Physical Aggression in the Family and Preschoolers’ Use of the Mother as a Secure Base

PHYSICAL AGGRESSION IN THE FAMILY ANDPRESCHOOLERS’ USE OF THE MOTHER AS

A SECURE BASE

German Posada and Dawn Marie PrattPurdue University

The quality of child–mother attachment relationships is context sensitive. Conflict andaggression in the marital relationship as well as aggressive discipline practices may dimin-ish a child’s confidence in her or his mother as a secure base. We investigated whetherphysical aggression against the mother, exposure of the child to it, and use of aggressivephysical discipline practices were related to attachment security. Forty-five preschoolersand their mothers from a nonclinical, middle-class population were studied. Securityscores were obtained from observers’ descriptions of children’s behavior at home. Mothersreported on marital conflict, physical aggression from their spouse, exposure of the childto aggression, and use of physical discipline practices. Findings indicate that marital con-flict, physical aggression, exposure of the child, and use of physical discipline are signifi-cantly and negatively associated with security. Regression analyses show that physicalaggression contributed unique information to the prediction of security, and that physicaldiscipline did not mediate the associations between physical aggression and child security.Clinical implications of the findings presented are discussed.

In recent years, therapists and theorists in the field of marriage and family therapy havefound attachment theory to be of great value in clinical settings and in research (e.g., Gottman& de Claire, 1998; Johnson, 1996; Johnson & Greenman, 2006). Perhaps they have discoveredsuch a compatible lens in Bowlby’s account, for as a developmental theory it is also a relationalone. Bowlby, a clinician, pioneered seeing whole families together and children within thecontext of family relationships (Bowlby, 1949; Karen, 1994).

Child–parent attachment relationships play a central role in development. Bowlby (1982)and Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, and Wall (1978) postulated that the quality of a child–motherattachment relationship is derived from the interaction experiences within that dyad. Attach-ment researchers have also pointed out the importance of taking the systemic context of indi-viduals into account (e.g., Belsky, 1981; Bowlby, 1982, 1988; Davies & Cicchetti, 2004; Davies,Cummings, & Winter, 2004; Hinde & Stevenson-Hinde, 1990; Sroufe & Waters, 1977). Thus,they have hypothesized that child–mother relationships are affected by the larger context inwhich they take place. Several studies have demonstrated the context sensitivity of infantattachment security. For example, infant security has been found to be related to the qualityof maternal caregiving in the home environment (e.g., Ainsworth et al., 1978; De Wolff & vanIJzendoorn, 1997; Easterbrooks, Chaudhuri, & Gestsdottir, 2004; Pederson & Moran, 1995;Pederson et al., 1990; Posada, Carbonell, Alzate, & Plata, 2004; Posada et al., 1999).

Further, as the larger context is concerned, both maternal sensitivity and infant attachmentsecurity have been found to be significantly associated with family living conditions. Specifi-cally, children in families living under more stressful circumstances, i.e., low socioeconomicstatus (SES), obtained lower sensitivity and security scores than those obtained by childrenin middle-class families (De Wolff & van IJzendoorn, 1997; Diener, Nievar, & Wright, 2003;

German Posada, PhD, and Dawn Marie Pratt, MS, Child Development and Family Studies Department,

Purdue University.

Address correspondence to German Posada, 101 Gates Road, Child Development and Family Studies

Department, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47906; E-mail: [email protected]

Journal of Marital and Family TherapyJanuary 2008, Vol. 34, No. 1, 14–27

14 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY January 2008

Posada et al., 1999). Other studies have demonstrated that changes in child security are associ-ated with an increase or a decrease of stressful events in family living conditions (Egeland &Farber, 1984; Vaughn, Egeland, Sroufe, & Waters, 1979). It is assumed that the occurrence ofstressful events impacts the quality of maternal caregiving behavior, mother–child interactions,and ultimately a child’s security if such events become a regular fixture of the child andmother’s environment.

For most children, the marital relationship provides part of the immediate context in whichthe child–mother relationship develops. Characteristics of the spousal relationship are likely toinfluence the way parents interact with their children. Thus, close, confiding marriages havebeen found to be associated with mothers being warmer and more sensitive with their infants,and fathers holding more positive attitudes towards their infants and towards their roles as par-ents (Cox, Owen, Lewis, & Henderson, 1989; Cummings, 1998). By the same token, the qualityof caregiving provided by parents is likely to be undermined if the marital relationship does notfunction as an effective support system (Belsky, 1981; Belsky & Pasco Fearon, 2004; Buehler &Gerard, 2002; Cummings, Keller, & Davies, 2005; Davies & Cummings, 1994; Erel & Burman,1995; Krishnakumar & Buehler, 2000; Margolin, Gordis, & Oliver, 2004).

With these considerations in mind, an aim of this study was to examine the relationshipbetween overall marital conflict and preschoolers’ attachment security. Further, a second aimwas to identify possible pathways of influence from marital conflict to child security. Thus,theoretically relevant variables were investigated. Specifically, we were interested in the associ-ations between physical aggression in both spousal (from husband to wife) and child–motherrelationships (maternal use of aggressive discipline practices), and 3-year-olds’ attachmentsecurity.

Global Marital Conflict and Attachment SecurityIn a meta-analysis of 68 studies, Erel and Burman (1995) concluded that there exists sup-

port for the hypothesis that negative marital relationship quality is associated with negativeparent–child relationship quality. Thus, marital conflict has the potential to negatively impactthe child–mother relationship. To be clear, not all forms of marital conflict seem to have thesame kind of impact on children’s adjustment. For example, toddlers exhibit little distress whenexposed to constructive, emotionally well-modulated parental conflict. Further, children’s dis-tress and negative reactions are drastically reduced when conflicts are resolved (Cummings,1998; Davies & Cummings, 1994). Research has shown that when marital conflict is handled incalm and affectionate ways, children are more likely to experience security (Cummings, Goeke-Morey, & Papp, 2003; Davies et al., 2004; Easterbrooks, Cummings, & Emde, 1994; Goeke-Morey, Cummings, Harold, & Shelton, 2003; Gottman, 1994).

