in its infancy, a limited number of studies do address the role and importance of developmental and gender-related factors. Children at various developmental stages differ in their ability to understand and cope with what is happening between their parents, as a function of their cognitive and adaptive skdls. C h c a l observation of children in shelters (Alessi & Hearn, 1984; Davidson, 1978; Hughes, 1986) has provided some information regarding the primary characteristics of hfferent age groups of children who have witnessed violence. Infants who witness violence are ofien characterized by poor health, poor sleeping habits, and excessive screaming. Among preschoolers, these researchers found signs of terror, as evidenced by children's yelling, irritable behavior, hiding, shaking, and stuttering. Younger children exposed to violence appear to be more distressed than older children, more likely to experience somatic complaints, and more likely to regress to earlier stages offunctioning. Older children and adolescents may often be very guarded and secretive about the f a d y situation, and deny that the problem is occurring. Adolescents, in particular, may become manipulators of the f d y system, use aggression as a predominant form of problem solving, project blame onto others, run away, side with one parent over the other, and exhibit a high degree of anxiety (e.g., bite nails, pull hair, somatize feelings). Developmental evidence also suggests that children's reactions to violence in the home are, in part, influenced by their developmental level and their cognitive interpretations of these events. Children under 8, for example, are less capable of looking for situational explanations, inter-

CHILDHOOD PRECURSORS * FELDMAN

315

pret most events in relation to the self,are unable to attend to more than one dimension of a situation at a time, and often have distorted concepts of causality as a result of their incomplete reasoning abilities. They are, therefore, more likely to see themselves as the source of anger, show a pattern of immediate distress reaction, and have subsequent increases in aggression with their peers (Covell & Abramovitch, 1987; Cummings, Iannotti, & ZahnWaxler, 1985). Older children, on the other hand, have learned to interpret events on the basis of situational, as well as emotional, cues. Such interpretations, therefore, are often influenced by the presence of verbal statement of blame (e.g., one adult blaming the other), prior interpretations of similar events, and observable circumstances (eg., an injury; van der Kolk, 1987).These older children tend to project blame on siblings, parents, or events within the family, in addition to themselves (Covell & Abramovitch, 1987), and may depersonalize maternal suffering and blame her for the family problems (Davidson, 1978). Overall, then, the range of childrens reactions &om relatively unemotional to extreme distress depends on attribution of blame and responsibhty, and interpretation of the event as insignificant, commonplace, or grave, all ofwhich are influenced greatly by ones developmental level and prior learning experiences. By school age, gender-related differences in childrens response and adjustment to family violence also begin to emerge. Boys exposed to violence are fiequently characterized as being disruptive, acting aggressively toward objects and people, and throwing severe temper tantrums (Rosenbaum & OLeary, 1981; Wolfe et al., 1985). Girls, in contrast, are reported to have an increasing assortment of somatic complaints and are more likely to display withdrawn, passive, clinging, and dependent behavior (Carlson, 1984; Hughes, 1986). Furthermore, Jaffe, Wolfe, Wilson, and Zak (1986) found among children aged 6-1 1, boys showed negative effects in externalizing, internalizing, and social competence areas on the CBCL, while girls showed negative effects only in internahzing and social competence. Two other findings are noteworthy here. First, J d e and colleagues found that total behavior problems were predicted much more by amount of physical aggression by father for boys (r = .47) than for girls (r = .13).Although a point of ongoing debate, this lends support to the notion that boys may identify with the aggressor, and subsequently act out, while females may identify

more with the victim, and turn more to self-destructive acts (Carmen, Reiker, & Mills, 1984). Second, Rosenberg (1984) found an interaction between the amount of aggression the child had witnessed and the type of behavioral adjustment exhibited by males versus females. When there was a relatively lower occurrence of parental violence, boys selected aggressive coping strategies, whereas girls reacted passively. However, when there was a higher occurrence of violence, girls chose aggressive methods for solving problems and boys become relatively more passive. Rosenberg hypothesized that the childs predominant method of problem solving in interpersonal situations may become exaggerated following exposure to parental violence, but under more extreme conditions of exposure, they may resort to more unusual or dramatic coping responses or draw attention away tiom the parents to themselves.
Factors That May Buffer Children From the Adverse Effects of Early Exposure

As noted earlier, not all children exposed to violence in their family of origin display elevated symptoms of maladaptive coping and distress. There is also wide variability in whether adults will reenact the violence they experienced in childhood (Widom, 1989). In response, researchers have begun to investigate potential protective factors that may account for the resilience seen in many of these children. Garmezy (1983), in a review of the stressors of childhood, found that the protective factors of children could be divided into three categories: (a) dispositional attributes of the child (eg., ability to adjust to new situations), (b) support within the family system (e.g., good relationship with one parent), and (c) support figures outside the family system (e.g., peers, relatives). Empirical studles of discordant and high-stress families (Emery, 1982; Rae-Grant, Boyle, Offord, & Thomas, 1984; Sander, 1980; Wallerstein, 1983) have found that an uncritical and warm relationship with one parent, fiiendships with peers, participating in activities outside school, competence in sports and other activities, having older siblings, ethnic congruity with the community, and the ability to master coping tasks (e.g., resolving anger, disengaging &om parental confllct) each have served as protective factors against the development of conduct disorder, hyperactivity, and somatization problems. Other protective factors suggested by mediational models (Dut-

CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGk SCIENCE A N D PRACTICE * V 4 N 4 . WINTER 1997

316

ton, 1992; Foy, Osato, Houskamp, & Neumann, 1992) of PTSD development in childhood include (a) others responses to the abuse; (b) positive aspects of the abuser, apart fiom the occurrence of abuse; (c) cognitive appraisals of the event; and (d) coping strategies of the victim. Regarding social support and exposure to violence in childhood, several empirical studies have found that concurrent or subsequent social support received by victims of child physical abuse appears to buffer the intergenerational transmission of child abuse (Cahso & Wner, 1992; Egeland, Jacobvitz, & Sroufe, 1988; Hunter & Kdstrom, 1979; Milner, Robertson, & Rogers, 1990).A prospective study of mothers who had been abused as children, but who did not repeat the pattern in adulthood, found that they were more likely to report significant emotional support fiom other adults during childhood, participate in therapy at some point in their lives, and have relatively stable, nonabusive, supportive relationships with their mates (Egeland et al., 1988). In contrast, McCloskey et al. (1995) found that maternal, paternal, and sibling support (e.g., hugs child, helps with hard tasks, explains events to child) failed to buffer children, ages 6-12, from developing, in the short term, a range of clinical symptomatology (e.g., depression, conduct disorder, anxiety, attention deficit), in response to witnessing and, in some cases, also being the victims of M y violence. The authors note that when the source of stress [interpartner and childparent aggression] resides within the M y itself, those more affirming features of f d y relationshps are unlikely to help @. 1258). Based on ecological models of f h d y violence (e.g., Belsky, 1980; Cicchetti, 1989; Cicchetti & Rizley, 1981), it would appear that the risk of developing adverse effects fiom exposure to family violence depends on a relatively complex balance between a number of potentiating factors (e.g., poor coping abdities, concurrent marital violence) and compensating factors (e.g., social support, secure attachment style), operating at the individual, Emily, and societal levels. Accordmg to a lifespan perspective, then, the developmental impact would depend on the chronicity and severity of exposure to violence, the developmental level of the child, and the balance of potentiating and compensating factors.
Methodological Issues A primary issue w i t h

h body of literature relates to s the lack of specificity and dearth of information regarding

various dimensions of early exposure to domestic violence, such as type (e.g., witnessing, physical abuse, emotional abuse), severity, frequency, and chronicity. At least three cautions are relevant here. First, a number of authors have noted that the existing literature on maltreatment and child outcomes has often focused on maltreatment as a dichotomous variable, with studies grouping subjects with very different patterns and histories of maltreatment, restricting the maltreatment group to a particular characteristic such as type, or even failing to describe maltreatment characteristics of their subjects (Barnett, Manly, & Cicchetti, 1993; Cicchetti & Barnett, 1991). The difficulty of identifying the distinctive and additive effects of experiencing different types of domestic violence is compounded by the fict that research has often overlooked the fiequency with which types overlap (Wolfe & McGee, 1994). There is growing evidence that pure forms of maltreatment are atypical (e.g., physical, emotional), although researchers may focus on a specific type of violence of immediate interest (Manly et al., 1994). The difficulty of obtaining large sample sizes has also prohibited researchers fiom examining multiple subgroups simultaneously, or varying combinations of single versus multiple types (Manly et al., 1994). A second caution in interpreting the results of these research studies is the lack of consensus regarding appropriate operational definitions of the diversity of expressions of maltreatment (Cicchetti & Barnett, 1991). Therefore, operational definitions of early exposure vary substantially. In some cases, witnessing abuse between parents is simply not included as a type of chdd maltreatment, whde in other cases it may be included within a category such as emotional abuse, defined in one study as children who were repeatedly called unworthy, ignored, and/or exposed to fiequent and extreme marital conflict ( K a u h & Cicchetti, 1989, p. 518). A final caution is that there are no generally accepted instruments or techniques for assessing the range of experiences comprising exposure to violence with the f d y . A wide range of assessment techniques are currently employed and include evaluation of reports of maltreatment via CPS-type agencies, structured interviews with parents, and a s m a l l number of standardized instruments. One instrument that addresses the need for a multilevel assessment of the childs victimization history is the Record of Maltreatment Experiences (McGee, Wolfe, & Wilson, 1990),which is organized into five sub-

