Effects of Relationship Issues and Abuse on Children ... - Springer Link

Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma, 3:1–12, 2010 Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1936-1521 print / 1936-153X online DOI: 10.1080/19361520903520500

Effects of Relationship Issues and Abuse on Children 1936-153X 1936-1521 WCAT Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma, Trauma Vol. 3, No. 1, December 2009: pp. 0–0

Children’s Exposure to Violence by Various Family Members Living in the Home Exposure G. Mathis to et Violence al. by Family Members

GLORIA MATHIS,1 CHARLES W. MUELLER,1 YILING ZHANG,1 AND KIMBERLY D. BECKER2 1

University of Hawaii at Manoa The John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health

2

A sample of ethnically diverse college students reported on household family violence occurring when they were between the ages of 8 and 17. Parents and siblings were reported to engage in violent acts at a similar rate significantly higher than that of other relatives living in the home. Rates of violence exposure showed a small but statistically significant increase when other relatives in the home were included. Within families, there was a strong positive association between amount of violence committed by parents and siblings, verbal and physical violence, and direct and indirect violence. This study provides an innovative method for family violence data collection and points to the importance of including all household members in family violence estimates. Keywords parental violence, sibling violence, family member violence, multigenerational households, within-family violence relationships

Family violence in all of its forms is a concerning issue that has garnered increasing attention over the past 15 years (American Psychological Association [APA], 1996; Tolan, Gorman-Smith, & Henry, 2006), in part due to its potential as a risk factor for maladaptive outcomes in children (Edleson, 2001; Wekerle & Wolfe, 2003; Wiehe, 1998). Unfortunately, the research on childhood exposure to various categories of family violence has been primarily organized in separate literatures and has used divergent methods based on the nature of exposure (i.e., direct target of abuse versus witnessing violence) and the perpetrator (i.e., parents or siblings; Tolan et al., 2006). The present study attempted to employ a common method to study multiple categories of childhood exposure to family violence in order to better understand rates of exposure, characteristics of family violence perpetrators, and the interrelationship of various types of family violence. Much of the existing literature on the prevalence of family violence has focused on childhood exposure to parental/adult caregiver violence. It is estimated that millions of children in the United States are exposed to direct family violence (e.g., child maltreatment) and/or Submitted June 11, 2009; revised September 3, 2009; accepted November 21, 2009. Address correspondence to Charles W. Mueller, 2430 Campus Rd, 104 Gartley Hall, Honolulu, HI 96822. E-mail: [email protected]