However, frequent or chronic conflict in the spousal relationship is likely to co-occur withmore destructive forms of conflict (e.g., conflict where there is physical aggression; Davies &Cummings, 1994; Gottman, 1994). Importantly, frequent marital conflict is likely to be relatedto decreases in parental availability and sensitivity (Cummings et al., 2003; Engfer, 1988; Goe-ke-Morey et al., 2003; Owen & Cox, 1997). Thus, chronic spousal conflict is not likely to fosteraccepting, cooperative, accessible, and sensitive care, all of which are important for secureattachment relationships to develop (Ainsworth et al., 1978; Davies & Cummings, 1994; Erel &Burman, 1995). Indeed, some studies have reported significant associations between globalassessments of marital discord, marital satisfaction, and attachment security during infancy inexpected directions (e.g., Goldberg & Easterbrooks, 1984; Howes & Markman, 1989; Isabella &Belsky, 1985). However, if we are to understand the associations between marital discord andattachment (in)security, further research about what specifically transpires during spousal con-flict is needed. For the most part, the relation between these constructs has been studied withglobal indices of spousal discord (e.g., the Short Marital Adjustment Test [SMAT]; Locke &Wallace, 1959). Although important to determine whether marital discord and security are

January 2008 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY 15

empirically related, global assessments do not provide enough information about specificaspects of discord that may help understand the association found. Thus, in addition tostudying the associations between marital conflict and attachment security during the preschoolperiod, a main goal of the current project was to investigate the relation between attachmentsecurity and two specific and theoretically relevant aspects of marital conflict: physical aggres-sion between spouses and child exposure to it.

Marital Physical Aggression and Child ExposureOverall, studies suggest that physical aggression as a form of conflict carries one of the

greatest risks for children in terms of negative reactions and adjustment problems, and thatexposure to parental violence is an emotionally stressful experience (e.g., Cummings, Pellegrini,Notarius, & Cummings, 1989; Cummings, Vogel, Cummings, & El-Sheikh, 1989; Cummings,Zahn-Waxler, & Radke-Yarrow, 1981; Margolin, Gordis, Medina, & Oliver, 2003; Martin &Clements, 2002) with implications for children’s emotional and physical well-being (Cummings& Davies, 1994; Davies & Cummings, 1994). Spousal physical aggression is considered here arelevant domain of interparental discord as attachment security is concerned. It is suggestedthat maternal victimization is likely to indirectly affect child security via mothers’ ability toprovide sensitive caregiving. That is, physical aggression against the mother (not witnessed bythe child) probably impacts her ability to respond sensitively to the child’s signals and cooper-ate with the child’s ongoing behavior, and this, in turn, may diminish a child’s confidence inher or his parents as a secure base.

In addition, from the lens of attachment theory, it also is hypothesized that the child’s wit-nessing of marital physical aggression is likely to be a direct path of influence from marital con-flict to security. From a child’s point of view, witnessing interparental aggression may implythat one or both parents can be dangerous. It can also imply that the less dominant parent (usu-ally the mother, who is also typically the primary attachment figure) is herself in jeopardy; thus,she cannot provide either a secure base from which to explore or a safe haven to which the childcan retreat when distressed. Indeed, it has been reported that exposure to physical aggression,even if relatively infrequent, may profoundly influence children’s notions about the quality andsafety of family relations (Cummings, 1998; Cummings & Graham, 2002). Therefore, in thisstudy, we wanted to determine whether physical aggression from husband to wife and exposureof the child to it are related to child security, and whether they contribute information to theprediction of security beyond any contribution provided by a global index of marital conflict.

Maternal Use of Harsh Physical Discipline PracticesAs much as physical aggression against the mother and exposure of the child to it can be

detrimental to the quality of child–mother relationships, the use of harsh physical disciplinepractices is also considered deleterious to establishing and maintaining secure base relation-ships. Researchers suggest that parental aggression against the child is associated with anxiouschild–parent attachments (e.g., Bowlby, 1988; Coyl, Roggman, & Newland, 2002; DeLozier,1982). Because aggressive discipline practices arouse higher levels of anxiety (Kochanska, 1995),their use likely undermines the child’s security and confidence in the caregiver’s availability as ahaven of safety. Supporting this, several studies conducted in high-risk or clinical samples indi-cate that power-oriented discipline, spanking, and parent-to-child aggression are significantlyassociated with insecure attachments (Beeghly & Cicchetti, 1994; Carlson, Cicchetti, Barnett, &Braunwald, 1989; Coyl et al., 2002; Egeland & Sroufe, 1981; Kochanska, 1995; Lyons-Ruth,1996; Lyons-Ruth, Repacholi, Mcleod, & Silva, 1991; Schneider-Rosen, Braunwald, Carlson, &Cicchetti, 1985). While we can expect that such an association would also hold for nonclinicalsamples, research about the use of physically aggressive disciplinary practices and their effectson attachment security in that type of sample is scarce (e.g., Barnett, Kidwell, & Leung, 1998;Coyl et al., 2002). Thus, in this study we investigated the relations between maternal use of


harsh physical discipline practices and the organization of secure base behavior. Moreover, asresearchers have hypothesized an indirect path of influence from marital conflict to children’soutcomes via parenting (e.g., El-Sheikh & Elmore-Staton, 2004; Engfer, 1988; Frosch, Mangels-dorf, & McHale, 2000; Owen & Cox, 1997), we investigated, in an exploratory manner, the roleof mediator that parental physical discipline practices may play in the associations betweenmarital conflict and child security.

