Juumal of Family Psychology1996, Vol. 10. No. 2, 223-234

Copyright 1996 bv the American Psychological Association, Inc.0893-3200/96/53.00

Physical Violence and Other Forms of Marital Aggression:Links With Children's Behavior Problems

Ernest N. Jouriles, William D.Norwood, Renee McDonald, and

John P. VincentUniversity of Houston

Annette MahoneyBowling Green State University

Two studies examined whether physical marital violence and other forms of maritalaggression (e.g., threats, throwing objects) correlate with children's behavior problemsin families marked by recent spousal violence. Study 1 included 55 families seekingmarital therapy. Study 2 included 199 families at battered women's shelters. In themarital therapy sample, both physical marital violence and other forms of maritalaggression correlated positively with children's externalizing problems. In the wom-en's shelter sample, physical violence and other forms of marital aggression correlatedpositively with children's externalizing and internalizing problems. After accountingfor the frequency of physical marital violence, forms of marital aggression other thanphysical violence still related to children's externalizing problems in the maritaltherapy sample and to children's internalizing problems in the women's shelter sample.

Physical marital violence, operationalized asphysical assault on an intimate partner's body,is very prevalent among families in the UnitedStates, with up to 50% of married couples ex-periencing spousal violence at some point dur-ing the course of their marriages (Straus &Gelles, 1990; Straus, Gelles, & Steinmetz,1980).] Relationships between physical maritalviolence and children's behavior problems havebeen investigated with some vigor over the pastdecade, and empirical evidence clearly indicatesthat children growing up in families marked bysuch violence are at increased risk for clinical

Ernest N. Jouriles, William D. Norwood, ReneeMcDonald, and John P. Vincent, Department of Psy-chology, University of Houston; Annette Mahoney,Department of Psychology, Bowling Green StateUniversity.

Annette Mahoney has published previously underthe name of Annette M. Farris.

This research was supported by grants from theHogg Foundation for Mental Health, the GeorgeFoundation, and the Texas Higher Education Coor-dination Board Advanced Research Program.

We wish to thank Holly Ware, Laura Collazos,Guy Proffitt, and Cindy Crosby for their assistance indata collection.

Correspondence concerning this article should beaddressed to Ernest N. Jouriles, Department of Psy-chology, 4800 Calhoun Road, Houston, Texas77204-5341.

levels of behavior problems (Jaffe, Sudermann,& Reitzel, 1992; McDonald & Jouriles, 1991).Physical violence, however, rarely occurs in theabsence of other forms of interspousal aggres-sion and psychological maltreatment (e.g., in-sults, threats, kicking furniture, throwing ob-jects), and the extent to which these other formsof aggression relate to children's behavior prob-lems, in the context of physical marital vio-lence, is unknown.

Social learning theories suggest that chil-dren's exposure to their parents' marital aggres-sion, whether it involves physical assault of aparent, violence toward objects, or exchanges ofinsults and threats, increases the likelihood ofproblematic child behavior (Bandura, 1973;Grych & Fincham, 1990). Furthermore, empir-ical work has identified both the frequency andintensity of marital conflict as important param-eters of this relationship (Grych & Fincham,1990; Jouriles, Farris, & McDonald, 1991). In-

1 We recognize that male violence toward womenis a problem of societal concern and that the injuriescaused by men's physical aggression toward womenare typically more severe than those caused by wom-en's physical aggression toward men. In this study,however, our focus is on the relationship of interpart-ner aggression to children's behavior problems.Thus, we chose to examine both men's and women'saggression as opposed to male aggression only.

223

224 JOURILES, NORWOOD, McDONALD, VINCENT, AND MAHONEY

deed, the positive association between the fre-quency of children's exposure to marital con-flict and levels of child behavior problems isquite robust, and experimental research indi-cates that children's exposure to physical ag-gression leads to disturbed child reactions moreoften than does exposure to "less intense" formsof aggression. However, the interplay and re-sulting effects of children's exposure to varyingforms of aggression (i.e., aggression at varyinglevels of intensity and frequency) have yet to beadequately explored. For example, within fam-ilies marked by recent physical marital vio-lence, it is unclear whether (a) children's expo-sure to parents' physical violence overrideseffects of exposure to other forms of inter-spousal aggression and psychological maltreat-ment; or, conversely, (b) the relatively less in-tense but often more frequent verbal aggressionand psychological maltreatment (O'Leary &Jouriles, 1994) still contribute to children'sproblems even after accounting for the presenceof the physical violence. Social learning theo-ries offer contrasting hypotheses in regard tothese questions: Children's exposure to physicalmarital violence may override the effects ofexposure to "less intense" aggression (e.g., ver-bal arguments and psychological abuse), be-cause living in the context of physical maritalviolence desensitizes or hardens children tosuch aggression. An alternative hypothesis isthat children's exposure to physical marital vi-olence sensitizes them to marital conflict ingeneral, causing a greater awareness of andreaction to all forms of interparental aggression(see Bandura 1973; E. M. Cummings & Davies,1994; Grych & Fincham, 1990, for variations ofthese hypotheses and further discussion). Anassessment of links between forms of maritalaggression other than physical violence andchildren's behavior problems, within familiesmarked by physical spousal violence, wouldprovide preliminary answers to these questionsand simultaneously contribute to the refinementof theory on marital violence and children'sbehavior problems.