1

2

G. Mathis et al.

indirect family violence (e.g., observation of interparental violence) each year (Carlson, 1984; McDonald, Jouriles, Ramisetty-Mikler, Caetano, & Green, 2006; Sedlak & Broadhurst, 1996; Straus, 1992; Wekerle & Wolfe, 2003). Other forms of family violence that have received somewhat less attention in the literature involve violence that is perpetrated by siblings or other family members living in the home. Estimates available from a very limited number of studies suggest that 65% to 96% of children experience or engage in sibling violence every year (Goodwin & Roscoe, 1990; Roscoe, Goodwin, & Kennedy, 1987; Steinmetz, 1977). In addition to being common, sibling violence may be quite serious as well; many violent incidents between siblings would be considered assault if they occurred between unrelated children or adults (Wiehe, 1998). With the exception of the literatures on elder abuse and sexual abuse, few studies of family violence have focused on violence perpetrated by nonnuclear family household members. This is true despite the fact that there were 5.4 million children (7.5% of the total population) in the United States living in households that included at least one grandparent in 1996 (Fields, 2001). A much higher proportion of children from Black (15.2%), Asian and Pacific Islander (13.7%), and Hispanic (8.8%) races lived with grandparents than White, non-Hispanic children (4.9%; Fields, 2001). Recently, many scholars have called for the integration of research on all types and categories of family violence in order to more fully understand this complex topic and move the field forward (APA, 2007; Hamby & Finkelhor, 2000; Loseke, Gelles, & Cavanaugh, 2005; Saunders, 2003; Slep & Heyman, 2001; Tolan et al., 2006). Such an integration would allow for studies to estimate the total victimization experienced across various categories of violence, estimate the extent of co-occurrence of various categories of family violence within and across generations, examine the interrelationships among various categories of violence within families (APA, 2007; Edleson, 2001; Finkelhor, Ormrod, Hamby, & Turner, 2005; Straus, Gelles, & Steinmetz, 1980; Widom, 2000), and determine if maladaptive outcomes are more likely due to a combination of violence experiences rather than one specific category of violence (Finkelhor et al., 2005). Additionally, obtaining a more complete picture of family violence exposure could lead to a better understanding of how to assess, prevent, and intervene (Chalk & King, 1998; Slep & Heyman, 2001; Tolan et al., 2006). Although most family violence research still focuses on only one category (e.g., child maltreatment, witnessing interparental violence), several researchers have heeded the call for integrated research and have included two or more categories of family violence in their work (e.g., Appel & Holden, 1998; McCloskey, Figueredo, & Koss, 1995; Renner & Slack, 2006; Simonelli, Mullis, & Rohde, 2005; Slep & O’Leary, 2005). Two programs of research are particularly noteworthy for their examination of at least three forms of violence. In a landmark study of family violence, Straus and colleagues (1980) investigated parentreported intimate partner violence, child maltreatment, and sibling violence within the household using in-person interviews of parents. They found that nearly all parents reported hitting their children at least once during their lifetime, approximately 16% of families reported the occurrence of intimate partner violence each year, and 80% of selected children had been observed by parents to act violently toward a sibling during the survey year. More recently, Finkelhor et al. (2005) assessed the experience of family and nonfamily violence in a nationally representative sample of children ages 2 to 17 years. This study assessed violence exposure in the previous year for five categories: (a) physical assaults, bullying, and teasing; (b) sexual victimizations; (c) child maltreatment; (d) property victimizations; and (e) witnessed and indirect victimization. Finkelhor et al. interviewed older children ages 10 to 17 years and the caregivers of younger children ages 2 to 9 years using the Juvenile Victimization Questionnaire (JVQ; Hamby & Finkelhor, 2001, 2004), which assesses the offenses described previously, as well as additional information about

Exposure to Violence by Family Members

3

each reported victimization event. These authors found that 71% of their sample reported being the victim of at least one category of violence in the previous year and, on average, experienced events within three different violence categories. The authors noted within-family associations among experiencing physical abuse, witnessing physical abuse of a sibling, and witnessing domestic violence, but they did not describe the exact nature or extent of these associations. The research conducted by Straus, Finkelhor, and their respective colleagues has furthered our understanding of the complex interrelationships among different forms of family violence. However, there are some limitations to the current body of literature that future research may be able to address in order to enhance our understanding of the prevalence and forms of violence committed in the home. The reliance on parent report for information regarding family violence, including child-initiated violence (Straus et al., 1980), may lead to underreporting. This is due to a possible tendency for parents to minimize self-perpetrated violence and lack of knowledge about their child’s exposure to violence when the caregiver was not present. Finkelhor and colleagues (2005) gathered information about family violence from the child’s perspective by collecting questionnaire data from older children in their sample, although caregivers provided reports for younger children. Straus and colleagues (Straus & Gelles, 1990; Straus et al., 1980) examined violence committed by only one child in each family, which makes it impossible to estimate the total family violence experience of children or within-family correlations of the various types (e.g., verbal, physical) and perpetrators of violence. Finkelhor et al. examined within-family associations across violence types studied; however, the magnitude and direction of these associations were not reported. The focus on nuclear family members (e.g., Edleson, 2001; McCloskey et al., 1995; Straus & Gelles, 1990; Straus et al., 1980) may also underestimate the amount of violence children experience in the home. Finkelhor et al. (2005) requested information on violence committed by “any adult” but did not specifically ask about family members other than parents and siblings. In addition, Finkelhor, Turner, and Ormrod (2006) noted that questions investigating peer/sibling violence did not generally elicit reports of sibling violence unless the question specifically mentioned siblings. To our knowledge, there are no published reports of violence perpetration by nonnuclear family members living in the child’s home. Finally, none of the previously published studies appear to have investigated total household composition. The inclusion of all household members provides information regarding the number or percent of household members who have and have not engaged in family violence. Such nonviolent household members might provide some indirect positive influence (e.g., consistently modeling nonviolent conflict resolution) and might also be a direct source of support to the child (Belsky, 1980), as has been found with children of alcoholics (Werner & Johnson, 2004). The main purpose of the current study was to collect retrospective reports of the total exposure to verbal and physical violence by family household members when participants were between the ages of 8 and 17 years. The study utilized a convenience sample of mostly young adults who first listed all individuals living in their household during the selected time period and then indicated the average annual frequency of exposure to violence committed by each of these household members toward the participant (direct) and toward other people (indirect or witnessed). Using this methodology we were able to examine (a) the number and type of individuals living in the home during the 10-year reference period, (b) participants’ total yearly direct and indirect exposure to verbal and physical violence, (c) the extent to which family violence from siblings and other nonnuclear family members adds to overall family violence exposure, (d) the prevalence and frequency of violence perpetration by family member type, and (e) the interrelationship among various types of exposure within families.