In sum, aggression in the family is likely to be associated with patterns of secure basebehavior organization that indicate an insecure attachment. Previous studies have found globalindices of marital discord and security to be negatively associated in families with infants.We intended to expand those findings to the preschool period. Also, to empirically determinewhether relevant aspects of marital conflict can help specify and explain the association betweenmarital discord and child security, physical aggression against the mother and exposure of thechild to it and their relations to security were investigated. Finally, as marital conflict may affectsecurity through its effects on parenting, we further investigated whether the use of harshphysical discipline practices mediates the associations between marital aggression and security.Specifically, the questions asked in this study addressed first whether a global index of maritalconflict, spousal physical aggression against the mother, exposure of the child to it, and harshphysical discipline practices were significantly related to children’s use of the mother as a securebase (i.e., security). Second, we also asked whether spousal physical aggression and exposure ofthe child to it contribute information to the prediction of security beyond any contributionsmade by a global index of marital conflict. Third, we asked whether maternal use of aggressivediscipline practices mediates the relations between a global index of conflict, spousal aggression,and exposure of the child and security.

METHOD

ParticipantsParticipants in this study were 45 volunteer, middle- and working-class, suburban families

with a preschool child between 36 and 43 months of age. Children were 20 girls and 25 boys;their health status was described by their mothers as ‘‘good’’ for 40 children, while the otherfive children were described as having some allergies; 24 children were cared for full time athome, 19 attended preschool, and two had other child care arrangements. Families were from anonclinical population, all were white except for one, and all families, but one, were intact.Mothers’ ages ranged from 28 to 42 years (M = 33.04) and their education level ranged from12 (High school degree) to 20 years (PhD degree; M = 15.5). Mothers declared themselves asthe principal caregiver in all cases; 24 of them were stay-at-home mothers, 15 worked part timeoutside the home, and six worked full time outside the home. Fathers’ ages ranged from 30 to44 years (M = 35) and their education level ranged from 12 to 20 years (M = 15.2). The meanduration of time couples had been married was 8.5 years.

ProceduresNames of potential subjects were obtained from birth announcements in local papers filed

in town libraries. A letter was sent to them explaining the study and inviting them to partici-pate. A phone call was made a week after the initial mailing to explain the study in more detail,confirm participation, and arrange details for the home visits. Of the 118 families contacted byphone, 48 (41%) families agreed to participate in the study; one family discontinued participa-tion after the first home visit was completed and two others did not complete all assessments.Dyads were visited on two separate occasions by observers who provided descriptions of child-ren’s secure base behavior with mother at home. Mothers completed questionnaires about mari-tal conflict, spousal physical aggression, exposure of the child to it, and the use of physicaldiscipline practices.


Each of the home visits lasted between 2.5 and 3 hr. During the first visit, one of theobservers obtained signed informed consent and gave thorough instructions as to how tocomplete a set of questionnaires; mothers were instructed to have them completed by the timeof the second home visit. All first home visits were unstructured such that mothers were told togo about their activities as they would normally do. Observers were allowed to interact natu-rally with both mother and infant during the visits. The second visit mirrored the initial oneexcept for two activities mother–child dyads were asked to complete: baking cupcakes andreading a book together. After each home visit, observers independently completed a q-sortdescription of the child’s behavior with the Attachment Q-Set (AQS; Waters, 1995).

MeasuresGlobal marital conflict. A global index of marital discord was obtained with a scale that

consists of 15 items adapted from, and which essentially parallels, both the Short MaritalAdjustment Test (Locke & Wallace, 1959) and the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (Spanier, 1976).The response format was a six-point (0–5) Likert scale anchored in terms of frequency ofdisagreements during the past 6 months: ‘‘never’’ (scored 0), ‘‘1–3 times’’ (scored 1), ‘‘4–6times’’ (scored 2), ‘‘7–9 times’’ (scored 3), ‘‘almost every week’’ (scored 4), and ‘‘every week ormore’’ (scored 5). Mothers reported on disagreements with their husbands about topics such ashandling household finances, amount of time spent together, household tasks and maintenance,time for self versus time for the family, and ways of dealing with in-laws. The internal consis-tency for the scale, Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, was .78. A global marital conflict score wascalculated for each subject by averaging her responses to the 15 items.

Spousal physical aggression and child exposure to spousal physical aggression. Spousal phys-ical aggression during discord and exposure of the child to physical aggression were assessedwith a 12-item questionnaire (Posada & Waters, 1990) that included specific physically aggres-sive behaviors individuals may engage in when having a disagreement with their partner. Forexample, mothers reported on their spouse’s performance of aggressive behaviors such as push-ing the spouse down during a disagreement, becoming enraged at the spouse and throwingthings to the floor or across the room, throwing or spilling something wet on the spouse inanger, slapping the spouse during an argument, and scratching or squeezing the spouse hardenough to leave a mark. This instrument was constructed with the Conflict Tactics Scale(Straus, 1979) and interviews with parents of 3–6-year-old children as points of reference. As inthe previous scale, the response format for physical aggression was a six-point (0–5) Likert scaleanchored in terms of frequency of disagreements during the past 6 months, from ‘‘never’’ (0) to‘‘every week or more’’ (5). Exposure of the child to spousal aggression was assessed with thesame items used to assess physical aggression by having a second six-point (0–5) Likert scale infront of each of the 12 items that asked for the percentage of times a child had watched orheard the parents engage in the behaviors reported: 0% (scored 0), 20% (scored 1), 40%(scored 2), 60% (scored 3), 80% (scored 4), and 80+% (scored 5). Internal consistency reliabil-ity for the aggression scale, Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, was .76. A spousal physical aggressionand an exposure to aggression scores were calculated for each subject by averaging the mothers’responses to the 12 items.

Maternal physical discipline practices. The use of physical discipline practices was assessedwith a 14-item scale (Posada & Waters, 1990) that refers to specific physically aggressive behav-ioral practices mothers employ when disciplining their children. For example, mothers reportedon their use of aggressive behaviors such as holding the child by her or his arms, slapping thechild’s hands, throwing things to the floor or across the room, punishing their child with anobject, and throwing or spilling something wet on the child in anger. This instrument was con-structed from interviews with parents of 3–6-year-old children. As in the previous scales, theresponse format was a six-point (0–5) Likert scale anchored in terms of frequency of use ofthose discipline practices during the past 6 months, from ‘‘never’’ (0) to ‘‘every week or more’’


(5). Internal consistency reliability, Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, for this scale was .79. A physi-cal discipline practices score was obtained by averaging mothers’ responses to the 14 items.