CHILDHOOD PRECURSORS * FELDMAN

31 7

scales constructive parenting practices, psychological maltreatment, exposure to family violence, sexual abuse, and physical abuse. A second issue within this body of research is the tendency to rely on one source of information about childrens behavior problems and adjustment, typically the childs mother (Fantuzzo & Lindquist, 1989; Sternberg et al., 1993). As Sternberg et al. (1993) note, In addition to the usual disadvantages of relying on only one informant . . . when mothers are the victims of spouse abuse, the perpetrators of physical abuse, or the partners of child abusers, their ability to accurately describe their childrens behavior problems may be compromised (p. 44).This is underscored by the fact that much of the direct research on the effects of observing violence has studied children who reside in battered womens shelters. Few studies have used multiple informants to assess childrens behavior problems, making comparisons among perspectives difficult. Unfortunately, among those studies that have employed multiple sources of information, the levels of agreement among informants has been extremely low, between both children and adults reports, as well as between mothers and fathers reports (Sternberg et al., 1993; Wolfe & McGee, 1994). There is growing evidence that one cannot discuss the effects of domestic violence without considering the source of information. A final issue is related to the dearth ofstudies that allow prospective investigation of the impact of early exposure to domestic violence 6 o m early and middle childhood, through adolescence, and into young adulthood. A number of studies exist that prospectively follow children through one or even two adjacent developmental periods (e.g., Dodge et al., 1995; Wolfe & McGee, 1994), but large empirical gaps in knowledge still remain regardmg the impact of exposure and developmental adjustment from early adolescence through young adulthood. Even less is known, prospectively, about the specific influence of early exposure on later adult domestic violence behavior.
M O D E L S O F THE DEVELOPMENTAL PATHWAY F R O M EARLY EXPOSURE TO LATER D O M E S T I C VIOLENCE

comprehensive review of the intergenerational transmision of violence suggests that the pathway appears to be neither straight nor singular. K a u h a n and Ziglers (1987) review of child abuse suggests that the intergenerational transmission rate from abused child to abusive parent is only about 30%. They suggest that research would be best served by explaining the conditions under which the transmission of family violence and abuse is likely to occur. Three primary theoretical models have been suggested to explain the influence of early exposure to violence on later development and behavior. They are social learning theory, the family disruption model, and the trauma-attachment model.
Social Learning Theoty

Although the above studies provide strong support for early childhood socialization experience being an important precursor of later domestic violence, the developmental pathways and specific mechanisms of intergenerational transmission are unclear. Widoms (1 989)

Probably the most influential and ofien cited explanation of the influence of early exposure to violence on adult domestic violence and abuse is social learning theory (Bandura, 1973,1977,1979,1986). Social learning theory is the outgrowth of Banduras extensive research on the development of aggressive behavior, as well as prosocial behavior, in children and adolescents. Social learning theory suggests that both male and female children learn to be aggressive and accept aggression by observing live aggressive models in their fanulies of origin (e.g., parents, relatives), as well as symbolic models portrayed on television and in movies. The extensive empirical work by Bandura and his colleagues, however, has demonstrated that the likelihood that such learned behavior will be enacted depends on at least three mediating factors. First, children are more likely to imitate violence and aggression if they strongly identify with the perpetrator. Second, the likelihood that aggression will be enacted and repeated is, in part, a function of the rewards or punishments that follow that behavior, including the observed consequences of a models aggressive behavior. Rewards in the context of either observed intimate aggression or performed aggression may include success in gaining power and control, terminating an aversive behavior on a partners part, or emotional release. Punishments may include police intervention, a partners rejection, or feelings of guilt and low self-worth. If punishments are absent or rewards clearly exceed punishers, reenactment becomes more likely. Straus et al. (1980) suggest that both ofthese factors are present in many violent families, and that children learn that violence is an appropriate way of resolving conflict

CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY SCIENCE A N D PRACTICE

V 4 N4. WINTER 1997

318

in intimate relationships and that assaultive behavior and threats are very effective means to maintain power and control over other people. As discussed earlier, an empirical investigation of the specific role of modeling and observational learning (Kalmuss, 1984) found that two types of modeling occur for moderate-severe parental aggression generalized modeling, and type-specific modeling. In the former, modeling appears to communicate the general acceptability of aggression between b l y members, for both boys and girls, rather than particular rules about which sex parent is an appropriate victim and perpetrator. In the latter, type-specific modeling, individuals tended to reproduce the particular type of family aggression to which they were exposed. Being physically punished as a child appeared to serve more as a specific model for later parent-child aggression, while observing interparental aggression served as a more specific model for later domestic violence between adult partners. When both parent-to-parent and parent-to-child aggression occurred in the first generation, the probability of second generation marital aggression was highest, with witnessing aggression being a stronger correlate of later marital aggression than being the victim of aggression. According to social learning theory, the third factor involved in the enactment of learned violence and aggression is mediating cognitions and attitudes. Banduras (1973) theory posits that six internal, self-regulatory mechanisms serve to neutralize aggressive behavior for the perpetrator: (a) justification ofbehavior on the basis of some higher authority; (b) comparison of the behavior with more serious violence; (c) projection of responsibility onto drugs, alcohol, and so on; (d) normalization of the behavior as a common and socially acceptable occurrence; (e) depersonalization of the victim through the use of disparaging labels; and (Q minimization of the consequences of the behavior. Indeed, there is empirical evidence that domestically violent men appear to distort the causes and consequences of their violent behavior by attributingit more often to external (e.g., partner, external stressors) rather than internal factors (e.g., self), and more often to transient, unstable states (e.g., was drunk or angry) rather than permanent, stable ones (e.g., personality traits; Bograd, 1988; Dutton, 1986; HoltzworthMunroe, 1988). Furthermore, domestically violent men have been found to (consistently) provide excuses (i.e. denying personal responsibility) and justifications (i.e., accepting responsibility, but attempting to justify the act)

for their behavior, as well as to minimize the number, severity, or consequences of violent incidents (Dutton, 1986; Ptacek, 1988; Wolf-Smith & LaRossa, 1992). Interestingly, studies of female victims of domestic abuse have found that they also engage in rationalization, justification, and minimization of their victimization, which may contribute to their increased tolerance of a violent relationship and may prevent them from seeking help (Ferraro &Johnson, 1983; Mills, 1985). Developments in social information processing and social cognition research also lend recent support for the cognitive components of social learning theory. Empirical work by Dodge and associates with children who were physically abused during the first 5 years of life has shown that they appear to develop several types of biased social information processing patterns, which are associated with greater conduct problems up to 4 years later (Dodge, 1986; Dodge, Bates, & Pettit, 1990; Dodge et al., 1995). These social information processing patterns include (a) a hypervigdance to hostile cues, (b) a hostile attributional bias about the intentions of others, (c) accessing of a high proportion of aggressive responses from memory, and (d) an evaluation that aggressive behaviors lead to positive instrumental and intrapersonal outcomes. Research on domestically violent adult men has also demonstrated that they appear to interpret negative partner behaviors (e.g., sexual rejection, talking to another man) as involving greater hostile intent and selfish motivation than either their distressed-nonviolent or nondistressed-nonviolent counterparts (Holtzworth-Munroe, 1992; HoltzworthMunroe & Hutchinson, 1993). Al of the above amibul tional patterns appear to be highly consistent with the selfreinforcing, cognitive mediational process posited by social learning theory, which may hnction to reinforce violent and aggressive behavior even in the face of overt negative sanctions. This evidence also points to the developmental link fiom chddhood through adulthood in terms of cognitive outcomes. While the social learning model has received support from a variety of sources, a number of authors (Jaffeet al., 1990; Lowrey & DeFleur, 1988) have noted that it remains incomplete in explaining (a) the links between exposure, acquisition, and performance; (b)why violence in childhood affects some children more than others; and (c) why exposure to violence affects children in different ways. Additionally, social learning has been criticized for not adequately addressing the issue of internalizing prob-

CHILDHOOD PRECURSORS

FELDMAN

319

lems (e.g., depression, jealousy, rage), personality disturbance (e.g., borderline personality organization), and social competence effects p u t t o n , 1995c: Dutton & Golant, 1995;Jaffe et al., 1992).
The Family Dlsruptlon Model

While social learning theory has attempted to demonstrate the more direct, cycle-of-violence connections, the family disruption model (Jaffe et al., 1990) proposes that childrens development is adversely affected by a number of indirect, as well as direct, consequences of f a d y violence. The model, based withn a broader f a d y systems theory, attempts to explain the development ofboth internalization problems (e.g., emotional symptoms) and externalization problems (e.g., the development of aggressive behavior) as sequelae of early exposure to family violence. The model hypothesizes two pathways of influence, direct and indirect. The direct pathway focuses on the direct effect of family violence on the cMd in terms of increased emotional symptoms (e.g., becomes fearful, sadness, stress) and behavioral symptoms (e.g., runs away, increased aggressiveness, intervenes in the conflict). Other direct effects can include an increase in the childs aggressive behavior as a result of modeling on the violent parent, as well as issues regarding the childs own safety. In contrast, the indirect pathway refers to the fallout f?om family violence in terms of increased maternal stress and physical/psychological symptoms of the mother, changes in residence and f d y income, sibling distress, and particularly, reduced chdd management effectiveness (caused in large part by the decline in the mothers parenting capacity). The child must not only adapt to, and cope quickly with, the immedate consequences of family violence, but also the inctrect fallout from these events. Moreover, the childs behavioral and emotional reactions to the violence can have a reciprocal impact on the marital relationship, exacerbating the situation even hrther. According to the authors, It is believed that the primary caregiver (usually the mother) serves as the mectator of the childs adjustment; that is, the mother delivers the consequences that shape the childs behavior, and she emits the emotional expressions that cue the child as to the significance of a particular event or expression ( J d e et al., 1990, p. 62). Evidence for the direct pathway and the direct effects of early exposure to family violence has been discussed throughout this article, as has evidence regarding modeling and observational learning of aggression. Evidence

supporting the indirect pathway, however, is more limited, in part because of the large number of interacting factors that must be addressed. A number of studies have shown that battered women, in comparison to controls, evidence significantly lower self-esteem (Cascardi & OLeary, 1992), greater somatic complaints (Koss, Woodruff, & Koss, 1990), posttraumatic stress and anxiety symptoms (Houskamp, Foy, & Baranoff, 1989; Rosal, Dutton-Douglas, & Pemn, 1990), depression (Stets & Straus, 1990), suicide attempts (Straus & Gelles, 1990), and parenting stress (Holden & Ritchie, 1991). Initial empirical research has also found that battered women who reported the most extreme somatic complaints and stress-related dysfunctions were significantly more likely to have children who were exhibiting clinically elevated levels of adjustment problems (Wolfe et al., 1986). Moreover, the same study found that maternal stress levels and levels of family disruption (e.g., moves, separation, problems at work) accounted for more of the variance in childrens internalizing and externalizing behavior problems than the level of physical violence alone. There appear to be two limitations to the family disruption model. First, the model views the role of mother as pivotal in mediating the childs adjustment in terms of her own physical and psychological symptoms and her child management effectiveness. However, the fathers role in mediating the childs adjustment is essentially not addressed. The second limitation is, paradoxically, associated with one of the models greatest strengths. As a part of a systemic theory of family process, this model attempts to account for the adjustment problems of children who witness marital violence on the basis of a complex set of interacting factors, incluctng mothers stress and coping responses, childs stress and coping responses, sibling distress, strain on the parent-child relationship, disrupted parenting practices, disrupted f d y functioning, as well as the reciprocal influence of the childs negative responses on marital and/or mother-child relationships. The task of establishing empirical support, given the large number of factors, operating singly or in combination, hnctioning as direct or indirect sources of influence, and having bidirectional influence on each other, becomes a relatively ctfficultjob.
The Trauma-AttachmentModel