4

G. Mathis et al.

The definition of violence used in the current study was broad and included verbal acts, as well as both minor and more severe acts of physical violence. Although the definition used in previous research studies has varied considerably and this topic has been heavily debated (Jouriles, McDonald, Norwood, & Ezell, 2001), the use of a comprehensive and inclusive accounting of violent acts seemed warranted given the status of the literature to date. Although inclusion of verbal and less severe types of physical violence leads to higher estimates of exposure than otherwise, such inclusion provides a more complete picture of the violence experience and fits better with knowledge about the extent and effects of verbal abuse. Additionally, research has shown a link between less severe (e.g., verbal) and more severe (e.g., stabbing) types of violence. For example, several studies have reported that arguing usually occurs before or predicts physical violence in several categories of family violence (e.g., Goodwin & Roscoe, 1990; Hoffman, Demo, & Edwards, 1994; Roscoe et al., 1987; Straus & Gelles, 1990; Straus et al., 1980).

Method Participants A total of 365 adult undergraduate students enrolled in psychology courses at a public university received course extra credit for participation in this study. Informed consent was obtained from all participants according to university institutional review board requirements prior to data collection. Participants ranged in age from 18 to 46 years (M = 20.83 years, SD = 3.79), 66.8% of the participants were women, and the sample was comprised of many different ethnic groups (45.5% Asian or multi-Asian, 18.4% other multiethnic, 17.3% Caucasian, 15.3% Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, 1.1% Black/African American, and 2.4% other). Place of birth varied, with 59.5% of the participants being from the state of Hawaii, 29.0% being from elsewhere in the United States, and the remainder being from other countries (11.5%). Measures Data were collected using a two-part instrument created by the study authors and derived from the Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS; Straus, 1979). Part I consisted of demographic questions about the participant and a household composition form on which participants listed all people (including gender, current age, and relationship to participant) who lived in their home for one or more years while the participant was between the ages of 8 and 17 years, as well as the number of years they lived in the home. After completion of Part I, participants completed Part II, in which they were asked to indicate the average annual frequency of five types of violence exhibited by each household member listed. Specifically, for each household member, participants indicated the frequency of verbal violence (i.e., insult, swear at, shout at, threaten), less severe physical violence (i.e., slap, spank, pinch), and more severe physical violence (i.e., kick, punch, grab, choke, hit with something, burn, knock down, threaten/use a weapon) directed at themselves (direct), as well as the frequency of verbal and physical violence directed toward someone else in the home (indirect). For example, one question asked, “How often on average within each year did you see or hear each person kick, bite, punch, slap, beat, grab, choke, hit with something, burn, throw something at, push, shove, use a weapon or threaten to use a weapon against someone else in your household, when you were between the ages of 8 and 17?” Each of the five questions was scored for each household member listed based on a scale from 0 to 6: 0 (never), 1 (once), 2 (twice), 3 (3–5 times), 4 (6–10 times), 5 (11–20 times), and 6 (21+ times/year).