Child attachment security. The organization of children’s secure base behavior wasassessed at home with the AQS (Waters, 1995). The validity of the AQS has been documentedin various reports (van IJzendoorn, Vereijken, Bakermans-Kranenburg, & Riksen-Walraven,2004; Pederson & Moran, 1995, 1996; Posada et al., 1999, 2004; Vaughn & Waters, 1990;Waters & Deane, 1985). Trained observers conducted two 2.5–3-hr visits in each home. Fortyout of 45 children were observed by two observers at least in one of the two home visits. Over-all, two observers were present in 71% of the home visits (64 out of 90), and one observer inthe other 26 visits. After each visit, observers separately used the attachment q-sort to describea child’s behavior. Following q-methodology (Block, 1978), observers initially divided the 90items into three piles: ‘‘characteristic,’’ ‘‘neither characteristic nor uncharacteristic,’’ and‘‘uncharacteristic.’’ Subsequently, the three piles were further subdivided into nine piles of tenitems each ranging from 9 ‘‘most characteristic’’ to 1 ‘‘most uncharacteristic.’’ The pile numberin which an item was placed was the rating for that item. The end result consisted of the 90items placed in nine piles of ten items each ranging from most characteristic to most uncharac-teristic. Mean inter-observer reliability (calculated from the agreement between the q-descrip-tions) was .78 (range = .58–.91)1. The descriptions were averaged into a composite that wasused as the q-description of an infant’s secure base behavior. A global security score for eachchild was obtained by correlating that composite description with a security criterion sort thatdescribes the prototypically secure child (Waters, 1995). The correlation index obtained indi-cates how similar a child’s behavior is to behavior indicating use of the mother as a securebase; this index is a child’s security score and it was used in analyses.

RESULTS

Overall, rates of reported general marital conflict, spousal physical aggression, exposure ofthe child to spousal physical aggression, and harsh physical discipline practices were low, asexpected for a nonclinical sample. In fact, exploratory data analysis revealed that global maritalconflict, physical aggression against the mother, and exposure of the child to physical aggres-sion were not normally distributed. These variables were positively skewed. A square roottransformation normalized global marital conflict; physical aggression against the mother andexposure of the child to physical aggression continued to be positively skewed, although thesquare root transformation tended to normalize them. The transformed scores were used inanalyses. Children’s attachment average security score was .42. This mean is comparable tothose reported in other studies using middle-class samples (e.g., Park & Waters, 1989; Pedersonet al., 1990; Posada, Waters, Crowell, & Lay, 1995). Tests of normality indicated that securitywas normally distributed. Table 1 presents descriptive statistics for each of the variablesassessed.

Pearson correlation analyses indicated that spousal physical aggression against the motherwas significantly and positively associated with a global index of marital conflict, exposure ofthe child to physical aggression, and use of physical discipline practices. In addition, globalmarital conflict was significantly associated with physical discipline practices. Exposure of thechild to physical aggression was not significantly associated with either a global index of mari-tal conflict or use of physical discipline practices. Correlation coefficients are presented inTable 2.

To answer our first research question, a set of analyses investigated whether a global indexof marital conflict, spousal physical aggression against the mother, exposure of the child to it,

1The reliability of q-descriptions was calculated as suggested by Block (1978) by employing the Spearman–

Brown correction formula for the correlation between ⁄ among q-descriptions.


and harsh physical discipline practices were significantly related to children’s use of mother as asecure base (Table 2). All marital conflict variables studied were negatively and significantlyassociated with child security as predicted. Similarly, the association between use of physicaldiscipline practices and security was negative and significant.

Second, we investigated whether maternal reports of spousal physical aggression andexposure of the child to it contribute information to the prediction of security beyond anycontribution made by a global index of marital conflict. Hierarchical regression analyses(Table 3) indicated that information about both physical aggression and exposure of the childto it significantly accounted for security variance even after the effects of a global index of mar-ital conflict had been taken into account, i.e., general marital conflict was entered first in theregression equation (R2 change = .24, p < .01, and .18, p < .01, respectively). As Table 3 alsoshows, a global index of marital conflict did not contribute significant information to theprediction of security when entered after physical aggression against the mother. However, itsignificantly contributed when entered after information about exposure of the child to physicalaggression against the mother.

Table 1Descriptive Statistics

N Mean SD Range

Global marital conflict 45 .88 .54 .07–2.69Spousal physical aggression 44 .12 .20 0–.92Exposure to aggression 44 .13 .30 0–1.25Physical discipline practices 44 .58 .39 0–1.43Attachment security 45 .42 .22 ).13–.76

Note. For the measures on marital conflict, aggression, exposure to aggression, and use ofphysical discipline practices a score of 0 indicates no incidents, a score of 1 indicates afrequency of 1–3 incidents during the last 6 months, a score of 2 indicates 4–6 incidents, anda score of 3 indicates 7–9 incidents. Security scores refer to the correlation coefficient betweena child’s composite description and the criterion sort. The missing data for three variablescome from the same participant.

Table 2Pearson Product-Moment Correlations

SPA ETA PDP Security

Global marital conflict .33* .03 .29* ).37**SPA — .74** .26* ).59**ETA — — .16 ).44**PDP — — — ).30*

Note. SPA = Spousal Physical Aggression; ETA = Exposure To Aggression; PDP =Physical Discipline Practices.*p < .05, **p < .01.


Further, when the three predictors were considered together (R2 = .39, p < .01) and eachwas entered last in the equation, only physical aggression against the mother significantly con-tributed information to the prediction of security beyond the contributions of the other twovariables (R2 change = .07, p < .05); neither exposure of the child nor global marital discordadded unique information to the prediction of security in the context of this set of variables.