The central premise of the trauma-attachment model (Dutton, 1995b; Dutton & Golant, 1995; van der Kolk, 1987,1988) is that exposure to repeated or severe episodes

CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY: SCIENCE A N D PRACTICE

V4 N4, WINTER 1997

310

of abuse and violence in their famdy of origin may contribute directly to PTSD symptomatology, the development of borderline personality features, and insecure adult attachment styles. PTSD, by definition, is the development of a specific constellation of symptoms afier experiencing, witnessing, or being confronted by a traumatic event that involves either threat to self, threatened injury, or even death of another (American Psychatric Association, 1994). These symptoms include reexperiencing the traumatic event (e.g., reactivity to internal or external cues, intrusive thoughts), avoidance of stimuli associated with the trauma, a sense of estrangement from others, loss of interest in normal activities, constricted affect, sleep disturbances, and a proclivity to hypervigdance, and outbursts of anger and aggression (American Psychiatric Association, 1994).The onset ofsymptoms may occur relatively soon afier the traumatic event, or may be delayed for years after the original trauma. When the trauma is an interpersonal event, as in the case of witnessing spousal violence or being the victim of child sexual abuse, individuals are more likely to also experience impulsive behavior, somatic complaints, shame and guilt, hostility, social withdrawal, and feeling constantly threatened (American Psychiatric Association, 1994). Van der Kolk (1987, 1988) has proposed that those male victimizers who have been victimized themselves as children may suffer tiom delayed-onset PTSD, living with enduring vigdance for and sensitivity to environmental threat. They have a tendency to react to stress with an allor-nothing response-either with unmodulated anxiety and acts of aggression or with social and emotional withdrawal. Additionally, they appear to be less able to articulate specific and ddferentiated emotions and tend to experience emotions as physical states and psychosomatic symptoms (e.g., panic attacks, rage reactions). Van der Kolk has further hypothesized that, for some individuals, childhood trauma may play a significant role in the development of borderline personality symptomatology, with clinical descriptions of trauma victims and borderline personahty being very similar in many cases. He suggests that these men have a poor capacity to modulate intimacy and dependency, and position themselves at the extremes of the dependence-independence spectrum, becoming either intensely dependent or demonstrating a distinct lack of involvement. Fear of recurrence of traumatic memories and experiences often leads to anxious relationships organized around the anticipation of abandonment. Autonomy of spouse or children is ofien experienced

with rage and helplessness, and the use of control, dominance, and physical violence is an attempt to protect against both abandonment and a range of trauma-related feelings. Probably the most detailed trauma-attachment model is that proposed by Dutton and his colleagues (Dutton, 1995b, 1995c; Dutton & Golant, 1995) to explain the developmental origins of the abusive personality in adult males and their accompanying psychologically and physically abusive behavior in intimate relationshps. Dutton proposes that domestically abusive males, particularly those whose behavior is cyclical in nature and is confined to an intimate relationship, often experience three cooccurring socialization conditions in their family of origin: (a) direct physical and emotional abuse by parents, (b) rejection and shaming by fathers, and (c) an insecure attachment to mothers. Furthermore, he proposes a developmental pathway among abused/rejected boys whereby an abusive personality emerges with (a) borderline personality organization (a less severe form than the clinical disorder; Gunderson, 1984), characterized by separation and abandonment anxiety, exaggerated interpersonal dependency, an unstable sense of self, and a view of others in either idealized or devalued terms; (b) rage, shame, and a sense of emotional vulnerabhty; (c) apprehensive and ambivalent feelings about women; and (d) PTSD symptoms, particularly anxiety, depression, and dissociative states. Adult PTSD symptomatology is seen as a direct result of early childhood abuse (particularly by fathers), but exacerbated by paternal rejection and shaming experiences (e.g., global attacks on their selfhood, humiliation, and embarrassment). Insecure adult attachment styles are presumed to develop in response to fiustrated and unmet attachment needs in childhood. Dutton has proposed that a particular form of insecure adult attachment style, a feafilly attached style, may be most closely linked to psychologically and physically abusive behavior patterns, and is characterized by a high degree of intimacy anger, hypersensitivity to rejection and abandonment, chronic anxiety, h h levels ofintexpersonal disg trust and jealousy, and affective instability. Dutton and colleagues suggest that with the feahlly attached style anger is an aspect of attachment independent of what transpires interpersonally and, when that anger is experienced, it is both blamed and projected onto the attachment object, resulting in chronic anger with the other person (Dutton, Saunders et al., 1994, p. 1380). In this regard, it is suggested that abusive and violent behavior in

CHILDHOOD PRECURSORS

FELDMAN

321

males is often triggered by internal mood states rather than by external events. Interpersonally, such an individual would be expected to duninish his anxieties about women by exaggerated control of h female partner, to mask his s emotional vulnerability by blaming his partner and others for h behavior, and to be easily triggered to outbursts of s anger and aggression by events or contexts associated with early abuse. As such a man moves &omfaded relationship to failed relationship, he creates a self-fulfilling prophesy filled with fear and loathing that leads him to expect women to be disloyal, untrustworthy, and in need of control (Dutton & Golant, 1995, p. 93). Systematic study of both PTSD and adult attachment styles in relation to domestic violence is just beginning. Regarding PTSD, the research discussed earlier by Dutton and his colleagues on psychologically and physically abusive adult males does provide initial evidence that many of these individuals have elevated PTSD symptomatology, which is associated with greater physical abuse during childhood, particularly by fathers (Dutton, 1994b, 1995a). Addtionally, van der Kolk (1987) has idenhfied child physical abuse as one source of trauma, with traumatized children displaying a range of PTSD symptomatology, including heightened aggression and imtabihty, trouble modulating aggression, and poor affect tolerance. Research with sexually abused female children, adult female survivors of chddhood sexual abuse, and female victims of adult domestic violence also shows clear and consistent evidence of the development of posttraumatic stress symptoms, with positive diagnostic rates in the 5065% range (Houskamp & Foy, 1991; Koverola, Foy, Heger, & Lytle, 1990; Rowan, Rodnguez, Gallers, & Foy, 1990). Furthermore, the research on chlldren and PTSD suggests that the likelihood of developing posttraumatic symptomatology after exposure to famiiy violence is directly influenced by the chronic nature of exposure, the actual receipt of injury, the perception of threat, a hstory of trauma, and the timing of occurrence in terms of critical developmental stages. More indirect evidence for the traumal-related aspects of the model among adult males comes &om studies showing that, in comparison to controls, domestically violent males (a) report hgher levels of arousal in response to in-vivo or viewed conflict scenarios (Dutton, 1992), (b) experience a greater generalized level of angry affect and hostde attitudes (Maiuro, Cahn, Vitaliano, Wagner, & Zegree, 1988; Margolin, John, & Gleberman, 1988; Saunders, 1992), and (c) tend to label

many forms of emotional arousal, such as hurt, fear, and jealousy, as anger (Ganley, 1981; Gondolf, 1985; Sonkin & Durphy, 1982). Regarding adult attachment and personality development, empirical research by Dutton and his colleagues (Dutton, 1995c; Dutton, Saunden et al., 1994) has found that (a) the constellation of insecure attachment style, currently experienced trauma symptoms, early abuse and rejection, and anger level correlated significantly with borderline personality organization; (b) borderline personahty organization, anger, currently experienced trauma symptoms, and jealousy correlated significantly with both verbal and physical aggression directed toward intimate female partners; and (c) feafil attachment style and borderline personality organization correlate strongly enough to suggest that borderline personality organization might well be viewed as a personality representation of h particular attachment style. Other studes s that have provided support for the attachment-related aspects of the model have shown that, in comparison to controls, domestically violent males evidence greater (a) general and spouse-specific dependency (Dutton & Browning, 1988; Hamberger & Hastings, 1986; Murphy, Meyer, & OLeary, 1994), (b) perceived personal inadequacy and perceived emotional investment in the primary relationship (Murphy et al., 1994), (c) anger in response to marital conflict vignettes depicting themes of abandonment (Dutton & Browning, 1988; Holzworth-Munroe & Anghn, 1991; Holzworth-Munroe & Hutchinson, 1993), and (d)jealousy (Saunders, 1992). At least three limitations of the trauma-attachment models discussed above are apparent. First, they do not appear to adequately address the large proportion of individuals who have been exposed to violence in their &milies of origin but do not develop PTSD or borderline personality disorder, or who experience PTSD symptomatology as children but show few signs as adults. Second, while the models provide valuable developmental explanations of males specifically, the large numbers of females exposed to family violence, particularly sexual abuse victims, are less adequately addressed. It is unclear whether females exposed to the significant trauma of chronic or severe famdy violence follow the same developmental pathway and would be expected to have sirmlar rates of adult domestic violence as males. Finally, the traumaattachment model proposed by Dutton and colleagues was designed specifically to explain one subgroup of

CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY: SCIENCE A N D PRACTICE

V 4 N4. WINTER 1997

311

domestically assaultive males, that most closely associated with the subgroup labeled dysphoric/borderline within the meta-typology developed by Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart (1994). Dutton and associates (Dutton, 1995c; Saunders, 1992) characterize these men as being violent and abusive mostly within the home; being highly psychologically abusive; having high levels of anger, depression, and jealousy; and having experienced moderate levels of abuse in childhood. Estimates are that this group represents about 30% of all assaultive males (Saunders, 1992). The applicability of the trauma-attachment model to the 70% of males associated with the two other major subtypes (i.e., family-only, generally violent/antisocial) remains unclear at this time. Based on the foregoing discussion of social learning, family disruption, and trauma-attachment models, it seems reasonable to assume that family violence affects childrens adjustment in both direct and indirect ways. Maladaptive models and observational learning, pervasive disruptions in normal development, and the long-term sequelae of exposure to psychologically traumatic events may each contribute to adult domestic violence. Moreover, these models do not appear to be contradictory, and with further work they may well prove to be htghly integrative. As Jaffe et al. (1992) note in a discussion of the preceding models, No one model at present serves to capture all of the actual and potential effects observed in research @. 89). A number of biological, psychological. fimily, and social fictors, not directly addressed by these models, have been empirically linked to the development of aggressive behavior in children. These f k 0 K include difficult temperament, high testosterone levels, poor intellectual functioning, marital conflict and dyshnction, divorce and separation, coercive parent-child interactions, parental psychopathology, and exposure to television violence, all ofwhich have been empirically linked to aggressive conduct problems in childhood and may well contribute to later domestic violence (for reviews, see DiLalla & Gottesman, 1991; Landy & Peters, 1992). The interaction of these factors and processes, as well as the impact of adult situational and interpersonal dynamics, must await further investigation.
R E S E A RCH I M P L I CAT10 N S

tice. In this section, several areas are outlined that warrant increased attention for both basic and applied research. In the following section, implications for clinical practice are addressed.
Increased Attention to the Operational Definitions of Early Exposure to Violence and Abuse