Demonstrations of robust relationships be-tween forms of marital aggression other thanphysical violence and children's behavior prob-lems, within families marked by physical spou-sal violence, can have important policy andclinical implications as well. Currently, manyagencies and individuals concerned with thewelfare of children (e.g., children's protective

services, family courts, family clinicians) con-sider the presence of physical marital violencein decisions pertaining to children's welfare;other forms of interspousal aggression, how-ever, are often not considered at all or are givenmuch less weight, particularly if physical mar-ital violence is judged to be present. Establish-ing clear links between child problems andforms of marital aggression other than physicalviolence, within families marked by physicalmarital aggression, should lead to increased rec-ognition of the importance of such marital in-teraction patterns to children's adjustment and,in turn, foster more informed decisions regard-ing children's welfare. The clear establishmentof such links may also heighten clinicians' sen-sitivity to such family behaviors in the assess-ment, planning, and delivery of treatment.

Research examining the contributions of dif-ferent forms of interspousal conflict to chil-dren's behavior problems has focused primarilyon the additive effects of physical marital vio-lence. To our knowledge, only one publishedstudy has explored verbal and physical aggres-sion as separate constructs in relation to chil-dren's behavior problems (Fantuzzo et al.,1991). In that study, children in families char-acterized by both verbal and physical maritalaggression or by verbal aggression alone dis-played more externalizing behavior problemsthan children in nonaggressive families. Com-parisons between the two aggressive groups—verbal aggression only versus both verbal andphysical aggression present—revealed that chil-dren exposed to both forms of aggression dem-onstrated higher levels of externalizing behav-ior problems.2 Other studies have examined thecontributions of physical marital violence tochildren's behavior problems after accountingfor parents' marital distress. In two studies,physical marital violence did not increase thelikelihood of children's problems over andabove parents' marital distress (Hershorn &Rosenbaum, 1985; Rosenbaum & O'Leary,1981), but Jouriles, Murphy, and O'Leary(1989) found that physical marital violence didcontribute significantly to a variety of chil-dren's problems after accounting for parents'

2 It should be noted that there were lower levels ofverbal aggression in the verbal aggression only groupthan in the verbal and physical aggression group, anddifferences between groups in the amount of verbalaggression were not controlled.

MARITAL VIOLENCE 225

marital adjustment In sum, existing research isequivocal regarding the contributions of physi-cal marital violence to children's problems afteraccounting for marital distress and conflict. Thecontribution of forms of marital aggressionother than physical violence to children's be-havior problems after accounting for physicalviolence has not been examined.

The results of experimental research provideinsight into the potential effects of spousal ver-bal aggression and psychological maltreatmenton children's adjustment in the context of phys-ical marital violence. Such research clearly sup-ports the contention that witnessing adult phys-ical aggression is more disturbing to childrenthan witnessing other types of adult conflict(e.g., E. M. Cummings, Ballard, & El-Sheikh,1991; E. M. Cummings, Vogel, J. S. Cum-mings, & El-Sheikh, 1989). However, childrenin families marked by physical marital violence,in comparison to children of nonviolent parents,react to a stranger's verbal hostility toward theirmothers with increased support seeking and pre-occupation with the expressed anger (J. S. Cum-mings, Pellegrini, Notarius, & E. M. Cum-mings, 1989). In other words, growing up in ahome marked by physical marital violence ap-pears to moderate the relationship between in-teradult verbal hostility and children's behavior.These results have been interpreted as consis-tent with the hypothesis that physical maritalviolence heightens children's sensitivity and re-activity to other types of conflict (E. M. Cum-mings & Davies, 1994; J. S. Cummings et al.,1989).

The present research was designed to exam-ine the concurrent association of both physicalmarital violence and other forms of marital ag-gression (e.g., insults, threats, kicking furniture,throwing objects) with children's behaviorproblems in families reporting recent physicalmarital violence. This research was also de-signed to determine if the other forms of maritalaggression contribute to children's behaviorproblems after taking physical marital violenceinto account. To ensure that the answers to thesequestions are generalizable and clinically ro-bust, two separate samples, each marked byphysical spousal violence, were used. In Study1, we extended an analysis of previously pub-lished data from families seeking outpatient ser-vices for marital distress. It is important to notethat physical marital violence has already beenfound to correlate with children's behavior

problems within this sample (Jouriles, Murphy,& O'Leary, 1989). In Study 2, participants werefamilies in which the women had sought shelterfor themselves and their children because ofbattering. Consistent with theory and data sug-gesting that the frequency of children's expo-sure to aggression relates to children's behaviorproblems and that exposure to very intense ag-gression may sensitize children to conflict ingeneral, we hypothesized that acts of aggressionnot involving physical attacks on a partner'sbody would contribute to children's problemsafter accounting for physical marital violence.3

Study 1

Method

Participants, Participants were 55 families inwhich husbands and wives were seeking marital ther-apy for complaints that centered around communica-tion difficulties and general marital dissatisfaction. Ineach family, the husband, wife, or both reported atleast one incident of physical marital violence on theConflict Tactics Scale (Straus, 1979; described be-low).4 All families had at least one child between theages of 5 and 12 years, and parents provided reportsof child behavior problems on their oldest childwithin this age range, yielding reports for 23 boysand 32 girls. The mean age for boys was 8.3 years(SD = 2.5) and for girls, 9.7 years (SD = 1.9). Forparents, the mean age was 31.1 years (SD = 13.9) forfathers and 29.0 years (SD = 12.6) for mothers.Couples were married an average of 10.2 years(SD ~ 6.0), and the mean family income was ap-proximately $29,000. This sample was approxi-mately 95% White.

Procedure and measures. Parents completed thefollowing measures in separate rooms during theirinitial visit to the clinic.

We used the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS; Straus,1979) to measure marital aggression. The CTS con-

3 For ease of discussion, we have referred to mar-ital aggression and to husbands and wives in thismanuscript. These terms are accurate with respect toour marital clinic sample. Some of the women in theshelter sample (20%), however, were not legally mar-ried to their partners.