Finally, to answer our third question, we conducted analyses to determine whether mater-nal use of physically aggressive discipline practices mediates the relations between a globalindex of conflict and physical aggression against the mother, and child security. Regressionanalyses (Table 4) indicated that the proportion of variance in security accounted for by aglobal index of conflict decreased from 13% to 9% when information about harsh discipline

Table 3Contributions of a Global Index of Conflict, Spousal Physical Aggression, and Exposureof the Child to the Prediction of Attachment Security

Predictor variables R2 R2 change F change df Beta

Global index of conflict .13 .13 6.2* 1, 42 ).19Spousal physical aggression .37 .24 16.2** 1, 41 ).53**

Spousal physical aggression .34 .34 22.1** 1, 42 ).53**Global index of conflict .37 .03 1.9 1, 41 ).19

Global index of conflict .13 .13 6.2* 1, 42 ).34*Exposure to physical aggression .31 .18 10.7** 1, 41 ).42**

Exposure to physical aggression .19 .19 9.8** 1, 42 ).42**Global index of conflict .31 .12 6.9* 1, 41 ).34*

Note. The table reflects the results of four separate regression analyses.*p < .05, **p < .01.

Table 4Aggressive Discipline Practices as a Mediator of the Association Between MaritalConflict and Attachment Security and Between Spousal Physical Aggression andAttachment Security

Predictor variables R2 R2 change F change df Beta

Global index of conflict .13 .13 6.2* 1, 42 ).19

Physical discipline (entered first) .09 .09 4.2* 1, 42 ).21Global index of conflict .18 .09 4.4* 1, 41 ).31*

Spousal physical aggression .34 .34 22.1** 1, 42 ).53**

Physical discipline (entered first) .09 .09 4.2* 1, 42 ).16Spousal physical aggression .37 .28 17.9** 1, 41 ).55**

*p < .05, **p < .01.


practices was entered first in the equation. Further, they indicated that the proportion of secu-rity variance accounted for by spousal physical aggression also decreased from 34% to 28%when information on physical discipline practices was entered first. Because exposure to spousalaggression against the mother and use of physical discipline practices were not significantlyrelated (a necessary condition for a mediational model), the latter cannot mediate the associa-tion between exposure to aggression and security (Baron & Kenny, 1986).

DISCUSSION

Attachment theory proposes that child security is responsive to characteristics of the con-text where the child–mother relationship develops (Bowlby, 1982, 1988; Davies & Cicchetti,2004; Davies et al., 2004). Because the family provides the immediate context in which child–mother relationships develop for most children, we were interested in evaluating the associa-tions between physical aggression in the family and attachment security in a nonclinical sampleof preschool children. Overall, results indicated that marital conflict and physical aggression inthe spousal relationship are significantly and negatively associated with the use of mother as asecure base (i.e., security). Specifically, higher scores on a global index of marital conflict wererelated to lower scores on preschoolers’ security of attachment to mother at home in everydaycircumstances. This finding extends to preschool children previously reported results for familieswith infants (e.g., Howes & Markman, 1989; Isabella & Belsky, 1985). In conjunction withthose earlier studies, our findings provide evidence that suggests continuity in the associationbetween marital conflict and attachment security through the preschool years.

Moreover, physical aggression against the mother and exposure of the child to it were notonly significantly and negatively related to security, but also contributed information to the pre-diction of child attachment security beyond that contributed by a global assessment of maritalconflict. This was so despite the very low frequency of physical aggression against the motherand exposure of the child reported. These findings support the idea that physical aggression, asa form of conflict, and exposure of the child to it have significant influences on child securityeven if they occur infrequently (Cummings, 1998; Davies & Cummings, 1994; Margolin et al.,2003). Also, they underscore the relevance of assessing such aspects of marital conflict in rela-tion to the quality of child–mother attachment relationships. The fact that a global index ofconflict did not add significant information to the prediction of security when entered afterphysical aggression against the mother, while physical aggression against the mother signifi-cantly contributed to the prediction of security even after considering both a global index ofconflict and exposure of the child to physical aggression, further highlights the relevance ofinformation regarding physical aggression in the marital relationship when considering securebase behavior outcomes.

The case of exposure of the child to physical aggression was different. Although it helpedpredict security beyond any contribution by a general index of marital conflict, this latter con-tinued to significantly contribute to the prediction of security after exposure had been consid-ered. Further, exposure of the child to physical aggression did not add unique information tothe prediction of security when considered after physical aggression against the mother and aglobal index of marital conflict. A possible explanation for these findings is that assessmentsof marital physical aggression in nonclinical families with low rates of spousal violence maycapture destructive marital interactions comprehensively in a manner that any impact of chil-dren’s exposure to physical aggression against the mother on security is subsumed within theassessment of physical aggression.

Maternal use of physically aggressive discipline practices was found to be significantly andnegatively related to the organization of secure base behavior at home. This is consistent withprevious reports of associations between physical aggression and security in clinical populations(e.g., Beeghly & Cicchetti, 1994; Carlson et al., 1989; Egeland & Sroufe, 1981; Lyons-Ruth,


1996; Lyons-Ruth et al., 1991). Our findings indicate that the use of harsh physical punishmentis negatively associated with security in a nonclinical middle-class sample of preschoolers, andlend support to the hypothesis that the use of aggressive discipline practices undermines thechild’s confidence in the caregiver’s availability as a secure base. Furthermore, mothers whoreported being the target of their husbands’ physical aggression in turn reported using physi-cally aggressive practices when disciplining their children. This result is in line with findingslinking physical aggression between spouses to aggression against the child (e.g., Hughes, 1988;Jouriles, Barling, & O’Leary, 1987). In our case, however, the association between the variableswas found in a nonclinical sample.