5

The CTS (Straus, 1979) has been found to have good test–retest reliability (.80; Amato, 1991) and validity (Jouriles & Norwood, 1995; Richters & Martinez, 1993; Straus & Gelles, 1990; Straus & Hamby, 1997). Although no specific psychometric test of the current adaptation of the CTS was included in this study, the finding that endorsement of violent acts decreased as severity of act increased (i.e., severe physical < less severe physical < verbal) is consistent with the pattern found by Straus and colleagues (Straus & Gelles, 1990; Straus et al., 1980) and provides preliminary support for the validity of Part II of the instrument.

Results Household Composition The 365 participants reported a total of 1,690 individuals living in their homes when they were between the ages of 8 and 17 (M = 4.63, SD = 2.04, Mdn = 4.00). Household members listed by participants were divided into four categories: (a) parents (including step-parents, adoptive or foster parents, and parents’ significant others), (b) siblings (including half, step, and foster siblings), (c) other relatives (such as grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, nieces, nephews, or in-laws), and (d) nonrelatives (including all remaining individuals, such as family friends, boarders, or employees). This resulted in 731 parents, 538 siblings, 375 other relatives, and 46 nonrelatives. Nonrelatives were excluded from further analysis due to the small number reported. No difference in total number of relatives reported was found for participant gender, birth location, or race (using U.S. Census categories) using one-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs) or independent sample t-tests (ps > .05). Yearly Family Violence Exposure Participants provided estimates of their family violence exposure “on average within each year.” Because number of violent acts was reported in intervals, each response was recalculated using the lowest point of the response interval (i.e., 0 = 0, 1 = 1, 2 = 2, 3–5 = 3, 6–10 = 6, 11–20 = 11, and 21+ = 21). As can be seen in Table 1, the 365 participants reported exposure to a mean of no less than 79.51 (SD = 68.46) acts of family violence per year during the reference period after adjusting for the number of years each family member lived in the home. No significant differences in average yearly family violence exposure were found by participant gender, current age, birth location, or U.S. Census race category (all ps > .05). Effect of Including All Relatives When Estimating Family Violence Exposure When compared to parental violence alone, both sibling violence and violence from other relatives independently increased estimates of overall family violence exposure, Wilcoxon’s Z = 15.19, p < .001 and Z = 7.72, p < .001, respectively (due to data skew, nonparametric analyses used). As can be seen in Table 1, this pattern generally held across types of violence. The one exception is that other relatives’ severe physical violence toward the participant was relatively infrequent and did not significantly increase the annual number of severe direct violence incidents reported by participants. Family Member Perpetration Patterns Table 2 displays the percentage of individuals in each relationship category (and overall) who exhibited each and any of the five types of violence. More parents and siblings were reported

6

G. Mathis et al.

Table 1 Mean (SD) number of annual family violence exposure incidents per participant (N = 365) overall and by type of violence and family member category Family member category

Type of violence Total Direct Verbal Less severe Severe Witness Verbal Physical

Parents (N = 731)

Siblings (N = 538)

Mean (SD)

Mean (SD)

Other relatives Sum of all family (N = 375) members (N = 1,644) Mean (SD)

Mean (SD)

42.57 (37.35) 31.57 (37.69)

5.35 (20.41)

79.51 (68.46)ab

15.18 (12.92) 11.08 (12.19) 6.40 (9.13) 5.01 (8.10) 1.92 (5.13) 3.03 (6.11)

1.77 (6.63) 0.72 (3.63) 0.14 (1.69)

28.03 (22.07)ab 12.13 (14.60)ab 5.09 (8.99)a

15.13 (13.21) 3.93 (7.85)

2.25 (7.89) 0.53 (3.82)

26.76 (24.78)ab 7.55 (13.99)ab

9.38 (12.76) 3.08 (6.95)

a Parents violence is significantly different from all family members violence at p < .001 (indicating inclusion of siblings and other relatives significantly increases total). bCombined parents and siblings violence is significantly different from all family members violence at p < .001 (Wilcoxon signed ranks test; indicates that inclusion of other relatives significantly increases total exposure).