4 The previous publication involving this samplecontained 87 families seeking marital therapy forcommunication difficulties and general marital dis-satisfaction (Jouriles, Murphy, & O'Leary, 1989).Only spouses who reported physical marital violencewere included in the present sample; hence, there is adiscrepancy in the number of participants in the pre-vious publication versus the present research.

226 JOURILES, NORWOOD, McDONALD, VINCENT, AND MAHONEY

tains items that measure three factors: (a) reasoningand the provision of information; (b) verbal andphysical acts that exclude physical assaults on anindividual but that are often considered to be aggres-sive, coercive, and controlling when performed in thecontext of an adult relationship; and (c) acts of phys-ical violence against an individual (Barling, O'Leary,Jouriles, Vivian, & MacEwen, 1987; Hornung, Mc-Cullough, & Sugimoto, 1981; Jorgensen, 1977;Straus, 1979). The third and second factors were usedin the present research to assess physical maritalviolence and other forms of marital aggression, re-spectively. The specific items on the CTS that wereused to assess physical marital violence included thefollowing: threw something at partner; pushed,grabbed, or shoved partner; slapped partner; kicked,bit, or hit partner with fist; hit or tried to hit partnerwith something; beat partner up; used a knife or fireda gun. Items on the CTS that were used to assessother forms of marital aggression included the fol-lowing: insulted or swore at partner, stomped out ofthe room or house, did something to spite partner,threatened to hit or throw something at partner, threwor smashed or hit or kicked something.5 Each spousereported on his or her own aggression as well as onhis or her partner's aggression. Spouses indicated thefrequency of occurrence for each item during the pastyear on the following 7-point scale: 1 = never, 2 =once, 3 ~ twice, 4 = 3-5 times, 5 = 6-10 times,6 = 11-20 times, 7 = more than 20 times. The alphacoefficient for the measure of physical marital vio-lence in this sample was .83. The alpha coefficientfor the measure of other forms of aggression was .81.

The Conduct Disorder and Personality Disordersubscales of the Behavior Problem Checklist (BPC;Quay & Peterson, 1979) were used to assess parents'reports of children's behavior problems. These sub-scales were derived from factor analyses of behaviorratings on both deviant and nondeviant children. TheConduct Disorder subscale measures aggressive,noncompliant, acting-out behavior (e.g., steals, is dis-obedient) and represents the externalizing dimensionof child behavior problems. The Personality Disordersubscale represents the internalizing dimension (e.g.,depressed, sad, lacks self-confidence). Each of thesesubscales has adequate internal consistency and test-retest reliability (Quay, 1977; Quay & Peterson,1979) and successfully discriminates among childrenreferred for psychological treatment, their siblings,and nonreferred peers (Speer, 1971).

Data pooling. Spousal ratings were combined toincrease the reliability and validity of the ratingscales (McNemar, 1969). Specifically, the physicalmarital violence score was obtained by averaginghusbands' and wives' reports of their own and theirspouses' physical marital violence. Spousal reportsof other forms of interspousal aggression were sim-ilarly combined, as were parental reports of child

behavior problems. Pearson correlations betweenhusbands' and wives' reports on the CTS and theBPC subscales were as follows: Physical MaritalViolence, r — .31* p < .01; Other Forms of Inter-spousal Aggression, r = Al, p < .01; Conduct Dis-order, r ~ .47, p < .01; Personality Disorder, r = .34,p < .05.

Results

Means and standard deviations for the maritaland child measures are presented in Table 1.During the past year, 32% of the wives and 33%of the husbands had been kicked, bit, or hit witha fist in the context of a marital conflict; 17% ofthe wives and 1% of the husbands had beenbeaten up in the context of a marital conflict;and 4% of the wives and 2% of the husbandshad been accosted with a knife or gun in thecontext of a marital conflict. With respect toother forms of marital aggression, 62% of thewives and 80% of the husbands threatened to hitor throw something at their spouse in the con-text of a marital conflict, and 56% of the wivesand 88% of the husbands "threw or smashed orhit or kicked something" in the context of amarital conflict.6

As suggested by several authors (McMahon,1984; Touliatos & Lindholm, 1975), local clinicnorms were established for the BPC for com-

5 We opted not to include the item "threatened witha knife or gun" on the physical violence scale be-cause we were unable to determine whether it repre-sented a physical or nonphysical act of violence. Thatis, threatening with a knife or gun can be nonphysi-cal, such as threatening to get a gun and shoot one'spartner, or it can be a physical act of violence, suchas when a knife is held to a partner's throat. We didnot include the items "sulked or refused to talk aboutan issue" or "cried" on the other forms of maritalaggression scale because these items, relative to theothers, lack face validity as indicators of aggressionor psychological maltreatment. It should also benoted that a variety of labels have been applied to theitems comprising the second factor (the factor welabeled other forms of marital aggression). Theselabels include verbal aggression (Straus, 1979), psy-chological aggression (Barling et al., 1987), and me-dium intensity (Jorgensen, 1977). We opted for otherforms of marital aggression because we thought itwas a better descriptor of the items than the otherlabels.

6 If the husband, the wife, or both reported an act tohave occurred, the act was judged to have beenpresent.

MARITAL VIOLENCE 227

Table 1Means and Standard Deviations for MaritalClinic Sample

Measures

MaritalPhysical violenceOther forms of aggression

ChildConduct Disorder subscalePersonality Disorder subscale

M

20.934.9

5.54.0

SD

6.99.8

3.62.7

Note. Scores on the marital measures reflect theaverage score for a couple. The possible ranges forthe measures of physical violence and other forms ofaggression were 14-98 and 10-70, respectively.Higher scores indicate greater levels of aggression.Similarly, higher scores on the child measures indi-cate greater levels of child problems.

interspousal aggression related uniquely to theConduct Disorder subscale of the BPC afteraccounting for the frequency of physical maritalviolence, child age, and child gender.