Overall, however, analyses did not support the role of harsh physical discipline practicesas a mediator of the relations between physical aggression against the mother and attachmentsecurity. The proportion of variance accounted for by spousal aggression after informationabout use of physical discipline did not decrease substantially and remained significant.Similarly, the proportion of security variance accounted for by global conflict when informa-tion on use of physical discipline practices was entered first decreases from 13% to 9%; thischange was not as substantial as to render the association between the variables nonsignifi-cant. Thus, in the best-case scenario we could only speculate about a partial mediation rolein this latter case. These results may indicate that both spousal physical aggression andaggressive discipline practices, although related, influence independently child security out-comes. However, because all variables were assessed simultaneously at one point in time, andthe number of participants was rather small (thus raising issues of statistical power), we needto be cautious about the findings presented. Indeed, further research is necessary to clarifythe relations among the variables. A more stringent test of this hypothesis should include alongitudinal, direct, and broader assessment of the quality of maternal caregiving behavior(i.e., sensitivity, not only discipline practices). Also, it should include direct observations ofspousal interactions when assessing marital conflict, in addition to self-reports provided bythe mothers; although we gathered independent information on the criterion variable, alimitation of this study concerns the collection of data about the predictor variables only viamothers’ reports.

In general, results are consistent with the hypothesis that aggressive marital conflict andaggressive discipline practices are likely to impact children’s relationship outcomes (Cummings,1998; Davies & Cummings, 1994; Margolin et al., 2003; Owen & Cox, 1997). The data pre-sented, however, are cross-sectional in nature and no causal relations among the variables canbe stated. A more rigorous examination of these relations should include longitudinal andmulti-source assessments of the variables investigated. Finally, it is important to note that theparticipants in the project conformed a relatively small sample2 of volunteers, which under-scores the need to be cautious when interpreting the results and making generalizations to othergroups.

Nonetheless, evidence from this middle-class, nonclinical sample supports the propositionthat spousal physical aggression and exposure of the child to it, even at low levels, are riskfactors as far as security outcomes are concerned. Overall, the findings highlight the benefits ofstudying specific aspects of conflict in the spousal relationship and how they relate to children’suse of mother as secure base. In so doing, the association between global indices of maritalconflict and child security may become more clearly understood. Also, they emphasize the use-fulness of studying attachment relationships considering the context in which they develop, andthe notion that different family subsystems (e.g., spousal relationship and parent–child relation-ships) are related and likely influence each other.

2We note that conducting time-consuming naturalistic, in-depth observations of child–mother interactions of

the type conducted in this study sets an important constraint in the number of participants to have, and thus

leaves researchers with the inherent analytical weaknesses of having fewer participants than may be desirable.


Clinical ApplicationsThe current findings point to the importance for family therapists to know how to detect

and deal with family aggression in the therapy room. First, when physical aggression exists,there may not only be deleterious consequences for the spousal relationship, but also poten-tially negative developmental implications in parenting and the development of attachmentrelationships (in our case). This is relevant because those relationships provide children witha context for socialization and for the development of expectations about close relationshipsin general. Thus, the clinical questions of assessment and treatment are of utmost significancewhen one becomes aware of marital aggression in a couple with children. Based on the find-ings reported, when marital physical aggression is present, inquiring and gathering informa-tion about child exposure to it, discipline practices, and child well-being seem necessary.Frequently in families with small children, discipline questions, problems, and practices areusual topics of conversation in therapy and can be easily explored when good joining hasoccurred. It is also potentially beneficial to bring the family together in therapy to view howparents interact with the children, particularly noting such things as boundary setting, controlissues, and ways in which transitions are handled (e.g., Bowlby, 1949; Gil, 1994).

Second, the findings are particularly relevant in the context of family therapists who con-tinue to indicate discomfort when working with children in family therapy (Sori & Sprenkle,2004), and makes training to overcome this difficulty (Johnson & Thomas, 1999) a relevantissue. This is especially so in consideration of the results presented linking aggression in thespousal relationship with the use of physical punishment and insecurity in the child–motherrelationship. Early intervention with children and their families, and awareness and attention totheir distress and relationship difficulties, may be extremely important in the preschool years.

REFERENCES

Ainsworth, M. D., Blehar, M., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates.

Barnett, D., Kidwell, S. L., & Leung, K. H. (1998). Parenting and preschooler attachment among low-income

urban African-American families. Child Development, 69, 1657–1671.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological

research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

51, 1173–1182.

Beeghly, M., & Cicchetti, D. (1994). Child maltreatment, attachment, and the self system: Emergence of an inter-

nal state lexicon in toddlers at high social risk. Development and Psychopathology, 6, 5–30.

Belsky, J. (1981). Early human experience: A family perspective. Developmental Psychology, 17, 3–23.

Belsky, J., & Pasco Fearon, R. M. (2004). Exploring marriage-parenting typologies and their contextual anteced-

ents and developmental sequelae. Development and Psychopathology, 16, 501–523.

Block, J. (1978). The Q-sort method. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychology Press.

Bowlby, J. (1949). The study and reduction of group tensions in the family. Human Relations, 2, 123–128.

Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss. Vol. I. Attachment. New York: Basic Books.

Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base. New York: Basic Books.

Buehler, C., & Gerard, J. M. (2002). Marital conflict, ineffective parenting, and children’s and adolescents’

maladjustment. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 78–92.

Carlson, V., Cicchetti, D., Barnett, D., & Braunwald, K. (1989). Disorganized ⁄ disoriented attachment relation-

ships in maltreated infants. Developmental Psychology, 25, 525–531.

Cox, M. J., Owen, M. T., Lewis, J. M., & Henderson, V. K. (1989). Marriage, adult adjustment and early parent-

ing. Child Development, 60, 1015–1024.

Coyl, D. D., Roggman, L. A., & Newland, L. A. (2002). Stress, depression, and negative mother-infant interac-

tions in relation to infant attachment. Infant Mental Health Journal, 23, 145–163.

Cummings, E. M. (1998). Children exposed to marital conflict and violence: Conceptual and theoretical

directions. In G. W. Holden, R. Geffner, & E. N. Jouriles (Eds.), Children exposed to marital violence (pp.

55–93). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.


Cummings, E. M., & Davies, P. T. (1994). Children and marital conflict: The impact of family dispute and resolu-

tion. New York: Guilford Press.