Table 2 Percentage of family members who engaged in one or more violence episodes overall and by family member category Family member category Type of violence

Parents (N = 731)

Siblings (N = 538)

Other relatives (N = 375)

Overall

Total (any type) Direct Verbal Less severe Severe Witness Verbal Physical

91.5a

87.7a

63.2b

83.8

81.5a 55.8a 21.5a

79.2a 55.0a 39.8b

45.9b 19.2b 5.3c

72.6 47.2 23.8

82.5a 34.7a

71.4b 40.3a

51.7c 18.7b

71.8 32.9

Note. Cells with different subscripts within rows are significantly different from each other at p < .001.

to engage in one or more incidents of violence than were other relatives, c2 (1, 1106) = 134.18, p < .001 and c2 (1, 913) = 76.65, p < .001, respectively. This pattern held for each type of violence (p < .001). In comparison to parents, siblings were found to be more likely to engage in severe violence toward the participant and less likely to engage in verbal violence toward others in the home, c2 (1, 1269) = 50.16, p < .001 and c2 (1, 1269) = 22.15, p < .001, respectively. No other significant differences between parents and siblings emerged.


7

Table 3 Average yearly violence exhibited by one family member per category (participant included only if reported that type of family member)

Type of violence Total Direct Verbal Less severe Severe Witness Verbal Physical

Parents (N = 362)

Siblings (N = 315)

Other relatives (N = 148)

Mean (SD)

Mean (SD)

Mean (SD)

21.35 (19.09)a

22.71 (22.31)a

5.07 (9.59)b

7.70 (6.58)a 3.25 (4.62)a 0.96 (2.50)a

8.22 (7.14)a 3.90 (5.73)a 2.37 (4.70)b

1.72 (3.45)b 0.66 (2.08)b 0.11 (0.67)c

7.66 (6.73)a 2.01 (4.04)a

6.49 (6.89)b 1.98 (4.07)a

2.23 (4.29)c 0.37 (1.37)b

Note. Parents, siblings, and other relatives is significantly different within all violence categories at p < .001. Within rows, cells with different subscripts are significantly different from each other at p < .001.

Table 3 depicts the mean number of violent acts committed by each family member within each category per year (thereby controlling for the varying number of family members within each category). Other relatives were reported to engage in significantly fewer violent acts per year than were parents or siblings, Wilcoxon Z = 8.81, p < .001 and Wilcoxon Z = 8.18, p < .001, respectively. In addition, siblings engaged in significantly more direct severe violent incidents than parents and significantly fewer verbal acts toward others in the home than parents, Wilcoxon Z = 5.70, p < .001 and Wilcoxon Z = 4.66, p < .001, respectively. No differences were found regarding average number of violent acts by family member gender. Participants from Hawaii and other parts of the United States reported that family members engaged in a greater number of violent acts per year than reported by participants from other countries, Mann Whitney Z = 3.34 and Z = 3.72, respectively (ps < .001). Interrelationships of Violence Within Families In order to examine within-family relationships and correlations of violence types, a subsample of 124 participants who reported the presence in their households of one or more individuals from each of the three family member categories was created. Demographic characteristics of those included and excluded from this subsample did not significantly differ by gender, age, or place of birth. Subsample participants reported a total of 774 relatives (i.e., 247 parents, 210 siblings, and 317 other relatives; M = 6.24, SD = 2.01, Mdn = 6.00) living in their childhood home during the reference period. Overall number of violent acts per year reportedly perpetrated by parents and siblings were moderately correlated (Kendall’s t = .39, p < .001). No significant correlations were found between number of violent acts by other relatives and parents or siblings (Kendall’s t = .11 and .07 respectively, ps > .001). In order to investigate the relationship between direct and indirect violence exposure, correlations between the different types of violence and family member categories were

8

G. Mathis et al.

conducted. Direct and indirect violence within families were significantly positively associated (Kendall’s t = .56, p < .001). Also consistent with the overall pattern, there were strong correlations within family member categories: (a) parent direct and indirect violence (Kendall’s t = .54, p < .001), (b) sibling direct and indirect violence (Kendall’s t = .44, p < .001), and (c) other relative direct and indirect violence (Kendall’s t = .60, p < .001). In addition, there were moderate correlations within dimensions, such that parent and sibling direct as well as parent and sibling indirect violence were correlated, Kendall’s t = .29, p < .001 and Kendall’s t = .40, p < .001, respectively. Generally, the number of direct and indirect violent acts by other relatives was not found to be significantly correlated with violence exposure from other family members. The one exception was that participants who reported observing parental violence toward other family members were significantly more likely to report observation of violence from other relatives as well (Kendall’s t = .24, p < .001).