To aid the interpretation of these results, wealso assessed whether physical marital violencerelated to children's behavior problems afteraccounting for our index of other forms of spou-sal aggression. As shown in Table 2, a hierar-chical regression analysis in which children'sage and gender were used as covariates indi-cated that physical marital violence failed toaccount for unique variance in the Conduct Dis-order subscale after controlling for other formsof marital aggression.

parison purposes; mean scores for children re-ferred to local clinics were used for this purpose(see Jouriles et al., 1989, for further details).The clinic means on the Conduct Disorder sub-scale were 10 for boys and 8 for girls. The clinicmeans on the Personality Disorder subscalewere 6 for boys and 7 for girls. In the presentsample, 17% of the boys and 22% of the girlshad scores at or above the clinic means on theConduct Disorder subscale; 26% of the boysand 22% of the girls had scores at or above theclinic means on the Personality Disorder sub-scale.

The Pearson correlation between physicalmarital violence and other acts of interspousalaggression was .59, p < .001. The Pearsoncorrelation between the Conduct Disorder andPersonality Disorder subscales was .34, p < .05.The Pearson correlation between the ConductDisorder subscale and physical marital violencewas .35, p < .01, and with other forms ofinterspousal aggression it was .42, p < .01.Neither physical marital violence (r = .14) norother forms of marital aggression (r = —.01)correlated significantly with the PersonalityDisorder subscale. We computed a hierarchicalregression analysis to assess the relative contri-butions of physical marital violence and otherforms of marital aggression to the Conduct Dis-order subscale. The Personality Disorder sub-scale was not used as a dependent variable in aregression analysis because of the pattern ofresults obtained with the zero-order correla-tions. As displayed in Table 2, other forms of

Study 2

In Study 1, an index of insults, threats, andviolence toward objects during marital disputescontributed unique variance to children's exter-nalizing behavior problems after accounting forphysical marital violence. Study 2 was designedto extend the general findings of Study 1 tofamilies characterized by higher levels of phys-ical marital violence. The level of physical vi-olence in families in Study 2 led the women toseek shelter outside of the home.

Table 2Hierarchical Regression Analyses for ConductDisorder Subscale Scores in the MaritalClinic Sample

_ _

Measure R change change df

1st analysisControlled variables

(children's age &gender) .13 .02 0.48 2,52

Physical aggression .39 .13 7.79** 1,51Other forms of

aggression .47 .07 4.34* 1,502nd analysis

Controlled variables(children's age &gender) .13 .02 0.48 2,52

Other forms ofaggression .44 .18 11.40** 1,51

Physical aggression .47 .02 1.19 1,50*/j < .05. < .01.

228 JOURILES, NORWOOD, McDONALD, VINCENT, AND MAHONEY

Method

Participants. Participants were 199 families withat least one child between the ages of 5 and 12 years.To be eligible, mothers had to have: (a) requested andreceived shelter for themselves and their childrenbecause of physical violence by an intimate partner,and (b) reported at least one incident of physicalviolence on the CTS during the past 12 months. Theoldest child between 5 and 12 years of age wasselected as the target child. Families were excluded ifmothers did not speak English or if there was evi-dence of mental retardation in either the mother orthe child. Families were recruited from three wom-en's shelters, two in rural communities and the thirdin an urban community. Data were collected on 106boys and 93 girls. The mean age for boys was 8.6years {SD = 2.3), and for girls it was 8.8 years(SD — 2.2). The mean age for mothers was 31.3years (SD = 5.0); the mean education level for moth-ers was 11 years (SD = 2.4). The mean familyincome was approximately $13,500, and the medianwas $8,000—these income figures included the bat-terers' income as well as the mothers'; however,many of the women were not sure of the batterer'sincome (i.e., it was kept hidden from them) andreported only their own. Thirty-nine percent of thechildren were White; 24% were African American;and 37% were Mexican or Latin American.

Procedures and measures. Mothers completedthe CTS (described in Study 1) to assess both phys-ical violence and other forms of aggression betweenadult partners. Each mother reported on both her ownand her partner's aggression. Alpha coefficients forthe physical violence index and the index of otherforms of aggression were .88 and .78, respectively.

Mothers completed the Child Behavior Checklist(CBCL; Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1983) to assesschildren's behavior problems. The CBCL is a widelyused measure of children's externalizing and inter-nalizing behavior problems. Both the Externalizingand Internalizing Disorder scales of the CBCL pos-sess high internal consistency, test-retest reliability,and concurrent validity with other behavior problemchecklists (Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1983). CBCLT-scores were used in all analyses.

Children over 8 years of age (n — 113) completedthe Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory (CSEI; Coo-persmith, 1981). The CSEI yields a total score re-flecting children's attitudes about parents, home, self,academics, and peers. The CSEI possesses high in-ternal consistency, test-retest reliability, and predic-tive validity (Coopersmith, 1981).

Mothers and children completed the forms justdescribed as part of a larger assessment battery dur-ing the shelters' intake procedure. Mothers and chil-dren were in separate rooms during the questionnairecompletion period. Questionnaire items were readaloud to children and to mothers on their request.

Results

Means and standard deviations for the maritaland child measures are presented in Table 3. Itshould be noted that levels of physical violencefor the families in this sample were substantiallyhigher than for the families sampled in Study 1.During the past year, 80% of the women and37% of the batterers were reported to have beenkicked, bit, or hit with a fist in the context of amarital conflict; 73% of the women and 4% ofthe batterers were beaten up in the context of amarital conflict; and 14% of the women and 5%of the batterers were attacked with a knife or agun in the context of a marital conflict. Withrespect to other forms of marital aggression,49% of the wives and 92% of the husbandsthreatened to hit or throw something at theirspouse in the context of a marital conflict, and50% of the wives and 87% of the husbands"threw or smashed or hit or kicked something"in the context of a marital conflict.