As Wolfe and McGee (1994) have noted, At the present time, most research in t h i s area has attributed the effects of various forms of child maltreatment only globally and without much differentiation among types of experience (p. 166). Manly et al. (1994) hrther note that issues related to definitions within maltreatment, especially methods of operationalizing specific forms and types of maltreatment, are still being formulated and debated within the field (p. 122). Basic differences in the definitions or criteria for early exposure affect not only estimates of its fiequency, but also critical outcome research. There is a strong need for researchers to obtain more complete information about the nature of early exposure experience in terms of multiple, key dimensions including type (i.e. witnessing, physical maltreatment, psychological maltreatment, neglect), severity, chronicity, perpetrator, and developmental period of occurrence. It is also critical that research on childhood exposure to violence and abuse move in the direction of examining more of the relationships among types of exposure. Moreover, different types of early exposure may interact in a significant manner to influence later adjustment over and above the influence of each type separately. For adult domestic violence behavior specifically, we need to better understand witnessing versus directly experiencing abuse and how each contribute to pathways that may lead to later violence. An obvious benefit of devoting greater empirical and conceptual attention to the multidimensional nature of maltreatment within the broad rubric of early exposure would be the expected gains in explanatory power. However, a secondary benefit would be to forge a stronger link between the subfields of spouse abuse and child abuse, which now have their separate literatures, service delivery systems, and social policies.
increased Attention to Understandtngthe Substantial Sex Differences Observed in Response to Eady Exposure to Violence and Abuse

The foregoing discussion of the relationship between childhood experience and adult domestic violence suggests important implications for both research and prac-

Clearly, females not only tend to develop distinctly different sequelae (i.e., internahzing vs. externalizing

CHtLDHOOD PRECURSORS

FELDMAN

323

behaviors), but do not appear to follow the same developmental pathway that ultimately leads to the fiequency and severity of adult perpetration of interpersonal violence characteristic of males. Given evidence of differential adjustment patterns following exposure to violence and abuse, it is critical that analyses of outcomes and adjustment are undertaken that address gender differences. Furthermore, conceptual models are needed that attempt to explain gender differences in both developmental pathways, as well as outcomes. Multidimensional models would be particularly usehl in considering the biological, psychological, relational, and cultural factors that may contribute to the observed Werences. Finally, female perpetrators of adult domestic violence comprise a group that has been extremely understudied and would provide invaluable information about gender-based fictors. Clinical descriptions of this group point to their research value, but systematic research is virtually nonexistent, in large part because of controversy regarding their role as selfdefending victims.
increased Attention to Both Contlnulties and Dlscontinuitles of lnterpcrsonal Vlolence and Abuse A m s the Life Span

the mechanisms that explain how stability might hold even when the topography is changing (p. 55). The methodological implications of devoting greater attention to violence and aggression throughout the life span include (a) a greater reliance on prospective, longitudinal investigations; (b) cross-sectional studies fiom many different developmental age groups; (c) research focused on later adolescence and young adulthood; and (d) a greater emphasis on analyses ofchanges over time, and the factors which contribute to one trajectory over another.
increased Attentlon to Relational Dynamics and Whole-Family Facton

In the context of the sequelae of childhood maltreatment within a developmental perspective, Cicchetti and Toth (1995) note that one cannot help noting the absence of data that trace development fiom i n h c y or childhood into adulthood @. 560). Furthermore, whde a large body of research exists on childhood aggressive problems, the links among chddhood, adolescence, and adult processes and dynamics in violence are characterized by substantial knowledge gaps. In her review of the intergenerational transmission of violence, Widom (1 989) notes that of the studies that focus on violent behavior [as an outcome], most do not address the long-term consequences of early abuse and neglect. Few have traced the effects of abuse through adulthood @. 6). Filling in the specific knowledge gaps fiom adolescence through young adulthood, in particular, would have substantialbenefits for understanding adult domestic violence behavior fiom a developmental perspective. Both peer and romantic relationships that become increasingly salient during later adolescence are particularly important. In a review of developmental changes in childrens aggressivebehavior, Patterson (1992) found high stability over time but changes in the form and intensity of aggressive behavior and their settings. Patterson proposes that the task for researchers is to identify

Domestic violence, whether between parent and child or between adult partners, by definition occurs in the context of an intimate relationship. Yet research has often been focused at the individual level (e.g., precursors or sequelae of abuse), rather than at a more relational and family level of investigation. Wolfe and McGee (1994), along with many other researchers, have noted that abuse experiences in ones M y of origin create a vulnerability for hture victimization by others, as well as a propensity to use power and control as a means of resolving conflict. Despite this expanding knowledge of the overall impact of maltreatment, these phenomena have seldom been studied comprehensively and interactively in relation to adolescent adjustment @. 166). A tamily relational perspective could expand our focus in at least two ways. First, employing social-interactional models of M y dynamics would facilitate our examination of other potential childhood precursors of adult domestic violence influencing childrens development and interpersonal functioning beyond exposure. These tictors might include mothers functioning, parental rejection, f a d y environment, family conflict, parental disciplining and monitoring practices, and parent-child relationship development. The importance of many of these variables is suggested by the M y disruption model discussed earlier, and the programmatic work of Patterson and his associates on f d y coercion theory (Patterson, Reid, & Dishion, 1992). Second, attention to relational dynamics and whole-family factors would help to expand the unit of analysis to include the dyad and larger social systems. The traumaattachment models discussed earlier hghhghted the relational nature of domestic violence in terms of both etiology and adult maintenance. An increased focus on the assessment and analysis of dysfunctionalinterpersonal pat-

CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGI: SCIENCE AND PRACTICE * V4 N4, WINTER 1997

324

terns throughout the life span could, therefore, hold great promise for understanding domestic violence in terms of the intimate context withm which it takes place.
Increased Attention to the Mediating Processes That Both Are Responsible for the Deleterious Effects and Serve to Buffer the Child From Those Effects

In a review of the area of childhood exposure to domestic violence and abuse, Cicchetti and Toth (1995) state that it is imperative that research generated &om main effect models of maltreatment be replaced by investigations that examine the processes . . . that exacerbate the difficulties or serve to moderate the adverse consequences associated with child maltreatment (p. 560). At least three directions are important to adequately address this issue. First, the large majority of research has been outcome oriented rather than process oriented, reflected in a lack of empirical knowledge about most of the explanatory models presented earlier. It is critical to investigate and test those theoretical explanatory b e w o r k s that attempt to elucidate the causal pathways leadmg to a variety of deleterious outcomes over the life span. An exception is the modeling and reinforcement components of social learning theory, which have been investigated substantially. However, much less is known empirically about the mediating cognitive processes, the internal working models of adult attachment styles, and the assigned meanings and perceptions associated with domestic violence and abuse events. Also,while research has most often focused on aggressive and conduct disorder behaviors as outcomes of early exposure, an increased focus on depression, withdrawal, anxiety, low self-esteem, social competence, and suicidal behavior can hold much promise in elucidating the processes that contribute to adverse, long-term outcomes, including later domestic violence. In particular, the role that posttraumatic stress symptoms plays in adult domestic violence and abusive behavior, and PTSDs relationship to Axis 11 pathology (e.g., borderhe personality disorder) need to be addressed. The set of factors discussed above appear to be important in explaining the longer term, deleterious outcomes that remain long after the physical wounds are healed. A second dwection for research that holds promise in elucidating the processes contributing to later outcomes is the investigation of reshent hnctioning. A particularly important focus of research would be those individuals who are exposed but do not go on to reenact the pattern as adults. Research in understanding modi-

fiable resiliency factors (e.g., social support, coping strategies), in addition to the protective dispositional attributes of the child, would substantially inform clinical practice regarding how and when to intervene clinically. A final direction for research involves the context of developmental impact. As Wolfe et al. (1992) state, Maltreatment represents major disruptive events in the childs development that have a predictable outcome only if considered in relation to the childs particular developmental stage and situational influences (p. 33). To truly understand the processes and mechanisms mediating longer term outcomes and adaptations, the field must increase its effort to assess information regarding the impact of the timing of the exposure on the childs and adolescents development. This is important for three reasons outlined by Shirk (1988):(a) the impact may differ as a result ofthe developmental tasks or developmentally critical periods the child and adolescent is facing at the time of exposure, (b) the impact may differ as a result of developmentally specific cognitive abilities of children and adolescents that affect their appraisal ofthe event(s),and (c) the impact may differ as a result of differences in the forms of symptom expression specific to the current stage of development. Clearly, prospective, longitudlnal research strategies would be most effective in examining these three domains, but cross-sectional designs measuring the developmental period at exposure, and the intervening time between exposure episodes and the childs hnctioning would be extremely usehl.
Increased Attention to Current Typologies of Adult Domestic Violence

As Saunders (1993) notes, For many years the goal of most researchers, policy makers, and practitioners has been to derive a uniform profile of the wife assaulter and to apply interventions to this unitary, average assaulter. Few exceptions could be found to this unitary approach. . . . Through research and clinical experience, we have learned that there are some major differences among violent husbands (p. 27). Currently, various h e n s i o n s of childhood exposure (e.g., type, intensity, sequelae) represent a key distinguishing criteria within the current empirical typologies. However many questions remain. It is unclear, for example, if the family-only, borderline/dysphoric, and antisocial subtypes are characterized merely by Merent levels of exposure, or by different mechanisms and pathways as well. Additionally, in the lit-

CHILDHOOD PRECURSORS * FELDMAN

325

erature on family violence, we often operate as if there are two distinct and different research populations and agenda, one focused on conduct-disordered and antisocial behavior, and the other on domestically violent and abusive behavior. Increased attention to the dynamics of childhood exposure withn typologies of adult domestic violence will enhance our understanding of the etiology of within-fady versus outside of h l y aggression. The current typologies already reflect an important integration whereby dstinctly dfferent subgroups are conceptualized as being a part ofa broader population with common etiologic underpinning, such as early childhood exposure to violence and abuse. Overall, there remains a critical need to refine and test empirical typologies, to develop assessment techniques for their use in clinical settings, and to evaluate multiple treatment responses applied to multiple client profiles.
C L I NICA L I M P L ICAT I0N I

