social work

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Co-Occurrence of Interparental Violence and Child Physical Abuse and It’s Effect on the Adolescents’ Behavior

Chantal Bourassa

Published online: 31 July 2007 # Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2007

Abstract This study analyzed the impact of the co- occurrence of parental and interparental violence on the behavior of adolescents. Results reveal that the co- occurrence of interparental violence and child physical abuse has a significantly greater negative impact on behavior than does exposure to interparental violence only. Moreover, participants, who are both abused and exposed to interparental violence, exhibit internalized and external- ized symptoms falling within the clinical range more frequently. Exposure exclusively to interparental violence also has definite impact; for example, teens who are only exposed to interparental violence exhibit internalized and externalized symptoms more frequently than do those who have been neither subject to physical abuse from a parent nor exposed to interparental violence. Implications of the findings are discussed.

Keywords Adolescents . Behavior. Co-occurrence of interparental violence and child physical abuse

Studies have indicated that the incidence of exposure to interparental violence is far from marginal. It is estimated that every year in the United States, between 3.3 million (Carlson 1984) and 10 million (Peled et al. 1995) children are at risk of exposure to interparental violence. Between 1994 and 1999, approximately half a million Canadian children saw or heard violence directed toward a parent (Canadian Center for Justice Statistics 2000). According to Sudermann and Jaffe (1999), between 11 and 23% of all children in Canada witness such violence. These research- ers have calculated that in the average class in the school

setting, from two to six children have likely been exposed to interparental violence.

In addition to their exposure to interparental violence, many children are the direct targets of abuse; the average rate of co-occurrence of interparental violence and child abuse lies between 30 and 60% (Edleson 2001; McKay 1994;). A study conducted in Quebec indicated that, of all the reports made to the child protection services, 22.9% included the presence of interparental violence (Chamberland et al. 2007). Interparental violence constituted the primary form of abuse for 40% of these children, while negligence (56%) and physical abuse (32%) were the primary forms of abuse for the rest. Studies on the rate of co-occurrence have been associated with a number of methodological gaps (Appel and Holden 1998; Edleson 1999). For example, Appel and Holden (1998) noted that rates of co-occurrence vary depending on the sample: from 26 to 50% among children involved in reports to child protection agencies; from 4 to 100% among abused women; and from 6 to 21% for the general public.

Studies have revealed the many negative consequences of living in a violent domestic environment. Exposure to interparental violence is associated with the presence of externalized and internalized symptoms in children (Bourassa 1998; Chénard 1994; Christopoulos et al. 1987; Fantuzzo et al. 1991; Fortin et al. 2000; Jaffe et al. 1985, 1990) and adolescents (Bourassa 2002). However, accord- ing to the research available, the co-occurrence of interpar- ental and child abuse is associated with more severe symptoms among children (Davis and Carlson 1987; Fortin et al. 2000; Hughes 1988; Hughes et al. 1989) and teenagers (O’Keefe 1996).

Research is inconsistent regarding differences between boys and girls regarding the impact of exposure to interpar- ental violence on behavior. Some studies indicate that boys

J Fam Viol (2007) 22:691–701 DOI 10.1007/s10896-007-9117-8

C. Bourassa (*) School of Social Work, Université de Moncton, Moncton, New Brunswick, Canada E1A 1E9 e-mail: [email protected]

show more externalizing symptoms (Jaffe et al. 1986) and that girls exhibit more internalizing symptoms (Christopoulos et al. 1987; Holden and Ritchie 1991; Stagg et al. 1989). However, several studies failed to find differences between boys and girls (Fantuzzo et al. 1991; Gleason 1995; O’Keefe 1994b). The only gender difference in the Fortin et al. (2000) study is that girls show more delinquent behaviors than boys. Therefore, according to those results, it is difficult to establish if girls and boys are affected differently by their exposure to interparental violence.