Mean T-scores for both the Externalizing andInternalizing Disorder scales of the CBCL wereabove what is generally considered normal ornonproblematic, but they were below com-monly used clinical cutoffs (T-scores at orabove 70; Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1983). Inthis sample, 27% of the boys and 26% of thegirls had Externalizing Disorder T-scores at orabove 70; 25% of the boys and 26% of the girls

Table 3Means and Standard Deviations for Women'sShelter Sample

Measures

MaritalPhysical violenceOther forms of aggression

ChildCBCL Internalizing Disorder

scaleCBCL Externalizing Disorder

scaleCoopersmith Self-Esteem

Inventory

M

38.743.9

62.8

61.8

55.7

SD

14.511.0

10.4

10.6

24.6Note. CBCL - Child Behavior Checklist. Scoreson the marital measures reflect the average score fora couple. The possible ranges for the measures ofphysical violence and other forms of aggression were14-98 and 10-70, respectively. Higher scores indi-cate greater levels of aggression. Similarly, higherscores on the child measures indicate greater levels ofchild problems.

MARITAL VIOLENCE 229

had Internalizing Disorder T-scores at or above70.7

The Pearson correlation between physicalmarital violence and other acts of interspousalaggression was .61, p < .001. The Pearsoncorrelation between Externalizing and Internal-izing Disorder scales was .78, p < .001. Chil-dren's self-esteem did not correlate signifi-cantly with either the Externalizing orInternalizing Disorder scales. Pearson correla-tions between the two marital aggression vari-ables and child adjustment difficulties are pre-sented in Table 4. Higher levels of physicalmarital violence and other forms of marital ag-gression related positively to mothers' reportsof children's externalizing and internalizing be-havior problems. Neither measure of maritalaggression related significantly to children's re-ports of self-esteem.

We computed hierarchical regression analy-ses to assess the relative contributions of phys-ical marital violence and other forms of maritalaggression to children's externalizing and inter-nalizing behavior problems. Given the patternof results obtained with the zero-order correla-tions, self-esteem was not used as a dependentvariable in the regression analyses. As shown inTable 5, other forms of interspousal aggressionrelated uniquely to children's internalizing be-havior problems after accounting for the fre-quency of physical marital violence and thechildren's age, gender, and ethnicity. Otherforms of interspousal aggression did not con-tribute unique variance to children's externaliz-ing behavior problems after accounting for thesame variables.

Again, to aid the interpretation of our results,we assessed whether physical marital violence

Table 4Correlations Among Measures of Violenceand Child Adjustment for Women'sShelter Sample

Measure of childadjustment

CBCL InternalizingDisorder scale

CBCL ExternalizingDisorder scale

Coopersmith Self-EsteemInventory

Physicalviolence

.19**

.14*

.17

Other formsof

aggression

.25**

.15*

-.01

related to children's externalizing and internal-izing problems after accounting for other formsof spousal aggression. Hierarchical regressionanalyses, in which children's age, gender, andethnicity were used as covariates, indicated thatphysical marital violence did not contributeunique variance to either externalizing or inter-nalizing behavior problems after statisticallycontrolling for other forms of marital aggres-sion.

Finally, we explored whether a different pat-tern of relationships emerged in regression anal-yses conducted with boys and girls, separately.In these analyses, neither physical marital vio-lence nor the index of other forms of inter-spousal aggression contributed significantly toeither measure of child behavior problems afterthe other aggression index, child age, and childethnicity were statistically controlled.

Discussion

In families characterized by physical maritalviolence, other forms of mterpartner aggression,such as verbal threats and hitting objects, cor-related positively with children's behaviorproblems. Such correlations emerged for chil-dren's externalizing behavior problems in themarital clinic sample and for both externalizingand internalizing behavior problems in thewomen's shelter sample. In fact, the frequencyof other forms of interspousal aggression was asclosely linked to children's problems as thefrequency of physical marital violence. Ourfindings also indicate that forms of spousal ag-gression other than physical violence contributeunique variance to children's behavior prob-lems after accounting for the frequency of phys-ical marital violence. In families seeking maritaltherapy, these results were obtained for chil-dren's externalizing behavior problems, and infamilies in which women were seeking shelterbecause of battering, these results were obtainedfor children's internalizing behavior problems.It is interesting to note that the frequency ofphysical marital violence did not contribute

Note. CBCL - Child Behavior Checklist.*p < .05. **p < .01.

7 If the more liberal, but often used, clinical cut-point of 65 is applied to the present sample, theproportion of children in the clinical range increasesdramatically. Specifically, 42% of the boys and 31%of the girls had Externalizing Disorder T-scores at orabove 65; 50% of the boys and 44% of the girls hadInternalizing Disorder T-scores at or above 65.

230 JOURILES, NORWOOD, McDONALD, VINCENT, AND MAHONEY

Table 5Hierarchical Regression Analyses for CBCL T-Scores in the Women's Shelter Sample

Measure

Externalizing1 st analysis

Controlled variables (children's age,gender, & ethnicity)

Physical aggressionOther forms of aggression

2nd analysisControlled variables (children's age,

gender, & ethnicity)Other forms of aggressionPhysical aggression

R

Disorder

.19

.24

.25

.19

.24

.25

Internalizing Disorder1st analysis

Controlled variables (children's age,gender, & ethnicity)

Physical aggressionOther forms of aggression

2nd analysisControlled variables (children's age,

gender, & ethnicity)Other forms of aggressionPhysical aggression

.11

.22

.28

.11

.27

.28

R2 change

Scale

.04

.02

.00

.04

.02

.01

Scale

.01

.04

.03

.01

.06

.00

F change

2.514.39*0.68

2.513.801.38

0.807,49**5^65*

0.8012.90**0.46

df

3,1951, 1941,193

3, 1951,1941, 193

3, 1951,1941, 193

3,1951,1941,193

Note. CBCL - Child Behavior Checklist.*p < .05. **p < .01.

unique variance to children's behavior prob-lems after accounting for other forms of inter-spousal aggression in either sample. Thus,physical spousal violence, even at very extremelevels, does not vitiate relationships betweenother forms of spousal aggression and problem-atic child behavior. In contrast, within familiesmarked by the presence of physical marital vi-olence, relationships between the frequency ofphysical violence and children's behavior prob-lems disappear after accounting for verbal ag-gression and other forms of psychological mal-treatment.