Within the realm of clinical practice, the weight of the current knowledge regarding early socialization experience and later adult domestic violence points to two areas warranting increased attention: (a) the benefits of increased attention to early socialization experience in the treatment of adults who are domestically violent, and (b) the need for early prevention and intervention programs with children and adolescents. As a consequence of the fiequency and social impact of violence between adult intimate partners, increased pressure has been placed on the legal system to mandate treatment, and on the treatment community to institute effective intervention programs. Currently, the large majority of treatment programs for adult domestic violence perpetrators focus on the concurrent, proximal determinants and correlates of the problem, and are based on social learning principles. The most commonly employed treatment approach is hghly behavioral and skd-oriented in nature, with a strong emphasis on anger management and control strategies (Edleson, 1990; Rosenfeld, 1992). An alternative approach emphasizes that domestic violence is a social problem embedded in a sexist patriarchal social structure (Gondolf, 1985; Pence & Paymar, 1993). The central thrust of this approach has been on prompting men to confiont patriarchy, sex-role stereotyping, and the objectification of women through resocialization and accountability (i.e., compensation). In either case, both approaches fiil to adequately acknowledge and address the

kinds of childhood socialization experiences that characterize this population, and that have contributed to the victimization of those, in particular, who are now seen exclusively as perpetrators. Strengthening the attention given to early exposure and victimization in programs for adult males, as well as adult females, could serve to enhance (a) client recognition of their own role as victims in childhood; (b) client awareness and understanding of the rules, assumptions, and attributions developed in association with early experiences (e.g., you cant trust people); (c) the level of client empathy toward those whom they have victimized; (d) attention to problems of poor self-esteem, poor self-efficacy, and poor social support networks; (e) the diagnosis of trauma-related clinical symptoms and dsorders; and (0 the intergenerational nature of abuse and violence. A number of researchers and clinicians have advocated, and offered specific recommendations regarding, matching treatment modahties with typologies of domestic violence perpetrators (Dutton, 1995c; HoltzworthMunroe, & Stuart, 1994; Saunders, 1993). Specifically, knowledge of early exposure and its developmental impact could substantially aid in matching treatment modahties to clients, as it has aided in the creation of the typologies themselves. Based on the recommendations of those authors noted above, one might conceive of relatively short-term, psychoeducational treatment for those individuals with minimal early exposure to violence, relatively less severe adult violence and abuse restricted to the family context only, and a moderately high level of remorse and desire for change. Emphasis in intervention would most probably be on domestic violence education, behavioral techniques such as time-out, receptive and expressive communication skills training, relaxation training, and egalitarian sex-role attitudes. A more prolonged, intensively focused treatment modality would target those individuals with moderate to severe interpartner violence and abuse, more severe history of abuse, evidence of intense jealousy and/or dependency, posttraumatic symptomatology, and other personality problems likely associated with early trauma. Emphasis in intervention would most probably be on psychological in addtion to physical abuse, modfjmg chronic, destructive interpersonal patterns associated with personahty problems, substance abuse issues, and healing childhood traumas. A third intervention modality might be focused on individuals with a history of both in-home and out-of-home aggression,

CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY: SCIENCE AND PRACTICE

V4 N4, WINTER 1997

326

severe childhood trauma, little empathy and remorse for victims, and possibly antisocial personality symptomatology. Long-term therapy would be indicated for some members of this group, with a strong emphasis on legal and criminal sanctions for those whose antisocial behavior suggests that it is relatively resistant to psychological treatment. Given a stronger awareness of the history ofwitnessing and/or being the victim of early abuse, sensitivity would likely be heightened to the importance of assessing posttraumatic stress symptomatology and borderline personality problems. Although these clinical issues are important in their own right, there is mounting evidence of h g h rates of comorbidity of PTSD with substance abuse, anxiety disorders, depression, and both borderline and antisocial personality disorders (Bifulco, Brown, & Adler, 1991; Grice, Brady, Dustan, Malcolm, & Kilpatrick, 1994; van der Kolk & Herman, 1987). Greater attention to early exposure to violence and abuse among adult perpetrators would allow current treatments to expand their traditional cognitive-behavioral and patriarchal power and control orientations in order to address certain problematic behaviors among this population (e.g., anger level, controlling behavior) &om a different etiologic perspective. The efficacy of current treatments for domestically violent individuals has been the focus of several comprehensive reviews (Feldman & Ridley, 1995; Rosenfeld, 1992; Tolman & Bennett, 1990). The vast majority of treatment outcome studies have evaluated group interventions for male perpetrators, with a fir smaller number evaluating the efficacy of couples approaches. To date, the large majority of these programs can be characterized as cognitive-behavioral, social learning approaches (Edelson, 1990; Rosenfeld, 1992; Tolman & Bennett, 1990). One exception is a study by Shepard (1992) that evaluated a treatment approach emphasizing patriarchal power and control. Based on the available empirical data, Feldman and Ridley (1995) conclude that treatment does significantly reduce the level of physical violence, although it does not terminate it in many cases, nor does it terminate more subtle psychological forms ofabuse @. 337). However, substantialmethodologic weaknesses currently characterize the treatment outcome literature, particularly in the areas of experimental and case control (e.g., lack of random assignment, lack of control groups), and outcome measurement criteria and assessment (e.g., recidivism as sole outcome criterion; Feldman & Ridley, 1995; Rosen-

feld, 1992). There is a dearth ofempirical data documenting the relative efficacy ofone particular approach, format, and modality over another. Furthermore, there are currently no controlled outcome studies that directly address the question of differential response to treatment for different subtypes of domestic violence perpetrators (Saunders, 1993). Therefore, an empirical answer to the relatively complex question of what works best with whom, under what circumstances, and for what level or type of violence remains largely unknown. As Dutton (1995~) recently noted, The evolution of diagnosis of spousal assault into more differentiated categories with dfferential etiologies has yet to be matched by parallel developments in treatment @. 221). The second area warranting increased attention is prevention and intervention efforts directed at the children of domestically violent adults. In contrast to child abuse victims, there has been a general lack of attention to this group due, in part, to the fict that knowledge of the o effects on children of witnessing family violence is s new. Although much still remains to be learned regarding childhood precursors of adult domestic violence and the mechanisms of intergenerationaltransmission of violence, on a long-term basis these children clearly are at greater risk of becoming the next generation of perpetrators of domestic violence toward spouses and children. Unfortunately, such children ofien come to the attention of mental health practitioners during adolescence when their aggressiveand antisocial behavior is severe enough to warrant intervention by the school system or the police. In addition to targeting chlldren for intervention subsequent to being exposed to a recent domestic violence episode in the home, the timing of prevention efforts might also be judcious when adolescents are entering first romantic relationships,and during the premarital period for couples considering marriage. Working with children to end the cycle of violence requires the development and implementation of primary prevention efforts, which are now all too rare (Ammerman & Hersen, 1990; Wolfe et al., 1992).
CONCLUSION

There is little question that early sociahation experience is directly implicated in the development of later adult domestic violence. However, a Me-span perspective on the developmental effects of early exposure to family violence and abuse would caution against expecting simple,

CHILDHOOD PRECURSORS

FELDMAN

327

direct relationships between exposure and specific patterns or forms of sequelae in later life (Stan, MacLean, & Keating, 1991). Clearly, a variety of developmental and situational factors moderate both the sequelae and the intergenerational transmission of the problem. T h e study of domestic violence, however, still suffers &om flagmented streams of research, one focused on adults and the pragmatic issues of clinical treatment, and the other focused on children and the deleterious effects of exposure. Viewing the problem &om a life-span developmental perspective serves to sharpen our integrative focus, addressing the interface between clinical and developmental issues, and addressing primary prevention and intervention as equally important in mitigating the intergenerational transmission of domestic violence.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I express appreciation to Rosanne Crag0 and Drs. Carl Ridley and Hal Arkowitz for their valuable contributions to earlier
M S .

REFERENCES

Achenbach, T. (1990). Conceptualization of developmentalpsychopathology. In M. Lewis & S. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of developmental psychopathology (pp. 3-13). New Y r :Plenum ok Press. Achenbach, T.. & Edelbrock, C. S. (1983).ManualJor the child behavior checklist and rm'sed child behavior profile. Burlington, VT: University Associates in Psychiatry. Group treatment ofchildren in Alessi,J. J., & Hearn, K. (1984). shelters for battered women. In A. R.Roberts (Ed.), Battered mmen and theirfamilies @p. 49-61). New Y r Springer. ok Diagnosticandstatistical American Psychiatric Association. (1994). manual amental disorders (4th ed.). Washington,DC :Author. Ammerman, R.T., & Hersen. M. (1990).Issues in the assessment and treatment of family violence. In R.T. Ammerman & H. Hersen (Eds.), Treatment offamily violence: A sourcebook (pp. 3-14). New Y r Plenum Press. ok Habitual violence: A proBach-y-Rita, G., & Veno, A. (1974). file of62 men. Americanjour~lofPsydriahy, 131,1015-1017. Bandura, A. (1973).Aggression: A social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Social learning theory. Englewood CliAs, NJ: Bandura, A. (1977). Prentice-Hall. The Bandura, A. (1979). social learningperspective: Mechanism of aggression. In H. Toch (Ed.), Psychology ofm'me andm'minal Justice. New Y & Holt, Fbnehart, &Winston. o Social foundations ofthought and action: A Bandura, A. (1986). social cognitive theory. Englewood C W , NJ: Prentice-Hall. Barling, J., O'Leary, K.D., Jouriles, E.N., Vivian, D., &