Discussion The current study retrospectively examined childhood family violence exposure in a sample of undergraduate students using an innovative measurement instrument that allowed for calculations of household size and violence exposure from every household member listed. Inclusion of all family members revealed that the occurrence of sibling violence significantly increased the amount of violence that was reported to be experienced in the home. Statistically, the inclusion of other relatives significantly increased the amount of reported violence as well; however, it should be noted that, comparatively, other relative violence was found to be much less common than parent or sibling violence. These findings suggest that national surveys of family violence (e.g., NIS-3; Sedlak & Broadhurst, 1996), which rarely investigate siblings and almost never include other relatives living in the home, might underestimate the frequency of family violence exposure by as much as 50%. This underestimation cuts across all types of family violence but is most glaring when participants report direct physical violence exposure. For instance, based on the present data, identifying the extent of direct severe physical violence perpetrated by parents (e.g., child abuse) might account for only 40% of the total direct severe violence exposure (i.e., being kicked, punched, grabbed, choked, hit with something, burned, knocked down, threatened with a weapon, or harmed with a weapon) experienced by the child (see Table 1, direct severe violence, parent vs. all family members). That said, it remains unknown how much sibling violence is normative and how much might reflect potentially traumatic experiences. Further research is needed to examine the nature and impact of violence committed by siblings. Consistent with the previous literature, parental violence was quite common (e.g., Straus et al., 1980). Sibling violence, which has been much less studied, was also reported quite frequently. Within this sample, the findings suggest that parents and siblings generally committed violence at roughly similar rates. Two exceptions to this overall pattern were found. First, siblings were more likely than parents to engage in more severe types of violence toward participants and to do so more frequently. Second, parents were more likely than siblings to use verbal violence directed toward other people in the home and to do so more frequently. Violence committed by other relatives, although less common and less frequent than that of parents and siblings, statistically added significantly to the overall total violence exposure. Within families we found a strong positive relationship between violence committed by parents and that committed by siblings. These findings provide further evidence that


9

violence may be transmitted across generations within families (Widom, 2000). For example, children who witness their parents’ violent behavior may be more likely to exhibit violence themselves (concurrently, as well as later in life). Extending prior research (e.g., Appel & Holden, 1998; Straus & Gelles, 1990), findings indicate strong positive correlations between verbal and physical violence and between direct and indirect violence both overall and within each family member type. With few exceptions (e.g., Finkelhor et al., 2005; McCloskey et al., 1995), previous studies have relied on information obtained from parents. This study collected retrospective data from mostly young adults. Although recall of childhood events has disadvantages, these types of studies provide an important perspective—that of the recipient/ observer who is no longer under the direct guardianship of an adult caretaker. As adults assured of anonymity, these participants might have been more willing to report experiences of violence. Although using a different methodology, much of the results are consistent with earlier findings (Straus & Gelles, 1990; Straus et al., 1980). For instance, the reported incidence of violence decreased as severity increased, with more verbal than physical violence incidents and a greater number of less severe as compared to more severe physical violence episodes. Further research will be needed to more clearly understand the relationship between verbal and physical violence and between direct and indirect violence as well as the impact of these types of violence on children’s outcomes. Findings from the current study indicate that standard assessments as well as prevention and intervention efforts regarding family violence exposure should include all people living in the home and not just those considered parental figures. This is especially crucial given the high rates of sibling violence reported and the significant intrafamilial correlations between parental and sibling violence. The co-occurrence of different categories of violence (i.e., direct and indirect, verbal and physical) underscores the need to investigate the possibility of child maltreatment when domestic violence is known to be occurring and vice versa. Limitations The exploratory nature of this study introduced some methodological limitations that will be important to address and improve upon in future studies. The major limitation of the current study involves the use of retrospective data collected from a convenience sample of college students in Hawaii. Although accuracy may be diminished as a result of memory distortions or intervening events occurring over time, providing anonymity to adults may have increased honest reporting. Paivio (2001) found that retrospective reports of childhood abuse were stable over a six-month period, suggesting that adults are able to reliably report on childhood violence exposure. Furthermore, the generally high correlations across types of violence and family relationships could reflect a general bias in reporting, thus leading to overestimations of these relationships. Clearly, this retrospective questionnaire represents only a first step toward the development of a set of comprehensive measures of family violence, and the present findings need to be replicated in other samples using other study designs. The diverse racial configuration of participants in Hawaii, as well as the increased education and socioeconomic status generally found in college student samples, may limit generalizability. However, using this sample avoided ethical considerations of conducting such research with minors and provided a starting point for investigating nonnuclear family violence. Furthermore, there is little reason to think the relative violence rates across family member and violence types and the interrelationships found should have been affected by sample characteristics.