An important implication of the present re-search is that, within families marked by recentphysical marital violence, the frequency of oc-currence of spousal aggression other than phys-ical violence (e.g., insults, threats, kicking fur-niture, throwing objects) appears to be at leastas important as the frequency of physical spou-sal violence in predicting concurrent child be-havior problems. These results add to a growingbody of literature indicating that researchersneed to go beyond the incidence and frequencyof physical spousal violence to understand chil-dren's behavior problems within familiesmarked by physical marital violence (e.g.,

Jouriles, Barling, & O'Leary, 1987; Wolfe,Jaffe, Wilson, & Zak, 1985). It is important toemphasize that the present results should not beinterpreted to imply that physical marital vio-lence is unimportant in relation to children'sbehavior problems. On the contrary, even insamples selected on the basis of the presence ofphysical spousal violence, the frequency ofphysical violence correlated with children's be-havior problems. These results should also notbe interpreted as contradictory to those of stud-ies indicating that children in families charac-terized by physical spousal violence are atgreater risk for behavior problems than childrenin families with nonviolent, but verbally con-flictual, parents (e.g., Fantuzzo et al., 1991;Jouriles et al., 1989). The present research dealtonly with families marked by physical maritalviolence, and the percentage of children exhib-iting clinical levels of behavior problems ineach of our samples was higher than that typi-cally found in nonviolent comparison samples(McDonald & Jouriles, 1991). Rather, thepresent findings suggest that, within familiesmarked by physical violence, the frequency ofmarital aggression other than physical violence

MARITAL VIOLENCE 231

is likely to be important in understanding chil-dren's behavior problems.

One might find it surprising that physicalmarital violence did not contribute to children'sbehavior problems after accounting for otherforms of interpartner aggression, whereas otherforms of interpartner aggression did contributeafter accounting for physical marital violence.In fact, at first glance, these results may appearinconsistent with theory and data asserting thatfrequency of exposure to aggression correlatespositively with children's behavior problems(Bandura, 1973; Grych & Fincham, 1990). It isour impression, however, that our results areactually consistent with such theory and data.According to many of the participants in thisresearch, physical marital violence occurred inthe immediate context of other forms of inter-spousal aggression and psychological maltreat-ment. In other words, incidents of physical mar-ital violence were not independent fromincidents of other forms of interspousal aggres-sion. On the other hand, many of our partici-pants reported that there were numerous occa-sions in which insults or threats were notfollowed by physical marital violence. Thus, theaddition of physical marital violence to a regres-sion equation should not be interpreted as in-corporating additional occasions during whichchildren were exposed to interparental aggres-sion. Rather, the addition of physical maritalviolence to a regression equation appears toreflect exposure to a specific form of interpa-rental aggression—physical violence—that oc-curred in the immediate context of verbal ag-gression and other forms of psychologicalmaltreatment. In addition, because the otherforms of aggression occur with greater fre-quency than physical marital violence, the indexmeasuring this construct may be a more sensi-tive indicator of the amount of interadult con-flict in the household in comparison to the indexof physical marital violence. It still might beargued that the present results are inconsistentwith theory and data suggesting that children'sexposure to intense interspousal aggression ismore likely to lead to problematic behavior thanexposure to less intense aggression (E. M. Cum-mings & Davies, 1994; Grych & Fincham,1990). However, whether physical interparentalaggression is more intense to a child than theother acts of interparental aggression assessedin this study remains an empirical question,particularly when such acts occur in a family

characterized by physical marital violence. Forexample, observing one parent slap the othermay not necessarily be more intense to a childthan hearing one parent threaten to kill or harmthe other. Alternatively, one might questionwhether exposure to a single or few acts ofphysical marital violence disturbs children morethan exposure to repeated occurrences of otherforms of marital aggression that carry an everpresent threat of escalation to physical violence.

It is interesting to consider why physical mar-ital violence and other forms of marital aggres-sion correlate only with children's externalizingbehavior problems in the marital clinic samplebut with both externalizing and internalizingbehavior problems in the women's shelter sam-ple. Although the present research was not spe-cifically designed to address this question, sev-eral hypotheses are offered. It should first benoted that the two samples differed in size anddemographics, which may partially account forthe different pattern of findings. In addition,different measures were used to assess chil-dren's behavior problems in the two samples,and the correlation between the two subscales ofchild problems was much stronger in the wom-en's shelter sample than in the marital clinicsample. Perhaps most noteworthy, however, isthat both forms of marital violence were morefrequent in the women's shelter sample, andmany more women in the shelter sample expe-rienced life-threatening violence. In addition, itis our belief that the acts of violence, as theyappear on the CTS, differ qualitatively acrossthe two samples (e.g., insults and pushes in thewomen's shelter sample were likely to havebeen much more vicious and threatening, onaverage, than insults and pushes in the maritalclinic sample). It is also quite possible that thechildren in the shelter sample, relative to thosein the marital clinic sample, associated theirparents' insults, threats, and the kicking of fur-niture with the potential for much more severeinterparental physical violence. In other words,the other forms of aggression may have beeninterpreted very differently by children acrossthe two samples. For example, children in theshelter sample may have felt more frightened(e.g., they may have believed that verbal con-flict might lead to physical violence in whichtheir mothers would get seriously hurt) whentheir parents started fighting verbally than didchildren in the marital clinic sample; they may