MacEwen, K. E. (1987). Factor sirmlarity of the CTS across samples, spouses, and sites. journal of Family Violence, 2, 37-54. Barnett, D., Manly,J. T., & Cicchetti, D. (1993). Defining child maltreatment: The interface between policy and research. In D. Cicchetti & S. L. Toth (Eds.), Child abuse, child dwelopment, and socialpolicy (pp. 7-74). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Child maltreatment:An ecological integration. Belsky,J. (1980). American Psychologist, 35, 320-335. Bifulco, A., Brown, G. E., & Adler, Z.(1991) Early sexual abuse and clinical depression in adult life. Britishjournal ofpsychiatry, 159,115-122. Bograd, M. (1988).Feminist perspectives on wife abuse: An introduction. In K. Yl & M. Bograd (Eds.),Feministperspeclo tives on w$e abuse (pp. 11-26). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Bowker, L., Arbitel, M., & McFerron, J. (1988).On the relationship between wife beating and child abuse. In K. Yllo & M. Bograd (Eds.), Feminist perspectives on w i j abuse @p. 158174).Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Establishing batterer typolCadsky, 0..& Crawford, M. (1988). oges in a clinical sample of men who assault their female f partners. Canadian Journal o Community Mental Health, 7, 119-127. Caesar, P. L. (1988). Exposure to violence in the family of orign among wife abusers and maritally non-violent men. Violence and Victims, 3,49-63. Caliso, J. A., & Milner,J. S. (1992). Childhood history of abuse and child abuse screening. Child Abuse 6 Neglect, 16, 647-659. Cantos, A. L., Neidig, P. H., & O'Leary, K. D. (1994). Injuries ofwomen and men in a treatment program for domestic violence. Family Violence, 9,113-124. Carlson, B. E. (1984).Children's observations of interparental violence. In A. 2.Roberts (Ed.), Battered mmen and theirjamiliec @p. 147-167). New York: Springer. . Victims ofvioCarmen, E. H., Reiker, P. P,& Mills, T (1984). lence and psychiatric illness. Amwimn journal of Psychiatry, 141,378-383. Cascard~, & O'Leary, K. D. (1992).Depressive symptomM., atology. self-esteem, and self-blame in battered women.]ourM I ofFamily Violence, 7 249-259. , Christopoulos, C., Cohn, D. A., Shaw, D. S., Joyce, S., Sullivan-Hanson, J., Kraft, S.P., & Emery, R.E. (1987). Children of abused women: Adjustment at time of shelter residence.joum1 ofMamage and the Family, 49,611-619. Cicchetti, D. (1989).How research on child maltreatment has informed the study of child development: Perspectives &om developmentalpsychopathology. In D. Cicchetti & V. CarlE s ) Child malheatment: 7heory and research on the causes son ( d . . and consequences ofchild abuse and negkct @p. 377-431). New Y r Cambridge University Press. ok

CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY: SCIENCE AND PRACTICE

V4 N4, WINTER 1997

338

Cicchetti, D., & Barnett. D. (1991). Toward the development of a scientific nosology of child maltreatment. In W. Grove & D. Cicchetti (Eds.), Thinking clearly about psychology: Essays in honor of Paul E. Meehl: Vol. 2. Personality and psychopathology (pp. 346-377). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Cicchetti, D., & Carlson, V. (Eds.). (1989). Child maltreatment: Theory and research on the causes and consequencesofchild abuse and neglect. New York: Cambridge University Press. Cicchetti, D., & Rizley, R. (1981). Developmental perspectives on the etiology, intergenerational transmission, and sequelae of child maltreatment. New Directionsfor Child Development, 1 1 , 31-35. Cicchetti, D., & Toth, S. L. (1995). A developmental psychopathology perspective on child abuse and neglect. Journal of American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 34, 541-565. Covell, D., & Abramovitch, R. (1987). Understanding emotion in the family: Childrens and parents attributions of happiness, sadness, and anger. Child Development, 58, 985-991. Crittenden, P. M., & Ainsworth, M. D. (1989). Child maltreatment and attachment theory. In D. Ciccheta & V. Carlson (Eds.), Child maltreatment: Theory and research on the causes and consequences ofchild abuse and neglect (pp. 432-463). New York: Cambridge University Press. Cummings, E. M., lannotti, R. J., & Zahn-Waxler, C. (1985). Influence of conflict between adults on the emotions and aggression of young children. Developmental Psychology, 21, 495-507. Davidson, T. (1978). Conjugal crime: Understanding and changing the wife beating pattern. New York: Hawthorn. DiLalla, L. F., & Gottesman, I. I. (1991). Biological and genetic contributors to violence-Widoms untold tale. Psychological Bullefin, 109, 125-129. Dobash, R. E., & Dobash, R. P. (1988). Research as social action: The struggle for battered women. In K. Yllo & M. Bograd (Eds.), Feminist perspectives on t @ abuse (pp. 51-74). u Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Dodge, K. A. (1986). A social information processing model of social competence in children. In M. Perhutter (Ed.), Minnesota symposium on child psychology (Vol. 18, pp. 77-125). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E. & Pettit, G. S. (1990). Mechanisms in the cycle ofviolence. Science, 250, 1678-1683. Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., Bates, J. E.. & Valente, E. (1995). Social information-processing patterns partially mediate the effect of early physical abuse on later conduct problems.journu1 ofAbnomal Psychology, 104, 1-12. Dutton, D. G. (1986). The outcome of court-mandated treatment for wife-assault: A quasi-experimental evaluation. Violence and Victims, l , 163-175. Dutton, D. G. (1992). Theoretical and empirical perspectives on

the etiology and prevention of wife assault. In R. V. Peters, R. J. McMahan, & V. L. Quinsey (Eds.), Aggression and uiolence throughout the Igespan (pp. 192-221). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Dutton, D. G. (1994a). Behavioral and affective correlates of borderline personahty organization in wife assaulters. InternutionalJournal o f h w and Psychiatry, 17, 265-277. Dutton, D. G. (1994b). The origin and structure of the abusive personahty.Journu1 ofPersonulity Disorders, 8, 181-191. Dutton, D. G. (1995a). Trauma symptoms and PTSD profiles in perpetrators of abuse.journa1o Traumatic Stress, 8, 299-316. f Dutton, D. G. (1995b). The domesticassault ofwomen: Psychological and niminaljusticeperspectives (2nd ed.). Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. Dutton, D. G. (1995~). Intimate abusiveness. Clinical Psychology: Science and Pructice, 2 , 207-224. Dutton, D. G., & Browning, J. J. (1988). Power struggles and intimacy anxieties as causative factors of violence in intimate relationships. In G. Russell (Ed.), Violence in intimate relationships (pp. 64-86). Great Neck, N Y :PMA Publishing. Dutton, D. G., & Golant, S. K. (1995). The barterer: Apsychologicalprofile. New York: Basic Books. Dutton, D. G., Saunden, K., Stanomski,A,, & Bartholomew, K. (1994). Intimacy anger and insecure attachment as precursors of abuse in intimate relationships.journa1 ofApplied Social Psychology, 2 4 , 1367-1386. Dutton, D. G., van Ginkel, C., & Stanomski,A. (1994). The role ofshame and guilt in the intergenerational transmission ofabusiveness. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia. Edleson, J. L. (1990).Judgmg the success of interventions with men who batter. In D. J. Besharov (Ed.), Family violence: Research and public policy issues @p. 130-145). New York: AEI Press. Egeland, B. (1993). A history of abuse is a major risk factor for abusing the next generation. In R. J. Gelles & D. R. Loseke (Eds.), Current controversies on family violence (pp. 197-208). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Egeland, B., Jacobvitz, D., & Sroufe, L. A. (1988). Breakmg the cycle of abuse. Child Development, 59, 1080-1088. Emery, R. E. (1982). Interparental conflict and the children of discord and divorce. Psychological Bulletin, 9 2 , 310-330. Fagan, J. A,, Stewart, D. K., & Hansen, K. V. (1983). Violent men or violent husbands? Background factors and situational correlates. In D. Finkelhor, R. J. Gelles, G. T. Hotaling, & M. A. Straus (Eds.), The dark side of)milies: Currentfamily Violence research (pp. 49-68). Beverly Hills, C A Sage. Fantuzzo. J. W., & Lindquist, C. U. (1989). The effects of observing conjugal violence on children: A review of research methodology.journal ofFamily Violence, 4 , 77-94. Feldman, C. M., & Ridley, C. A. (1995). The etiology and

CHILDHOOD PRECURSORS

FELDMAN

319

treatment of domestic violence between adult partners. Cliriical Psychology: Scietue and Practice, 2, 317-348. Ferraro, K. J., &Johnson, J. M. (1983). How women experience battering: The process of victimization. Social Problems, 30, 325-339. Foy, D. W., Osato, S. S, Houskamp, B. M., & Neumann, D. A. (1992). Etiology of posttraumatic stress disorder. In P. A. Saigh (Ed.), Posttraumatic stress disorder: A behavioral approach to as~essment treatment. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. and GanIey, A. L. (1981). Participants manual: Court-mandated therapy for men who batter. Washington, DC : Center for Womens Policy Studies. Garmezy, N. (1983). Stressors of childhood. In N. Garmezy & M. Rutter (Eds.), Stress, coping and development in children (pp. 43-84). New York: McGraw-Hill. Gelles, R. (1976). Family violence. Beverly H~lls, CA: Sage. Gelles, R. (1987). The violent home (rev. ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Gelles, R. (1993). Through a sociological lens: Social structure and family violence. In R. Gelles & D. R.Loseke (Eds.), J. Current controversies on family violence (pp. 31-46). Newbury Park, CA. Sage. Gelles, R . J., & Straus, M. A. (1979). Determinants of violence in the family: Toward a theoretical integration. In W. R . Burr, R . Hill. F. I. Nye, & I. L. Reiss (Eds.), Contemporary theories about thefamily @p. 549-581). New York: Free Press. Gondolf, E. W. (1985). Men who batter: An integrated approach for stopping wiie abuse. Holmes Beach, CA: Learning Publications.

Grice, D. E., Brady, K. T., Dustan, L. R., Malcolm, R., & Kilpatrick, D. G. (1995). Sexual and physical assault history and posttraumatic stress disorder in substance-dependent individuals. The American Journal On Additions, 4, 297-305. Gunderson, J. G. (1984). Borderlinepersonality disorder. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press. Hamberger, L. K., & Hastings, J. E. (1986). Personality correlates of men who abuse their partners: A cross-validation study.Journal ofFamily Violence, 1, 37-49. Harstone, E., & Hansen, K. V. (1984). The violent juvenile offender: An empirical portrait. In R.A. Mathias (Ed.), Violent juvenile ofenders: An anthology @p. 83-1 12). San Francisco, CA: National Council on Crime and Delinquency. Hershorn, M., & Rosenbaum, A. (1991). Over- vs. under controlled hostility: Application of the construct to the classification of maritally violent men. Violence and Victims, 6, 151-158. Holden, G. W., & Ritchie, K. L. (1991). Linking extreme marital discord, child rearing and child behavior problems: Evidence from battered women. Child Development, 6,311-327. Holtzworth-Munroe, A. (1988). Causal attributions in marital