Moreover, research to date represents only a limited portrait of the consequences of the co-occurrence of interparental and child abuse. First, most studies have focused on young children; only limited knowledge is available with regard to teens, particularly those between the ages of 16 and 19. A study conducted with adolescents allows us to investigate the effects of domestic violence on a population that has probably been exposed for a longer period. In addition, while studies indicate that children who are both abused and exposed to interparental violence exhibit more severe problems than those who are only exposed to interparental violence, many studies have not checked for the presence of child abuse, particularly directed toward teens.

A few theories can help better understand the impact of interparental violence on the presence of internalized and externalized symptoms. According to social learning theory, the observation of others constitutes the central component of learning (Bandura 1973; Patterson et al. 1984). The more significant the model (e.g. one’s parents), the greater the chance that the observer will reproduce a given behavior. The chances that an observer will repro- duce a model’s behavior also increase if the model is a member of the same gender (Bandura 1969; Margolin and Patterson 1975). The observation of violent behaviors can lead a child to adopt attitudes that favor violence and, eventually, to imitate these violent behaviors (Anderson and Cramer-Benjamin 1999). Also, the observation of victim behaviors can lead children to imitate those behaviors. Moreover, if a child is subjected to child physical abuse in addition to exposure to aggressive models, then the probability of imitation of the violent or victim behaviors may increase (Kashani et al. 1991; O’Keefe 1996).

Another theoretical explanation is the psychiatric model who indicates that the adaptation problems of children and adolescents exposed to interparental violence can be explained by post-traumatic stress (Anderson and Cramer-Benjamin 1999; Margolin and John 1997). The psychiatric model suggest that the traumatic experiences (e.g., earthquake, war, interparental violence) provokes an intense fear and a helpless feeling and this could be manifested as internalizing problems (somatic difficulties, sleep problems, depression, anxiety) and externalizing problems (Anderson and Cramer-

Benjamin 1999). Children exposed to interparental violence live in a family environment in which they are scared for their protection and that of the parent who is victim.

Thus violence that occurs at the hands of one parent and that victimizes the other parent may create a world for children that is frightening, confusing, and lacking security and safety. Interparental violence transforms the home into a dangerous and unpredictable environ- ment. As concluded by Jafnoff-Bulmann (1993), «The most devastating negative life events on children are likely to be those that involve victimization by the very people who are looked to for protection and safety» (Margolin and John 1997, p. 91).

According to Rutter’s (1981) cumulative risk hypothe- ses, the risk of children experiencing problems doubles or quadruples with the presence of two or more stressors. Therefore, being exposed to domestic violence with the stress of being physically abused interact to contribute to an increase in externalized and internalized symptoms.

The results presented in this article are part of a study which seeks to extend our knowledge about the impact of interparental violence on teens aged between ages 15 and 19, a group age neglected in most studies on exposure to interparental violence. It was predicted that teens who were both victim of child abuse and exposed to interparental violence would show more behavioral problems (internalized and externalized symptoms) than those who are only exposed to interparental violence. It was also predicted that those exposed to interparental violence would exhibit more behav- ioral problems than those not exposed to that violence or not victim of child abuse. Because of the inconsistencies regarding the effect of interparental violence by gender, it is difficult at this point to elaborate an hypothesis on that aspect.

Materials and Methods

Participants and Procedure

The population studied was composed of teens attending a secondary school in New Brunswick, Canada. Three school districts were selected based on two criteria: representation of three geographic areas in the province and accessibility to the researcher. One secondary school in each district was subsequently identified, and a total of 984 French teens aged 16 to 18 were invited to take part in the project. Of this number, 296 (30.1%) opted not to respond to the questionnaire. Among the completed questionnaires, 198 (20.1%) were rejected due to an excessive number of missing responses. A total of 490 teens, aged between 15 and 19 years old (M=16.9), formed the final sample (49.8% of original respondents): 269 girls and 221 boys.

692 J Fam Viol (2007) 22:691–701

Overall, 78.4% of the sample resided in two-parent families. Eighteen percent of youth lived in a single parent or a reconstituted family. Eleven percent of responds had no siblings, while the rest had two or more siblings.