232 JOURILES, NORWOOD, McDONALD, VINCENT, AND MAHONEY

be more sensitized to the potential for escalationto severe physical violence. Such an interpreta-tion may be particularly associated with inter-nalizing behavior problems. In addition, intenseverbal aggression and psychological maltreat-ment, coupled with the increased threat of phys-ical spousal violence, may correlate morestrongly with children's anxiety, worrying, andother internalizing symptoms in the presence ofother chronic stressors (e.g., poverty) that char-acterize many of the families in battered wom-en's shelters (Jouriles, Bourg, & Farris, 1991;McDonald & Jouriles, 1991; Rutter, 1979).

It is also interesting to consider why otherforms of marital aggression contribute uniquevariance, over and above physical marital vio-lence, to externalizing child problems in themarital clinic sample but not in the women'sshelter sample. Again, sample differences indemographics, the use of different measures ofchild behavior problems, and differences in thepresence of potentially important third variablesmay partially explain the different pattern ofresults across studies. In addition, it may be thecase that certain deleterious family interactionpatterns (i.e., children's exposure to marital vi-olence) show diminishing predictive power be-yond some threshold because of a ceiling effect.More explicitly, a point may exist beyondwhich increased exposure to interparental ag-gression has little impact on the occurrence ofchildren's externalizing behavior problems.

Clinically, the present research highlights theimportance of a broad assessment of interpart-ner aggression. Such an assessment should, at aminimum, allow for detection of insults andthreats exchanged between partners in additionto acts of physical violence directed at partners'bodies. Furthermore, acts of interpartner ag-gression not involving acts of physical violenceshould not be trivialized or ignored in treatmentplanning or decisions regarding a child's wel-fare. The potential for physical harm to childrenand the relative intensity of physical spousalviolence (as well as the potentially life-threat-ening consequences of physical violence to thevictims) may result in the importance of otherforms of aggression being overlooked in courtsand treatment settings. As noted by Tolman(1992), such an oversight could constitute aserious clinical error. The present findings sug-gest, from a child welfare perspective, that thefull repertoire of aggressive spousal behaviorsshould be addressed during treatment.

Several limitations should be kept in mindwhen interpreting the results of the present re-search. Our findings were limited to familieswho were reporting occurrences of recent phys-ical marital violence and who were seekingeither outpatient services for marital difficultiesor shelter because of battering. It is unknownwhether a similar pattern of results would beobtained in other populations. The present re-search was both cross-sectional and correla-tional. Thus, the direction of the relationshipbetween variables cannot be determined. Manylimitations still exist in our methods for assess-ing interpartner aggression, and the CTS cancertainly be criticized on many grounds (Straus,1990). It should also be noted that, within thewomen's shelter sample, neither measure ofmarital aggression related to children's reportsof self-esteem. Thus, the significant relation-ships documented in this research all involvedparents' reports of both marital aggression andchild behavior problems (the significant rela-tionships in the marital clinic sample involvedaggregated reports obtained from mothers andfathers; the significant relationships in thewomen's shelter sample involved only mothers'reports). This pattern of results raises the pos-sibility that method variance may account, inpart, for some of our findings. In conclusion, itis important to reemphasize that the presentfindings should not be interpreted to imply thatphysical marital violence is unimportant in re-lation to children's behavior problems. Suchviolence is likely to be extremely important inits own right and as a marker and potentialmoderator for other phenomena linked to chil-dren's problems (Jouriles, Farris, & McDonald,1991).

References

Achenbach, T. M., & Edelbrock, C. S. (1983). Man-ual for the Child Behavior Checklist and ChildBehavior Profile. Burlington: University of Ver-mont, Department of Psychiatry.

Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learninganalysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Barling, J., O'Leary, K. D., Jouriles, E. N., Vivian,D., & MacEwen, K. E. (1987). Factor similarity ofthe Conflict Tactics Scales across samples,spouses, and sites: Issues and implicatons. Journalof Family Violence, 2, 37-54.

Coopersmith, S. (1981). Self-esteem inventories. PaloAlto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Cummings, E. M., Ballard, M., & El-Sheikh, M.

MARITAL VIOLENCE 233

(1991). Responses of children and adolescents tointeradult anger as a function of gender, age, andmode of expression. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 37,543-560.

Cummings, E. M., & Davies, P. (1994). Children andmarital conflict. New York: Guilford Press.

Cummings, E. M., Vogel, D., Cummings, J. S., &El-Sheikh, M. (1989). Children's responses to dif-ferent forms of expression of anger between adults.Child Development, 60, 1392-1404.

Cummings, J. S., Pellegrini, D. S., Notarius, C. L, &Cummings, E. M. (1989). Children's responses toangry adult behavior as a function of marital dis-tress and history of interparent hostility. Child De-velopment, 60, 1035-1043.

Fantuzzo, J. W., DePaola, L. M., Lambert, L., Mar-tino, T., Anderson, G., & Sutton, S. (1991). Effectsof interparental violence on the psychological ad-justment and competencies of young children.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59,258-265.

Grych, J. H., & Fincham, F. D. (1990). Marital con-flict and children's adjustment: A cognitive-con-textual framework. Psychological Bulletin, 108,267-290.

Hershom, M., & Rosenbaum, A. (1985). Children ofmarital violence: A closer look at the unintendedvictims. American Journal of Orlhopsychiatry, 55,260-266.