Cummings, E. M., Goeke-Morey, M. C., & Papp, L. M. (2003). Children’s responses to everyday marital conflict

tactics in the home. Child Development, 74, 1918–1929.

Cummings, E. M., & Graham, M. (2002). Couples’ and children’s functioning in families: Toward a family

perspective on relationship maintenance and enhancement. In J. Harvey & A. Wenzel (Eds.), A clini-

cian’s guide to maintaining and enhancing close relationships (pp. 81–103). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates.

Cummings, E. M., Keller, P. S., & Davies, P. T. (2005). Towards a family process model of maternal and pater-

nal depressive symptoms: Exploring multiple relations with child and family functioning. The Journal of

Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46, 479–489.

Cummings, J. S., Pellegrini, D. S., Notarius, C. I., & Cummings, E. M. (1989). Children’s responses to angry

behavior as a function of marital distress and history of interparent hostility. Child Development, 60, 1035–

1043.

Cummings, E. M., Vogel, D., Cummings, J. S., & El-Sheikh, M. (1989). Children’s responses to different forms of

expression of anger between adults. Child Development, 60, 1392–1404.

Cummings, E. M., Zahn-Waxler, C., & Radke-Yarrow, M. (1981). Young children’s responses to expressions of

anger and affection by others in the family. Child Development, 52, 1274–1282.

Davies, P. T., & Cicchetti, D. (2004). Toward an integration of family systems and developmental psychopathol-

ogy approaches. Development and Psychopathology, 16, 477–481.

Davies, P. T., & Cummings, E. M. (1994). Marital conflict and child adjustment: An emotional security hypothe-

sis. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 387–411.

Davies, P. T., Cummings, E. M., & Winter, M. A. (2004). Pathways between profiles of family functioning, child

security in the interparental subsystem, and child psychological problems. Development and Psychopathology,

16, 525–550.

De Wolff, M. S., & van IJzendoorn, M. H. (1997). Sensitivity and attachment: A meta-analysis on parental

antecedents of infant attachment. Child Development, 68, 571–591.

DeLozier, M. (1982). Attachment theory and child abuse. In C. M. Parkes & J. S. Stevenson-Hinde (Eds.),

The place of attachment in human behavior (pp. 95–117). London: Tavistock.

Diener, M. L., Nievar, M. A., & Wright, C. (2003). Attachment security among mothers and their young children

living in poverty: Associations with maternal, child, and contextual characteristics. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly,

49, 154–182.

Easterbrooks, M. A., Chaudhuri, J. H., & Gestsdottir, S. (2004). Patterns of emotional availability among young

mothers and their infants: A dyadic, contextual analysis. Infant Mental Health Journal, 26, 309–326.

Easterbrooks, M. A., Cummings, E. M., & Emde, R. N. (1994). Young children’s responses to constructive mari-

tal disputes. Journal of Family Psychology, 27, 448–455.

Egeland, B., & Farber, E. A. (1984). Infant-mother attachment: Factors related to its development and changes

over time. Child Development, 55, 753–771.

Egeland, B., & Sroufe, L. A. (1981). Developmental sequelae of maltreatment in infancy. In D. Cicchetti &

R. Rizley (Eds.), Developmental approaches to child maltreatment: New directions in child development

(Vol. 11, pp. 77–92). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

El-Sheikh, M., & Elmore-Staton, L. (2004). The link between marital conflict and child adjustment: Parent–child

conflict and perceived attachments as mediators, potentiators, and mitigators of risk. Development and

Psychopathology, 16, 631–648.

Engfer, A. (1988). The interrelatedness of marriage and the child–mother relationship. In R. A. Hinde & J. Ste-

venson-Hinde (Eds.), Relationships within families: Mutual influences (pp. 104–118). Oxford, England: Clare-

don Press.

Erel, O., & Burman, B. (1995). Interrelatedness of marital relations and parent–child relations: A meta-analytic

review. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 108–132.

Frosch, C. A., Mangelsdorf, S. C., & McHale, J. L. (2000). Marital behavior and the security of preschooler-

parent attachment relationships. Journal of Family Psychology, 14, 144–161.

Gil, E. (1994). Play in family therapy. New York: Guilford Press.

Goeke-Morey, M., Cummings, E. M., Harold, G. T., & Shelton, K. H. (2003). Categories and continua of

destructive and constructive marital conflict tactics from the perspective of U.S. and Welsh children. Journal

of Family Psychology, 17, 327–338.


Goldberg, W. A., & Easterbrooks, M. A. (1984). Role of marital quality in toddler development. Developmental

Psychology, 20, 504–514.

Gottman, J. M. (1994). Why marriages succeed or fail. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Gottman, J. M., & de Claire, J. (1998). Raising an emotionally intelligent child. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Hinde, R. A., & Stevenson-Hinde, J. (1990). Attachment: Biological, cultural and individual desiderata. Human

Development, 33, 62–72.

Howes, P., & Markman, H. (1989). Marital quality and child functioning: A longitudinal investigation. Child

Development, 60, 1044–1051.

Hughes, H. (1988). Psychological and behavioral correlates of family violence in child witnesses and victims.

American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 6, 81–103.

van IJzendoorn, M. H., Vereijken, C. M. J. L., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., & Riksen-Walraven, J. M. (2004).

Assessing attachment security with the attachment Q-sort: Meta-analytic evidence for the validity of the

observer AQS. Child Development, 75, 4.

Isabella, R. A., & Belsky, J. (1985). Marital change during the transition to parenthood and security of infant–

parent attachment. Journal of Family Issues, 6, 505–522.

Johnson, S. M. (1996). Creating connection: The practice of emotionally focused marital therapy. Philadelphia:

Brunner ⁄Mazel.

Johnson, S. M., & Greenman, P. S. (2006). The path to a secure bond: Emotionally focused couple therapy.

Journal of Clinical Psychology, 62, 597–609.