violence: Theoretical and methodological issues. Clinical Psychology Reoieuj, 8, 331-344. Holtzworth-Munroe, A. (1 992). Attributions and maritally violent men: The role of cognitions in marital violence. In J. Harvey, T. Orbuch, & A. L. Weber (Eds.), Attributions, accounts, and close relationships @p. 165-175). New York: Springer. Holtzworth-Munroe, A,, & Anghn, K. (1991). The competency of responses given by maritally violent versus nonviolent men to problematic marital situations. Violence and Victims, 6, 257-269. Holtzworth-Munroe, A., & Hutchinson, G. (1993). Attributing negative intent to wife behavior: The attributions ofmaritally violent versus nonviolent men.Journa1 ojAbnorma1Psychology, 102, 206-2 11. Holtzworth-Munroe, A., & Stuart, L. (1994). Typologies of male batteren: Three subtypes and the differences among them. Psychological Bulletin. 1 16, 476-497. Hotaling, G. T., Straus, M. A,, &Lincoln, A. (1989). lntrafady violence and crime and violence outside the fsmily. In L. Ohlin & M. Tonry (Eds.), Family violence: L1 2. Crime and 4. Justice: A review ofresearch (pp. 315-375). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Hotaling, G. T., & Sugarman, D. B. (1986). An analysis of risk markers in husband to wife violence: The current state of knowledge. Violence and Victims, 1, 1986. Hotaling, G. T., & Sugarman, D. B. (1990). Prevention of wife assault. In R. T. Ammerman & H. Hersen (Eds.), Treatment ojFumily Violence: A sourcebook (pp. 3-14). New York: Plenum Press. Houskamp, B. M., & Foy, D. W. (1991). The assessment ofposttraumatic stress disorder in battered women. Journal o Interf personal Violence, 6, 306-320. Houskamp, B. M., Foy, D. W., & Baranoff, E. C. (1989, October). The assessment oj post-traumatic stress disorder in battered women. Paper presented at the convention of the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies, San Francisco. Howell, M., & Pugliesi, K. (1988). Husbands who harm: Predicting spousal violence by men. Journal o Family Violence, f 3, 15-27. Hudson, W. W. (1992). The W A W R assessment scales scoring manual. Tempe, AZ: WALMYR Publishing. Huesmann, L. R., Eron, L. D., Lefkowitz, M. M., & Walder, L. 0. (1984). Stability of aggression over time and generations.Journa1 $Abnormal Psychology, 20, 1120-1 134. Hughes, H. M. (1986). Research with children in shelters: Implications for clinical services. Children Today, 21-25. Hughes, H. (1988). Psychologcal and behavioral correlates of family violence in child witnesses and victims. Americanjournal of Orthopsychiatry, 58, 77-90.

CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGk SCIENCE A N D PRACTICE

V 4 N 4 , WINTER 1997

330

Hughes, H. M.. & Barad, S. J. (1983). Psychologcal functioning of children in a battered womens shelter: A preliminary investigation. American Jourrial of Orthopsychiatry, 5 3 , 525531. Hughes, H., Parhnson, D., & Vargo, M. (1989). Witnessing spouse abuse and experiencing physical abuse: A double wammy?Joitmal cf Family Violence, 4 , 197-209. Hunter, R.S., & Kilstrom, N. (1979). B r e k n g the cycle in abusive families. Ammcan Journal of Psychiatry, 136, 13201322. Jaffe, P. G., Sudermann, M., & Reitzel, D. (1992). Workingwith children and adolescents to end the cycle ofviolence: A social learning approach to intervention and prevention programs. In R. Peters, R. J. McMahan, & V. L. Quinsey (Eds.), Aggression and violence throughout the /@span (pp. 83-99). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. J d e , I?, Wolfe, D., & Wilson, S. (1990). Childreri of battered women. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. JafFe, P., Wolfe, D., Wilson, S., & Slusczarzck, M. (1986). Family violence and child adjustment: A comparative analysis of girls and boys behavioral symptoms. AmericanJournal oJPsychiatry, 143, 74-77. JafFe, I?, Wolfe, D., Wilson, S., & Zak, L. (1986). Emotional and physical health problems of battered women. Canadian Journal ofPsychiatry, 3 1, 625-629. Jounles, E. N., Murphy, C. M., & OLeary, K. D. (1989). Interspousal aggression, marital dlscord, and child problems. Journal o Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57, 453-455. f Kalmuss. D. (1984). The intergenerational transmission ofmarital aggression. The Journal o Marriage and the Family, 4 6 , f 11-20. Kauhan, J., & Cicchetti, D. (1989). Effects ofmaltreatment on school-age childrens socio-emotional development: Assessments in a day-camp setting. Developmental Psychology, 25, 5 16-524. Kauhan, J., & Zigler, E. (1987). Do abused children become abusive parents? American Journal of Whopsychiatry, 57, 186-192. Kazdin, A. (1989). Developmental psychopathology: Current research, issues, and directions. American Psychologist, 44, 180-187. Kazdln, A., Moser, J, Colbus, D., & Bell, R.(1985). Depressive symptoms among physically abused and psychiatrically disturbed children. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 9 4 , 298-307. Koss, J. I?, Woodruff, W. J., & Koss, P. G. (1990). Relation of criminal victimization to health perceptions among women medical patients. Journal of Consulting and Cliniral Psychology, 58, 147-152. Koverola, C., Foy, E. W., Heger, A,, & Lytle, C. (1990, Octo-

ber). Relatiotiship 4P T S D to sexual abuse traurna assessed by medicalfitidirigs arid child disclosure. Paper presented at the convention of the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies, New Orleans. Kurt, D. (1993). Physical assaults by husbands: A major social problem. In R. Gelles & D. R.Loseke (Eds.), Current conJ. troversies onfamily violence (pp. 88-103). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Kurz, D. (1993). Physical assaults by husbands: A major social problem. In R. Gelles & D. R.Loseke (Eds.), Currerit m i J. troversies onfamily violence (pp. 88-103). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Kurz, D., & Stark, E. (1988). Not so benign neglect: The medical response to battering. In K. Yllo 6i M. Bograd (Eds.), Femiriist perspectives on wije abuse @p. 249-266). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Landy, S., & Peters, R.V. (1992). Toward an understanding of a developmental paradigm for aggressive conduct problems during the preschool years. In R.V. Peters, R. McMaJ. han, & V. L. Quinsey (Eds.), Aggressiori and violetice throughout the lifespan @p. 1-30). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Lewis, D. O., Shanok, S. S., Pincus, J. H., & Glaser. G. H. (1979). Violent juvenile delinquents: Psychiatric, neurological, psychological and abuse factors. Journal of the Americati Academy ofchild Psychiatry, 18, 307-319. Loeber, R. (1982). The stability of antisocial and delinquent child behavior: A review. Child Development, 53, 1431-1 446. Lowrey, S. A,, & DeFleur, M. L. (1988). Milestoties in mass communication research: Media effects (2nd ed.). New York: Longman. Main, M., & George, C. (1985). Responses ofabused and disadvantaged toddlers to distress in agemates: A study in the day care setting. Developmental Psychology, 2 1, 407-412. Main, M., & Goldwyn, R. (1984). Predicting rejection of her infant from mothers representation of her own experience: Implications for the abused-abusing intergenerational cycle. Child Abuse and Neglect, 8, 203-207. Maiuro, R.D., Cahn, T. S., Vitaliano, P. P., Wagner, B. C., & Zegree, J. B. (1988). Anger, hostility, and depression in domestically violent versus generally assaultive men and nonviolent control subjects. Journal ofConsultitg arid Clinical Psychology, 56, 17-23. Manly, J. T., Cicchetti, D., & Barnett. D. (1994). The impact of subtype, frequency, chronicity, and severity of child maltreatment on social competence and behavior problems. Development and Psychopathology, 6, 121-143. Margolin, G., John, R.S., & Gleberman, L. (1988). Affective responses to conflictual discussions in violent and nonviolent couples. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 24-33.

CHILDHOOD PRECURSORS

FELDMAN

331

Marshall, L. L. (1992a). The severity of violence against men scales.Journal ojFamily Violewe, 7, 189-203. Marshall, L. L. (1992b).Development ofthe severity ofviolence against women scales.Jourtra1 ofFamily Violence, 7, 103-121. McCloskey. L. A., Figueredo, A. J., & Koss,M. P (1995). The effects of systemic family violence on chddrens mental health. Child Development, 66, 1239-1261. McGee, R . A,, Wolfe, R . A,. & Wilson, S. K. (1990).A record of maltreatment experiences. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Psychology, University of Western Ontario & The Institute for the Prevention of Child Abuse. Mills, T. (1985). The assault on the self: Stages in coping with battering husbands. Qualitative Sociology, 8, 103-1 23. Milner. J. S., Robertson, K. R., & Rogers, D. L. (1990).Childhood history of abuse and adult child abuse potential.Journa1 ofFamily Violence, 5, 15-34. Murphy, C. M, Meyer, S., & OLeary, K. D. (1993). Farmly of origm violence and MCMI-I1 psychopathology among partner assaultive men. Violence and Victims, 8, 165-175. Murphy, C. M, Meyer, S., & OLeary, K. D. (1994). Dependency characteristics of partner assaultive men. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103, 729-735. Murphy, C. M., & OLeary, K. D. (1989).Psychological aggression predicts physical aggression in early marriage.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 5 7 , 579-582. OLeary, D. K., Barling, J., Arias, I., Rosenbaum, A., Malone, J., & Tyree, A. (1989). Prevalence and stability of physical aggression between spouses: A longitudinal analysis. Journal ofConsulting and Clinical Psychology, 5 7 , 263-268. Pagelow, M. (1981). Women battering: Victims and their experiences. Beverly Hls CA: Sage. il, Pagelow, M. D. (1984). Family violenre. New York: Praeger. Pan, H., Neidig, P H., & OLeary, K. D. (1994). Male-female . and aggressor-victim differences in the factor structure ofthe modified Conflict Tactics scale. Journal .f ~ntetpersonal Viol e m , 9,366-382. Patterson, G. R . (1992). Developmental changes inantisocial behavior. In R.V. Peters, R. J. McMahan, & V. L. Quinsey (Eds.), Aggression and violence throughout the l@span @p. 5282). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Patterson, G. R., Reid, J. B., & Dishion, T. J. (1992). A social interactional approach: Vol. 4. Antisocial boys. Eugene, OR: Castalia. Pence, E .& Paymar, M. (1993). Educationgroupsfor men who bat. ter: 7 h e Duluth model. New York: Springer. Perris, C., Jacobson, L., Lindstrom, H., von b o n i n g , L., & Perris, H. (1980). Development of a new inventory for assessing memories of parental rearing behavior. Acta Psychiatriia Scandinavica, 61, 265-274. Ptacek, J. (1988). Why do men batter their wives? In K. Yllo &