The number of refusal and rejected questionnaires may affect the generalization and external validity of the study. While the response rate was somewhat low, it compares to the rates typically recorded in studies of this nature. For example, Dumas and Beauchesne (1993) obtained a re- sponse rate of 52.1% in a study of paid employment among secondary school students.

Many reasons can explain the number of refusal or rejected questionnaires. Some may live severe violence at home and not want to think about it during class. Others may not live violence at home and, therefore, not feel concerned by the research. Also, the questionnaires were ad- ministered during flu season and there are many absences. Finally, because the questionnaires were administered during a free period, some preferred to use that time to finalize a paper or study for a test.

A comparison was done between the respondents by, whom the questionnaire was completed and those whom the questionnaire was rejected according to the gender, grade, number of children in the family and family type. The comparison is based on the 490 youths whom the questionnaire was retained and 143 of the 198 youths whom the questionnaire was rejected. The Chi-Square tests indicated that the respondents who had the questionnaire retained and those with the rejected questionnaires present a similar profile; there were no significant differences for gender (χ2=0.136, ns), grade (χ2=1.95, ns) and family type (χ2=1.74, ns). However, there was a significant difference with regards to the number of children in the family (χ2=10.81, p<0.05).

The questionnaires, which featured four rating scales, were distributed to the participants during regular school hours. At two of the schools, the questionnaires were distributed either by the researcher herself or by her research assistant. At the third school, the questionnaires were distributed by the teachers due to the high number of grade 11 and 12 classes at the school. A letter was forwarded to all parents in advance to advise them of the study and to encourage them to contact the researcher if they needed additional information. Participants were free to complete the questionnaire if they chose, and they completed a consent form. A list of resources available within the community was also sent out with the questionnaire.

Measures

The presence of internalized and externalized symptoms was assessed using the French versions of the internalized and externalized symptoms scales of the Youth Self Report

(YSR) (Achenback 1991): Rapport personnel des jeunes. These scales enable measurement of the perception of children or teenagers (aged 11 to 18) in terms of their behavior and social skills (Achenback 1991). The internal- ized disorder scale covers the subscales of withdrawal, somatic complaints, and anxiety/depression. The external- ized disorder scale is composed of subscales to measure delinquent and aggressive behavior. Achenback (1991) prescribed cutoff points based on subject gender for determining whether problems were within the normal range or exceeded the clinical threshold. The psychometric qualities of the French version of the YSR have not been evaluated; the authors of the French version instead use the standards from the U.S. version, whose psychometric properties are viewed as excellent, particularly when applied to teens between the ages of 15 and 18 (Achenback 1991).

Interparental violence was assessed using the French versions of the psychological and physical aggression scales from the Relationships Between My Parents questionnaire (Straus 2000, CTS2-CA). The CTS2-CA serves in assessing a person’s perception of conflicts between his or her parents. The CTS2-CA is a version of the Revised Conflict Tactics Scale, couple version (Straus et al. 1996; CTS2). Therefore, subsequent to the authors’ approval of the original tool, the CTS2-CA was translated based on the French version of the CTS2 (Lussier 1997, Questionnaire sur la résolution des conflits conjugaux [Resolution of partners’ conflicts Quec- tionnaire], unpublished data). In the CTS2-CA and the CTS2, the psychological aggression scale contains 16 items and the physical aggression scale contains 24 items. The respondent answers on a Likert scale ranging from 0 (never) to 6 (more than 20 times). The psychometric properties of the CTS2-CA have not been evaluated; however, the CTS2 is known to have superior psychometric qualities (Lussier 1997, Questionnaire sur la résolution des conflits conjugaux [Resolution of partners’ conflicts Quectionnaire], unpub- lished data; Straus et al. 1996).