Johnson, L., & Thomas, V. (1999). Influences on the inclusion of children in family therapy. Journal of Marital &

Family Therapy, 25, 117–123.

Jouriles, E. N., Barling, J., & O’Leary, K. D. (1987). Predicting child behavior problems in maritally violent

families. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 15, 165–173.

Karen, R. (1994). Becoming attached. New York: Warner Books.

Kochanska, G. (1995). Children’s temperament, mothers’ discipline, and security of attachment: Multiple path-

ways to emerging internalization. Child Development, 66, 597–615.

Krishnakumar, A., & Buehler, C. (2000). Interparental conflict and parenting behaviors: A meta-analytic review.

Family Relations, 49, 25–44.

Locke, H. J., & Wallace, K. M. (1959). Short marital adjustment and prediction tests: Their reliability and valid-

ity. Marriage and Family Living, 21, 251–255.

Lyons-Ruth, K. (1996). Attachment relationships among children with aggressive behavior problems: The role of

disorganized early attachment patterns. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64, 64–73.

Lyons-Ruth, K., Repacholi, B., Mcleod, S., & Silva, E. (1991). Disorganized attachment behavior in infancy:

Short-term stability, maternal and infant correlates, and risk-related subtypes. Development and Psycho-

pathology, 3, 377–396.

Margolin, G., Gordis, E. B., Medina, A. M., & Oliver, P. H. (2003). The co-occurrence of husband-to-wife

aggression, family-of-origin aggression, and child abuse potential in a community sample: Implications for

parenting. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 412–440.

Margolin, G., Gordis, E. B., & Oliver, P. H. (2004). Links between marital and parent-child interactions: Moder-

ating role of husband-to-wife aggression. Development and Psychopathology, 16, 753–771.

Martin, S. E., & Clements, M. L. (2002). Young children’s responding to interparental conflict: Associations with

marital aggression and child adjustment. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 11, 231–244.

Owen, M. T., & Cox, M. (1997). Marital conflict and the development of infant-parent attachment relationships.

Journal of Family Psychology, 11, 152–164.

Park, K. A., & Waters, E. (1989). Security of attachment and preschool friendships. Child Development, 60, 1076–

1081.

Pederson, D. R., & Moran, G. (1995). A categorical description of infant-mother relationships in the home and

its relation to Q-sort measures of infant-mother interaction. In E. Waters, B. Vaughn, G. Posada, &

K. Kondo-Ikemura (Eds.), Caregiving, cultural, and cognitive perspectives on secure-base behavior and work-

ing models: New growing points of attachment theory and research. Monographs of the Society for Research in

Child Development (Vol. 60, 2–3, Serial No. 244, pp. 111–132).

Pederson, D. R., & Moran, G. (1996). Expressions of the attachment relationship outside of the strange situation.

Child Development, 67, 915–927.

Pederson, D. R., Moran, G., Sitko, C., Campbell, K., Ghesquire, K., & Acton, H. (1990). Maternal sensitivity

and the security of infant-mother attachment: A Q-sort study. Child Development, 61, 1974–1983.


Posada, G., Carbonell, O. A., Alzate, G., & Plata, S. J. (2004). Through Colombian lenses: Ethnographic and

conventional analyses of maternal care and their associations with secure base behavior. Developmental

Psychology, 40, 323–333.

Posada, G., Jacobs, A., Carbonell, O. A., Alzate, G., Bustamante, M. R., & Arenas, A. (1999). Maternal care

and attachment security in ordinary and emergency contexts. Developmental Psychology, 35, 1379–1388.

Posada, G., & Waters, E. (1990). The family behavior survey. Unpublished manuscript, State University of New

York at Stony Brook.

Posada, G., Waters, E., Crowell, J., & Lay, K. L. (1995). Is it easier to use a secure mother as a secure base?

Attachment Q-set correlates of the adult attachment interview. In E. Waters, B. Vaughn, G. Posada, &

K. Kondo-Ikemura (Eds.), Caregiving, cultural, and cognitive perspectives on secure-base behavior and work-

ing models: New growing points of attachment theory and research. Monographs of the Society for Research in


Schneider-Rosen, K., Braunwald, K. G., Carlson, V., & Cicchetti, D. (1985). Current perspectives in attachment

theory: Illustration from the study of maltreated infants. In I. Bretherton & E. Waters (Eds.), Growing

points of attachment theory and research. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development (Vol.

50, 1–2, Serial No. 234, pp. 194–210).

Sori, C. F., & Sprenkle, D. H. (2004). Training family therapists to work with children and families: A modified

Delphi study. Journal of Marital & Family Therapy, 30, 479–496.

Spanier, G. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar

dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38, 15–28.

Sroufe, A., & Waters, E. (1977). Attachment as an organizational construct. Child Development, 48, 1184–1199.

Straus, M. A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The conflict tactics (CT) scale. Journal of

Marriage and the Family, 41, 75–88.

Vaughn, B., Egeland, B., Sroufe, A., & Waters, E. (1979). Individual differences in infant-mother attachment at

twelve and eighteen months: Stability and change in families under stress. Child Development, 50, 971–975.

Vaughn, B. E., & Waters, E. (1990). Attachment behavior at home and in the laboratory: Q-sort observations

and strange situation classifications of one-year-olds. Child Development, 61, 1965–1973.

Waters, E. (1995). The attachment Q-set. In E. Waters, B. Vaughn, G. Posada, & K. Kondo-Ikemura (Eds.),

Caregiving, cultural, and cognitive perspectives on secure-base behavior and working models: New growing

points of attachment theory and research. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development (Vol.

60, 2–3, Serial No. 244, pp. 234–246).

Waters, E., & Deane, K. (1985). Defining and assessing individual differences in attachment relationships:

Q-methodology and the organization of behavior in infancy and early childhood. In I. Bretherton & E.

Waters (Eds.), Growing points of attachment theory and research. Monographs of the Society for Research in



Documents

Physical Aggression in the Family and Preschoolers’ Use of the Mother as a Secure Base