10

G. Mathis et al.

The questionnaire used was created for the present study and has not been psychometrically validated. However, the measure was based on the well-established CTS (Straus, 1979), and the pattern of violent acts found with the current instrument (i.e., verbal > less severe physical > severe physical) is consistent with that found by Straus and colleagues (Straus & Gelles, 1990; Straus et al., 1980). In addition, the rates of violence found for parents and siblings were similar to those found in earlier studies (Straus & Gelles, 1990; Straus et al., 1980). Additional psychometric investigation, especially reliability testing (i.e., test–retest or within-family comparisons) of the instrument would be beneficial. Participants were not asked to report on violence they committed toward other people in the home, preventing assessment of the relationship between violence exposure and subsequent or concurrent violence perpetration. In addition, the impact of the violence on the participants was not assessed. It will be useful to assess immediate and long-term outcomes of the different types of family violence exposure in future studies.

References Amato, P. R. (1991). Psychological distress and the recall of childhood family characteristics. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, 1011–1019. American Psychological Association. (1996). Violence and the family: Report of the APA Presidential Task Force on Violence and the Family. Washington, DC: Author. American Psychological Association. (2007). Violence and the family: Report of the APA Presidential Task Force on Violence and the Family—Executive summary. Washington, DC: Author. Appel, A. E., & Holden, G. W. (1998). The co-occurrence of spouse and physical child abuse: A review and appraisal. Journal of Family Psychology, 12, 578–599. Belsky, J. (1980). Child maltreatment: An ecological integration. American Psychologist, 39, 320–335. Carlson, B. E. (1984). Children’s observations of inter-parental violence. In A. R. Roberts (Ed.), Battered women and their families (pp. 147–167). New York: Springer. Chalk, R., & King, P. (1998). Assessing family violence interventions. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 14(4), 289–292. Edleson, J. L. (2001). Studying the co-occurrence of child maltreatment and domestic violence in families. In S. A. Graham-Bermann & J. L. Edleson (Eds.), Domestic violence in the lives of children: The future of research, intervention, and social policy (pp. 91–110). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Fields, J. M. (2001). Living arrangements of children: 1996. U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Reports. (Series P70–74). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Finkelhor, D., Ormrod, R., Hamby, H., & Turner, S. L. (2005). The victimization of children and youth: A comprehensive, national survey. Child Maltreatment, 10(1), 5–25. Finkelhor, D., Turner, H., & Ormrod, R. (2006). Kid’s stuff: The nature and impact of peer and sibling violence on younger and older children. Child Abuse & Neglect, 30, 1401–1421. Goodwin, M. P., & Roscoe, B. (1990). Sibling violence and agonistic interactions among middle adolescents. Adolescence, 25(98), 451–469. Hamby, S. L., & Finkelhor, D. (2000). The victimization of children: Recommendations for assessment and instrument development. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 39, 829–840. Hamby, S. L., & Finkelhor, D. (2001). Choosing and using child victimization questionnaires. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Delinquency and Prevention. Hamby, S. L., & Finkelhor, D. (2004). The Comprehensive Juvenile Victimization Questionnaire. Durham: University of New Hampshire. Hoffman, K. L., Demo, D. H., & Edwards, J. N. (1994). Physical wife abuse in a non-western society: An integrated theoretical approach. Journal of Marriage and Family, 56(1), 131–146.