The French version of the physical aggression subscale of the Parent–Child Conflict Tactics Scales, children version (Straus 2000, CTSPC-CA) was used to evaluate the physical violence to which respondents had been exposed. The CTSPC-CA enabled assessment of the persons’ perception of the physical violence to which they had been subjected by their parents. The CTSPC-CA is a version of the Revised Parent–Child Conflict Tactics Scales, parent version, which serve in the assessment of the disciplinary practices of parents. Again, subsequent to the authors’ approval of the original tool, the CTSPC-CA was translated based on the French version of the Revised Parent–Child Conflict Tactics Scales, parent version (Fortin et al. 1996). The respondent answers on a Likert scale ranging from 0 (never) to 6 (more than 20 times). Data are not currently available on the psychometric properties of

J Fam Viol (2007) 22:691–701 693

the CTSPC-CA. However, in the study carried out by Straus et al. (1998), the internal consistency coefficient for the physical aggression subscale of the PCCTS was 0.55. The PCCTS also appears to have a high degree of construct validity (ibid. 1998).

Finally, a number of questions were used to collect information on the sociodemographic characteristics of the participants, including age, gender, number of children in the family, family type and parents’ educational level. However, the educational level of parents was not taken into account in this study since a high number of respondents did not provide this information.

Results

Respondent Profile Based on Independent Study Variables: Interparental Violence and Child Physical Abuse

Of the 490 adolescents comprising the final sample, 253 (51.6%) had been exposed at least once to interparental violence within the past five years, while 237 (48.4%) had not been exposed to this type of violence. Among the

respondents who had been exposed to violence, 101 (20.6%) had been exposed to both psychological and physical violence, while 152 (31%) had been exposed only to psychological violence. Girls reported more frequent exposure to interparental violence than boys. T tests with Bonferonni correction (p<0.007) revealed that this differ- ence was significant with regard to physical violence perpetrated by the mother [t (488)=1.91, p<0.007; see Table 1], psychological violence perpetrated by the mother [t (488)=1.95, p<0.007], psychological violence perpetrat- ed by the father [t (488)=2.51, p<0.007], total psycholog- ical violence [t (488)=2.32; p<.007], total physical violence [t (488)=1.24, p<0.007). However, there was no significant difference between boys and girls for physical violence perpetrated by the father [t (488)=0.49, ns], total physical violence [t (488)=1.24, ns] and total interparental violence [t (488)=2.15, ns].

There was a positive and significant correlation between psychological violence perpetrated by the mother and that perpetrated by the father as well as between physical violence perpetrated by the mother and that perpetrated by the father (see Table 2). In addition, a positive and significant correlation is noted between total psychological violence and

Table 1 Interparental violence by the aggressor’s gender and youth’s gender: mean and standard deviations

Variables Girls (n=269) Boys (n=221)

M SD M SD

Mother to father violence Psychological violence 15.30 27.55 10.76* 23.93 Physical violence 4.46 17.68 2.06* 9.62

Father to mother violence Psychological violence 14.48 26.05 8.91* 23.11 Physical violence 3.51 15.31 2.84 14.79

Violence by both parents Psychological violence 29.77 50.79 19.67* 45.50 Physical violence 7.97 31.62 4.90* 23.14 Total interparental violence (psychological + physical) 37.75 73.34 24.57* 62.59

* p<0.05

Table 2 Correlations among different forms of interparental violence

Interparental violence 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Psychological violence Mother to father – 0.83** 0.96** 0.54** 0.51** 0.55** 0.90** Father to mother – 0.95** 0.47** 0.59** 0.56** 0.90** Violence by both parents – 0.53** 0.57** 0.58** 0.94** Physical violence Mother to father – 0.79** 0.95** 0.76** Father to mother – 0.95** 0.79** Violence by both parents – 0.82** Interparental violence in total –

** p<0.01

694 J Fam Viol (2007) 22:691–701

total physical violence. Thus, the more the youth is exposed to psychological violence and physical violence perpetrated by the mother, the more likely he is exposed to psycholog- ical violence and physical violence perpetrated by the father. Given the elevated correlations among the variables, the subsequent analyses will take only total interparental violence into account. Meanwhile, although violence perpe- trated by female and male parents has been grouped, the researcher does not claim that these acts of aggression have the same goals or identical consequences.