M. Bograd (Eds.), Feminist perspectives on w$e abuse (pp. 133157). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Quay, H. (1986). Conduct disorders. In H . Quay & J. Weny (Eds.), Psychopathological disorders of childhood (pp. 35-72). New York: Wiley. Rae-Grant, N. I., Boyle, M. H., Offord, D. R., & Thomas, H. (1984). The buflering eflect ofprotectivejacton in reducing the iticidenre of common behavioral and emotional disorders in childhood. Paper presented at the Joint Meeting of the American and Canadian Academies of Child Psychiatry, Toronto. Rieder, C., & Cicchetti, D. (1989). An organizational perspective on cognitive control functioning and cognitive-affective balance in maltreated children. Developmental Psychology, 25, 382-393. Rodenburg, F. A., & Fantuzzo, J. W. (1993). The measure of wife abuse: Steps toward the development of a comprehensive assessment technique.]ournal $Family Violence, 8, 203-228. Rosal, M., Dutton-Douglas, M. A,, & Perrin, S. (1990, August). Atixiety in battered women. Paper presented at the 98th annual convention of the American Psychological Association, Boston. Rosenbaum, A. (1988). Methodological issues in marital violence research.journa1ofFamily Violence, 3, 91-104. Rosenbaum, A,, Cohen, P., & Fonstrom-Cohen, B. (1991).The ecology ofdomestic aggression toward adult victims. In R . J. Ammetmian & M. Henen (Eds.), Twatment offamily violence: A sourcebook (pp. 30-56). New York: Wiley. Rosenbaum, A., & OLeary, K.D. (1981). Marital violence: Characteristics of abusive couples. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 49, 63-71. Rosenberg, M. (1984). Inter-generationalfamily violence: A mtique and implicationsfor witnessing children. Paper presented at the 92nd annual convention of the American Psychological Association, Toronto. Rosenberg, M. (1987). Children ofbattered women: The effects of witnessing violence on their social problem-solving abilities. Behavior 7herapict, 4 , 85-89. Rosenfeld, B. (1992). Court-ordered treatment of spouse abuse. Clinical Psychology Review, 12, 205-226. Ross, M. W., Campbell, R.L., & Clayter, J. R . (1982). New inventory of measurement of parental rearing patterns: An Enghsh form of the EMBU. Acta Psychiartica Scandinavira, 66,499-507. Rouse, L. (1984). Models, self-esteem, and locus of control as factors contributing to spouse abuse. Victimology, 9, 130-141. Rowan, A. C., Rodriguez, N., Gallen, J., & Foy, D. W. (1990, October). Sexual abuse exposure f d o r s in the development of PTSD in adult sumvors ofchildhood assault. Paper presented at the convention of the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies, New Orleans.

CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGI: SCIENCE AND PRACTICE * V4 N 4 , WINTER 1997

332

Roy, M. (1977). Battered women. New York Van Nostrand Reinholt . Sandler, I. N. (1980). Social support resources, &tress maladand justment of poor children. Amm'canJournal ofCommunity Psychology, 8, 41-52. Saunden, D. G. (1992). A typology ofmen who batter women: Three types derived from cluster analysis. American Orthopsychiatry, 62, 264-275. Saunden, D. G. (1993). Husbands who assault: Multiple profiles requiring multiple responses. In N. Z. Hilton (Ed.), Legal responses to wle asault: Current trends and evaluation @p. 9-34). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Schuerger, J., & Reigle, N. (1988). Personality and biographic data that characterize men who abuse their wives. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 44, 75-81. Schulman, M. A. (1979). A survey of spousal violence against women in Kentucky. Washington, DC: U S . Department of Justice, Law Enforcement. Shepard, M. (1992). Predicting batterer recidivism five years after community invervention. Journal 4Family Violence, 7, 167-178. Shepard, M., & Campbell, J. A. (1992). The abusive behavior inventory: A measure of psychological and physical abuse. Joumal oflnterpersonal Violence, 7, 291-305. Shirk, S. R. (1988). The interpersonal legacy of physical abuse of children. In M. B. Straus (Ed.), Abuse and victimization across the lijespan @p. 57-81). Baltimore, MD:JohnsHopkins University Press. Sonkin, D., & Durphy, M. (1982). Learning to live without violence: A handbookfor men. San Francisco: Volcano Press. Sonells, J. M. (1977). Kids who kill. Crime and Delinquency, 23, 312-320. Stark, E., & Flitcraft, A. (1988). Violence among intimates: An epidemiological review. In V. B. Van Hasselt, R.L. Morrison, A. S. Bellack, & M. Hersen (Eds.), Handbook offamily violence @p. 293-297). New York: Plenum. Starr, R. H., MacLean, D. J., & Keating, D. P (1991). Lifespan . developmental outcomes of child maltreatment. In R.H. Starr & D. A. Wolfe (Eds.), The effects ofchild abuse and neglect @p. 1-32). New York Guilford Press. Starr, R. H., & Wolfe, D. (Eds.). (1991). The effects ofchild abuse and neglect: Issues and research. New York GuUord Press. Stemberg, K. J., Lamb, M. E., Greenbaum, C., Cicchetti, D., Dawud, S., Cortes, R. M., Krispin, O., & Lorey, F. (1993). Effects of domestic violence on childrer:'s behavior problems and depression. Developmental Psycholqy, 29, 44-52. Stets, J. E. (1990). Verbal and physical aggression in marriage. Journal ofMam'age and the Family, 52, 501-514. Stets, J. E., & Straus, M. A. (1989). The marriage license as a hitting license: A comparison of assaults in dating, cohabitat-

ing, and married couples. In M. A. Pirog-Good & J. E. Stets (Eds.), Violence in dating relationships: Emerging social issues (pp. 33-52). New York: Praeger. Stets, J. E., & Straus, M. A. (1990). Gender differences in reporting marital violence and its medical and psychological consequences. In M. A. Straus & R. Gelles (Eds.), Physical J. violence in Amm'canfamilies: Risk furors and adaptations to violence in 8,145families @p. 151-166). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. Stith, S. M., & Farley, S. C. (1993). A predictive model of male spousal violence.Journal ofFarnily Violence, 8, 183-201. Straus, M. A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily confict and violence: The conflict tactics (CT) scales.Journa1 ofMarriage and the Family, 41, 75-88. Straus, M. A. (1990). The conflict tactics scales and its critics: An evaluation and new data on validity and reliability. In M. A. Straus & R. J. Gelles (Eds.), Physical violence in Americanfamilies: Risk factors and adaptations to violence i r i 8,145families @p. 49-73). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. Straus, M. A. (1993). Physical assaults by wives: A major social problem. In R. Gelles & D. R.Loseke (Eds.), Current conJ. troversies on family violence @p. 67-87). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Straus, M. A,, & Gelles, R. J. (1986). Societal change and change in family violence &om 1975 to 1985 as revealed by two national samples.Journal @Marriage and the Family, 48, 465-479. Straus, M. A., & Gelles, R. (Eds.). (1990). Physical violence in J. Americanfamilies: Riskfactors and adaptations to violence in 8,145 families. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. Straus, M. A., Gelles, R. J., & Steinmetz, S. K. (1980). Behind closed doors: violence in the Americanfamily. Garden City, N Y : Doubleday. Straus, M., & Smith, C. (1990). Family patterns and child abuse. In M. A. Straus & R. Gelles (Eds.), Physical violence in AmerJ. icanfamilies: Riskfactors and adaptations to violence in 8,1 45.families @p. 245-260). New Brunswick. NJ: Transaction. Sugarman, D. B., Aldarondo, E., & Boney-McCoy, S. (1996). Risk marker analysis of husband-to-wife violence: A continuum of Aggression. Journal of Applied Psychology, 26, 313-337. Telch, C. F.,& Lindquist, C. U. (1984). Violent vs. non-violent couples: A comparison of patterns. Psychotherapy, 21, 242-248. Tolman, R. M. (1989). The development of a measure of psychological maltreatment of women by their male partners. Violenre and Victims, 4, 159-177. Tolman, R.M., & Bennett, L. W. (1990). A review ofquantitative research on men who batter. Journal @Interpersonal Violence, 5, 87-1 18.

CHILDHOOD PRECURSORS

FELDMAN

333

Toth, S . L., Manly, J. T., & Cicchetti, D. (1992). Child maltreatment and vulnerability to depression. Development and psycho pa tho log^ 4 , 97-1 12. Van der Kolk, B. A. (1987). Psychological trauma. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press. Van der Kolk, B. A. (1988). Trauma in men: Effects on family life. In M. B. Straus (Ed.), Abuse and victimization across the l e g span @p. 170-187). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Van der Kolk, B. A,, & Herman, J. (1987). Traumatic antecedents of borderline personality. In B. A. Van Der Kolk (Ed.), Psychological trauma (pp. 111-126). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press. Vondra, J. I., Barnett, D., & Cicchetti, D. (1990).Self-concept, motivation, and competence among preschoolers &om maltreating and comparison families. Child Abuse G Neglect, 14, 525-540. Walker, L. E. A. (1993).The battered woman syndromeis a psychological consequence of abuse. In R. Gelles & D. R. J. Loseke (Eds.), Cumt controversies onfamily violence @p. 133153).Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Wallerstein, J. (1983). Children of divorce: The psychologd tasks of the child. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 53, 230-243. Widom, C. S . (1989). Does violence beget violence? A critical examination of the literature. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 3-28. Wolfe, D. A., Jaffe, P., Wilson, S., & Zak. L. (1985). Children of battered women: The relation of child behavior to family

violence and maternal stress. TheJournal o Consulting and f Clinical Psychology, 53, 657-665. Wolfe, D. A., & McGee R.(1994). Dimensions of child maltreatment and their relationship to adolescent adjustment. Development and Psychoparhology, 6, 165-181. Wolfe, D. A,, Wekerle, C., & McGee, R. (1992). Developmental disparities of abused children: Directions for prevention. In R.V. Peters, R. McMahan, & V. L. Quinsey J. (Eds.), Aggression and violence throughout the lgespan @p. 3151). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Wolfe, D. A., Zak, L., Wilson S., & Jaffe, P. (1986). Child witnesses to violence between parents: Critical issues in behavioral and social adjustment. Journal of Abnormal Child Ps~cholog~, 95-104. 14, Wolf-Smith, J. H., & LaRossa, R.(1992).After he hits her. Family Relations, 4 1 , 324-329. YUO, K., & Straus, M. A. (1981). Interpersonalviolence among mamed and cohabitating couples. Family Relations, 30, 339-347. YllO, K. (1993). Through a feminist lens: Gender, power, and violence. In R. Gelles & D. R.Loseke (Eds.), Cumnt conJ. troversies on family violence (pp. 47-62). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Zeanah, C. H., & Zeanah, P D. (1989).Intergenerationaltrans. mission of maltreatment: Insights from attachment theory and research. Psychiatry, 52, 177-196. ReceivedJune 6, 1996; acceptedJuly 25, 1996.

CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGV: SCIENCE A N D PRACTICE

V4 N4, WINTER 1997

334