11

Jouriles, E. J., McDonald, R., Norwood, W. D., & Ezell, E. (2001). Issues and controversies in documenting the prevalence of children’s exposure to domestic violence. In S. A. Graham-Bermann & J. L. Edleson (Eds.), Domestic violence in the lives of children: The future of research, intervention and policy (pp. 12–34). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Jouriles, E. N., & Norwood, W. D. (1995). Physical aggression towards boys and girls in families characterized by the battering of women. Journal of Family Psychology, 9, 69–78. Loseke, D. R., Gelles, R. J., & Cavanaugh, M. M. (2005). Current controversies on family violence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. McCloskey, L. A., Figueredo, A. J., & Koss, M. P. (1995). The effects of systemic family violence on children’s mental health. Child Development, 9, 1239–1261. McDonald, R., Jouriles, E. J., Ramisetty-Mikler, S., Caetano, R., & Green, C. (2006). Estimating the number of American children living in partner-violent families. Journal of Family Psychology, 20(1), 137–142. Paivio, S. C. (2001). Stability of retrospective self-reports of child abuse and neglect before and after therapy for child abuse issues. Child Abuse & Neglect, 25, 1053–1068. Renner, L. M., & Slack, K. S. (2006). Intimate partner violence and child maltreatment: understanding intra- and intergenerational connections. Child Abuse & Neglect, 30, 599–617. Richters, J. E., & Martinez, P. (1993). The NIMH community violence project: I. Children as victims of and witnesses to violence. Psychiatry, 56, 7–21. Roscoe, B., Goodwin, M., & Kennedy, D. (1987). Sibling violence and agonistic interactions experienced by early adolescents. Journal of Family Violence, 2(2), 121–137. Saunders, B. E. (2003). Understanding children exposed to violence: Toward an integration of overlapping fields. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 356–376. Sedlak, A. J., & Broadhurst, D. D. (1996). The third national incidence study of child abuse and neglect (NIS-3). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Simonelli, C. J., Mullis, T., & Rohde, C. (2005). Scale of negative family interactions: A measure of parental and sibling aggression. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20, 792–803. Slep, A. M. S., & Heyman, R. E. (2001). Where do we go from here? Moving toward an integrated approach to family violence. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 6, 353–356. Slep, A. M. S., & O’Leary, S. G. (2005). Parent and partner violence in families with young children: Rates, patterns, and connections. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 435–444. Steinmetz, S. K. (1977). The use of force for resolving family conflict: The training ground for abuse. Family Coordinator, 26(1), 19–26. Straus, M. A. (1979). Measuring intra-family conflict and violence: The Conflict Tactics (CT) Scales. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41(1), 75–88. Straus, M. A. (1992). Children as witnesses to marital violence: A risk factor for lifelong problems among a nationally representative sample of American men and women. Columbus, OH: Ross Laboratories. Straus, M. A., & Gelles, R. J. (1990). How violent are American families? Estimates from the National Family Violence Resurvey and other studies. In M. A. Straus (Ed.), Physical violence in American families (pp. 95–112). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. Straus, M. A., Gelles, R. J., & Steinmetz, S. K. (1980). Behind closed doors: Violence in the American family. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books. Straus, M. A., & Hamby, S. L. (1997). Measuring physical and psychological maltreatment of children with the Conflict Tactics Scales. In G. Kaufman Kantor & J. L. Jasinki (Eds.), Out of the darkness: Contemporary perspectives on family violence (pp. 119–135). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Tolan, P., Gorman-Smith, D., & Henry, D. (2006). Family violence. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 557–583. Wekerle, C., & Wolfe, D. A. (2003). Child maltreatment. In E. J. Mash & R. A. Barkley (Eds.), Child psychopathology (2nd ed.; pp. 632–684). New York: Guilford.

12

G. Mathis et al.

Werner, E. E., & Johnson, J. L. (2004). The role of caring adults in the lives of children of alcoholics. Substance Use and Misuse, 39, 699–720. Widom, C. S. (2000). Motivation and mechanisms in the “cycle of violence.” In D. J. Hansen (Ed.), Motivation and child maltreatment: Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, vol. 46 (pp. 1–37). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Wiehe, V. (1998). Understanding family violence: Treating and preventing partner, child, sibling, and elder abuse. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.