Of the 490 respondents in the final sample, 32 (6.5%), that is, 18 girls and 14 boys had been victims of child physical abuse but had not been exposed to interparental violence, 131 (26.7%), including, 79 girls and 52 boys had been exposed to interparental violence but had not been victims of child physical abuse and 122 (24.9%) more specifically, 74 girls and 48 boys had been both abused and exposed to interparental violence. According to the results of the T tests with Bonferonni correction (p<0.01), there was no significant difference between boys and girls (see Table 3) for violence perpetrated by the mother [t (488)=1.53, ns], violence perpetrated by the father [t (488)=0.81, ns] and violence perpetrated by both parents [t (488)=1.17, ns].

Table 4 illustrates the correlations between physical violence perpetrated by the father and that perpetrated by the mother as well as the correlations between child physical abuse and interparental violence. First, with regard to child physical abuse, violence perpetrated by the mother and violence perpetrated by the father are closely associat- ed. The more the youth is victim of violence by the mother, the more likely he is victim of violence by the father. On these grounds, subsequent analyses take only total child physical abuse into account. Next, a positive and significant

correlation is noted between total interparental violence and total child physical abuse; as such, the greater the participant’s exposure to interparental violence, the more likely it is that the participant was also subjected to child physical abuse.

Respondent Profile Based on Dependent Study Variables: Internalized and Externalized Symptoms

Girls had significantly higher scores on the internalized symptoms scale (see Table 5). T tests with Bonferonni correction (p<0.007) indicated that girls showed significantly more anxiety/depression [t (488)=5.62, p<0.007] and somatic complaints [t (488)=5.97, p<0.007], and were significantly more withdrawn [t (488)=5.62, p<0.007]. However, there was no significant difference between boys and girls on the externalized symptoms scale [for delinquent behavior: t (488)= 1.81, ns; for aggressive behavior: t (488)=1.37, ns; and for total externalized symptoms: t (488)=0.23, ns].

Experience of Violence and Extent of Internalized and Externalized Symptoms

The sample was divided into three groups: exposed to interparental violence and victim of child abuse (co- occurrence; 74 girls and 48 boys); exposed to domestic violence only (79 girls and 52 boys); and not exposed and not victim of child abuse (98 girls and 107 boys). Because of the hypotheses verified in this study, the youths that were only victim of child abuse were not included in the present analysis. Two 3 (abuse status) × 2 (gender) analysis of variance (ANOVA) were conducted to verify if the co- occurrence of interparental violence and child physical abuse had a significantly greater impact on the presence of internalized symptoms and externalized symptoms than did exposure exclusively to interparental violence. The ANOVA, with internalized symptoms as the dependant variable, indicated no significant interaction between gender and group status, F(3,482)=1.47, ns, partial η2=0.01, but significant main effects for abuse status, F(3,482)=29.52, p<0.001, partial η2=0.16, and gender, F(1,482)=22.43, p<0.001, partial η2=0.04 (see Table 5). The gender main effect indicated that the girls tended to have greater internalized symptoms than the boys.

Table 4 Correlations among child physical abuse and interparental violence

Types of violence 1 2 3 4

Child physical abuse Mother to child – 0.78* 0.93* 0.62* Father to child – 0.96* 0.56* Mother and father to child – 0.62* Interparental violence –

*p<0.01

Table 3 Child physical abuse by the aggressor’s gender and youth’s gender: mean and standard deviations

Variables Girls (n=269) Boys (n=221)

M SD M SD

Mother to child 5.20 20.17 2.91 12.48 Father to child 5.48 24.70 3.90 16.35 Mother and father to child 10.68 41.77 6.81 28.29

J Fam Viol (2007) 22:691–701 695

Follow-up analyses of the main effect for abuse status, consisting of all pairwise comparisons among the three types of groups, was examined. The Tukey HSD procedure was used to control for Type I error across the pairwise comparisons. The results of this analysis indicate that there was a significant difference between the three groups: the youth who were both abused and exposed to interparental violence exhibited internalized symptoms significantly more frequently than those exposed exclusively to inter- parental violence. Moreover, those who had only been exposed to interparental violence reported internalized symptoms significantly more frequently than those who reported neither parental nor interparental violence.