Hornung, C. A., McCullough, B. C , & Sugimoto, T.(1981). Status relationships in marriage: Risk fac-tors in spouse abuse. Journal of Marriage andFamily, 43, 675-692.

Jaffe, P. G., Suderman, M., & Reitzel, D. (1992).Child witnesses of marital violence. In R. T. Am-merman & M. Hersen (Eds.), Assessment of familyviolence: A clinical and legal sourcebook (pp.313-331). New York: Wiley.

Jorgensen, S. R. (1977). Societal class heterogamy,status striving and perception of marital conflict: Apartial replication and revision of Pearlin's contin-gency hypothesis. Journal of Marriage and Fam-ily, 39, 653-659.

Jouriles, E. N., Barling, J., & O'Leary, K. D. (1987).Predicting child behavior problems in maritallyviolent families. Journal of Abnormal Child Psy-chology, 15, 165-173.

Jouriles, E. R , Bourg, W. J., & Farris, A. M. (1991).Marital adjustment and child conduct problems: Acomparison of the correlation across subsamples.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59,354-357.

Jouriles, E. N., Farris, A. M., & McDonald, R.(1991). Marital functioning and child behavior:Measuring specific aspects of the marital relation-ship. In J. Vincent (Ed.), Advances in family inter-vention, assessment, and theory (Vol. 5, pp. 25-46). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Jouriles, E. N., Murphy, C. M., & O'Leary, K. D.

(1989). Interspousal aggression, marital discord,and child problems, Journal of Consulting andClinical Psychology, 57, 453-455.

McDonald, R., & Jouriles, E. N. (1991). Maritalaggression and child behavior problems: Researchfindings, mechanisms, and intervention strategies.The Behavior Therapist, 14, 189-192.

McMahon, R. J. (1984). Behavioral checklists andrating scales. In T. H. Ollendick & M. Hersen(Eds.), Child behavioral assessment (pp. 80-105).New York: Pergamon Press.

McNemar, Q. (1969). Psychological statistics (4thed.). New York: Wiley.

O'Leary, K. D., & Jouriles, E. N. (1994). Psycholog-ical abuse between adult partners: Prevalence andimpact on partners and children. In L. L'Abate(Ed.), Handbook of developmental family psychol-ogy and psychopathology (pp. 330-349). NewYork: Wiley.

Quay, H. C. (1977). Measuring dimensions of devi-ant behavior: The Behavior Problem Checklist.Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 5, 277-289.

Quay, H. C , & Peterson, D. R. (1979). Manual farthe Behavior Problem Checklist. (Available fromD. R. Peterson, 39 North Fifth, Highland Park, NJ08904)

Rosenbaum, A., & O'Leary, K. D. (1981). Children:The unintended victims of marital violence. Amer-ican Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 51, 692-699.

Rutter, M. (1979). Protective factors in children'sresponses to stress and disadvantage. In M. W.Kent & J. E. Rolf (Eds.), Primary prevention ofpsychopathology: HI. Promoting social compe-tence and coping in children (pp. 49-74).Hanover, NH: University Press of New England.

Speer, D. C. (1971). Behavior Problem Checklist(Peterson-Quay): Baseline data from parents ofchild guidance and nonclinic children. Journal ofConsulting and Clinical Psychology, 36, 221-228.

Straus, M. A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily confictand violence: The Conflict Tactics (CT) Scales.Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41, 75-88.

Straus, M. A. (1990). The Conflict Tactics Scales andits critics: An evaluation and new data on validityand reliability. In M. A. Straus & R. J. Gelles(Eds.), Physical violence in American families:Risk factors and adaptations to violence in 8,145families (pp. 49-73). New Brunswick, NJ: Trans-action.

Straus, M. A., & Gelles, R. J. (1990). Physical vio-lence in American families: Risk factors and ad-aptations to violence in 8,145 families. New Bruns-wick, NJ: Transaction.

Straus, M. A., Gelles, R. J., & Steinmetz, S. K.(1980). Behind closed doors: Violence in the Amer-ican family. New York: Anchor Books.

Tolman, R. M. (1992). Psychological abuse ofwomen. In R. T. Ammerman & M. Hersen (Eds.),

234 JOURILES, NORWOOD, McDONALD, VINCENT, AND MAHONEY

Assessment of family violence: A clinical and legal (1985). Children of battered women: The relationsourcebook (pp. 291-310). New York: Wiley. of child behavior to family violence and maternal

Touliatos, J., & Lindholm, B. W. (1975). Relation- stress. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychol-ships of children's grade in school, sex, and social ogy, 53, 657-665.class to teachers' ratings on the Behavior ProblemChecklist. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, Received September 3, 19943, 115-126. Revision received June 1, 1995

Wolfe, D. A., Jaffe, P., Wilson, S. K., & Zak, L. Accepted June 2, 1995 •

Low Publication Prices for APA Members and Affiliates

Keeping you up-to-date. All APAFellows, Members, Associates, and Student Affiliatesreceive—as part of their annual dues—subscriptions to theAmerican Psychologist axidAPAMonitor. High School Teacher and International Affiliates receive subscriptions to the A PAMonitor, and they may subscribe to the American Psychologist at a significantly reducedrate. In addition, all Members and Student Affiliates are eligible for savings of up to 60%(plus a journal credit) on all other APA journals, as well as significant discounts onsubscriptions from cooperating societies and publishers (e.g., the American Association forCounseling and Development, Academic Press, and Human Sciences Press).

Essential resources. APA members and affiliates receive special rates for purchases ofAPA books, including the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association,and on dozens of new topical books each year.

Other benefits of membership. Membership in APA also provides eligibility forcompetitive insurance plans, continuing education programs, reduced APA convention fees,and specialty divisions.

More information. Write to American Psychological Association, Membership Services,750 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20002-4242.