The same analyses were conducted but with the external- ized symptoms as the dependant variable. The ANOVA indi- cated no significant interaction between gender and abuse status, F(3,482)=0.16, ns, partial η2=0.00 (see Table 6). Also there was no significant main effect for gender, F(1,482)= 0.97, ns, partial η2=0.00; girls and boys exhibited similar externalized symptoms. However, there was a significant main effect for abuse status, F(3,482)=42.59, p<0.001, partial η2=0.21.

Follow-up analyses of the main effect for abuse status, using the Tukey HSD procedure, indicated that the youth who were both abused and exposed to interparental violence exhibited externalized symptoms significantly more frequently than those exposed exclusively to inter- parental violence, and those who had only been exposed to interparental violence reported externalized symptoms

significantly more frequently than those who reported neither parental nor interparental violence (Table 7).

Problems Falling within Clinical Range by the Experience of Violence

An analysis was carried out to determine the percentage of respondents whose scores concerning any problems fell within the clinical range. The scores were subjected to differentiated analysis after grouping the respondents into the same categories as for the preceding analyses (see Table 8). The chi-square tests indicated that the participants who were both abused and exposed to interparental violence exhibited significantly more problems falling within the clinical range most frequently. Moreover, a higher proportion of respondents who had only been exposed to interparental violence exhibited internalized and externalized symptoms falling within the clinical range than those who reported neither parental nor interparental violence.

Discussion

According to the findings, half of all the teens who responded to the questionnaire had been exposed at least once to interparental violence within the past five years, while nearly a third had been subjected to physical abuse from a parent. Also, a quarter of the respondents had been both exposed to domestic violence and were victims of

Table 5 Internalized and ex- ternalized symptoms by youths gender: mean and standard deviations

*p<0.05 **p<0.01

Variables Girls (n=269) Boys (n=221)

M SD M SD

Internalized symptoms Withdrawn 4.13 2.87 3.40* 2.56 Somatic complaints 4.23 3.13 2.72** 2.45 Anxiety/depression 8.71 6.72 5.63** 5.35 Total internalized symptoms 16.47 10.80 11.36** 8.64 Externalized symptoms Delinquent behavior 3.47 3.18 3.99 3.08 Aggressive behavior 7.30 5.59 6.62 5.28 Total externalized symptoms 10.78 8.05 10.61 7.71

Table 6 Abuse status and youth’s gender: mean and standard deviations for internalized symptoms

Abuse status Girls (n=269) Boys (n=221)

n M SD n M SD

Comparison 98 10.96 7.42 107 8.49 7.14 Exposed 79 17.38 10.73 52 13.15 8.28 Exposed and victim 74 22.68 11.33 48 16.06 9.89

696 J Fam Viol (2007) 22:691–701

child abuse. Moreover, many youths who had been exposed to interparental violence were also victims of physical violence at the hands of their parents.

The significant and moderately high correlation between interparental violence and child physical abuse revealed in this study is consistent with other studies (Chénard 1994; Davis and Carlson 1987; Echlin and Marshall 1995; Edleson 1999; Hughes 1988; Hughes et al. 1989; Jouriles et al. 1987; McCloskey et al. 1995; Muller et al. 2000; O’Keefe 1996). As indicated by Holden et al. (1998: 291), “...a negative marital interaction may ‘spill over’ into child rearing and result in harsh and possibly aggressive behavior directed toward the child.” Interparental violence creates a dysfunctional domestic environment resulting in phenome- na such as reduced parental capacity (Jaffe et al. 1990). Violence within the parental couple may make parents anxious, depressed, or irritable (Anderson and Cramer- Benjamin 1999; Brody et al. 1996; Cummings and Davies 1994; Holden and Ritchie 1991; Jaffe et al. 1985). A parent may consequently be more likely to resort to disciplinary acts including acts of physical violence (Jaffe et al. 1990).

This abusive domestic environment has definite con- sequences in terms of compromising the behavioral

development of the victim. Results of the present investi- gation are supportive of the hypotheses that the co- occurrence of interparental violence and child physical abuse had a significantly greater impact on the presence of internalize and externalize symptoms than did exposure exclusively to interparental violence, and that exposure to interparental violence provoked more internalize and externalize symptoms than living in a environment with no domestic violence or child abuse. These findings support previous research conducted among children (Davis and Carlson 1987; Fortin et al. 2000; Hughes 1988) and teenagers (Carlson 1991; O’Keefe 1996).

Based on social learning theory, parents are highly influential models for their children, who are consequently likely to reproduce the behaviors they observe in their parents. Children who live in a domestic environment affected by violence come to believe that violence is acceptable for resolving conflicts and are, consequently, likely to use violence in dealing with the people around them, whether brothers and sisters, friends, peers, or, eventually, their own romantic partners. They absorb “many dysfunctional messages about the acceptability of violence as a way to resolve conflict, about rationalizing the use of

Table 7 Abuse status and youth’s gender: mean and standard deviations for externalized symptoms

Abuse status Girls (n=269) Boys (n=221)

n M SD n M SD

Comparison 98 6.91 4.97 107 7.63 5.05 Exposed 79 10.32 6.52 52 10.81 6.90 Exposed and victim 74 16.46 9.83 48 16.52 8.79

Table 8 Percentage of adolescents with clinical internalized and externalized symptoms

Gender and abuse status Behavioral symptoms

Internalized symptoms Externalized symptoms

n % χ2 % χ2

Girls No violence 98 4.08 27.94* 1.02 52.57* Expose 79 22.78 7.59 Expose and victim 74 33.78 35.14

Boys No violence 107 6.54 22.75* 0.93 25.57* Expose 52 19.23 3.85 Expose and victim 48 33.33 18.75

Total No violence 205 5.36 29.20* 1.46 43.38* Expose 131 21.37 6.11 Expose and victim 122 36.61 30.33

*p<0.001

J Fam Viol (2007) 22:691–701 697

violence as essential under stressful conditions (Margolin and Gordis 2003, p.88). Our study indicated that in the opinion of most of the teen respondents, violence was mutual within the parental couple. As a result, both girls and boys were exposed to models belonging to the same gender who acted as both victim and aggressor. Moreover, exposure to the co-occurrence of abuse and interparental violence reinforces the learning of the behaviors of aggressor and victim.

Also, the presence of internalized and externalized symp- toms may be explained by the presence of post-traumatic stress. Witnessing or hearing the violence may be troubling for the youth. The presence of violence creates an unhealthy, unstable and concerning family climate. Therefore, the youth will possibly have feelings of fear and helplessness. He can even fear for his own life ant the life of the parent who is a victim. In addition, the youth may feel responsible for the violence between his parents (Osofsky 1995). Consequently, he may display behaviors that are related to trauma symptoms, including internalized disorders (anxiety, social withdrawal) and externalized disorders (aggression et delin- quency; Anderson and Cramer-Benjamin 1999; Graham- Bermann 1998; Osofsky 1995).

Also, according to Rutter’s (1981) cumulative risk hypotheses, a child’s adjustment problems may become more significant in the presence of interaction of multiple stress factors; therefore, being both abused and exposed to interparental violence taxes the youth resources beyond their ability to cope (Hughes et al. 1989).

Results indicating a more frequent presence of internal- izing symptoms for girls are in line with other research that indicates that adolescent girls are more susceptible to show internalized symptoms when they experience stressful incidents (Leadbeater et al. 1999; Petersen et al. 1991). Girls are socially considered to be passive and submissive while boys are socialized as being aggressive, controlling and somewhat in power. Thus, in the general society, children and teenagers observe and copy the social models given to women and men. It is also possible that, because of those prescribed roles, girls are more susceptible to admit the presence of internalized symptoms than boys.

However, in our study, even though girls demonstrate internalized disorders that could be explained by the socialization they received in the general society, they are nevertheless susceptible to demonstrate externalized disor- ders. This can be explained by the socialization received at home: in our research, women are generally as violent as men. Therefore, the girls are exposed to a model where the same sex uses violence. They are, in turn, susceptible to demonstrating violent behaviors.

Another result of the current study is disquieting in that a higher proportion of youths who live in families where there is interparental violence and/or child abuse exhibited

problems at clinical levels than youths with no violence at home. The situation is even more urgent for adolescents who are both abused and exposed to interparental violence. For example, 36.6% of youths who are both abused and exposed to interparental violence exhibit internalized prob- lems that fall within the clinical range, in comparison to 21.4% who are only exposed to interparental violence. Meanwhile, analyses reveal that 33.0% of teens who are both abused and exposed to interparental violence exhibit externalized problems requiring clinical intervention, com- pared to 6.11% of participants who are only exposed to interparental violence.

According to the majority of the written materials, between 35 and 45% of children who are witnesses to spousal abuse will demonstrate clinical behavior problems (Christopoulos et al. 1987; Émond 2000; Graham-Bermann 1998; Wolfe et al. 1985). In a study conducted by Fortin et al. (2000), 74.8% of the kids (aged 6 to 12 years old) exposed to domestic violence and victim of child abuse and 65.7% of those exposed only had scores falling in the clinical range for internalized symptoms. For the external- ized symptoms, 73.7% of the persons who are witnesses of spousal abuse and victims of parental abuse and 41.4% of those who are witnesses of spousal abuse demonstrate clinical problems.

These higher percentages shown in those research may be attributable to the fact that researchers interviewed the mothers with regard to the behavioral difficulties of their children (via the CBCL). Some researchers (Fortin et al. 2000; Hughes and Barad 1983; Hughes et al. 1989; Wolfe et al. 1985) have suggested that some mothers who are victims of interparental violence overestimate the problems of their children. This overestimation on the part of a mother may be attributable to the anxiety she has experienced in relation to her own abuse and subsequent admission to a women’s shelter (Hughes 1986) or to her determination to reach out for help (Fortin et al. 2000).

This study indicates that, although girls show more internalized symptoms than boys, the proportion of boys and girls who are exposed to domestic violence, and who are both exposed and victim, that fall in the clinical range for internalized symptoms is similar (see Table 8). Probably that boys and girls who are severely traumatized by the violence at home will show similar internalized symptoms. However, the proportion of girls exposed to domestic violence and exposed and victim who fall in the clinical range for externalized symptoms is higher than boys who live the same kind of violence at home. Relying on Rutters’s notion of cumulative stressors, this may be explained by particular vulnerabilities or certain stressors experienced by the girls in the study. In fact, the findings show that girls report being more exposed to violence than boys. Also, the adolescence period is particularly stressful for girls (Leadbeater et al. 1999).

698 J Fam Viol (2007) 22:691–701

However, it is interesting to note that an important proportion of the youth from violent homes were not evidencing problems at clinical levels. The present findings are consistent with research which indicates that reactions to violence in the home may vary among children (Grych et al. 2000; Hughes and Luke 1998; Jaffe et al. 1985). Those variations may be explained by the presence of risk (e.g., an alcoholic parent) and protective factors (e.g., presence of a warm and supportive relationship with the mother).

Finally, the findings indicating that in the opinion of most of the respondents the violence is mutual within the parental couple, is in keeping with previous research. Other research revealed a high and significant correlation between the use of violence by a male on his wife and by the female on her husband (Jouriles et al. 1996). Results of the current study must nevertheless be interpreted with care, since context of the violence was not considered; it is impossible to determine if the violence perpetrated by the women was used for a different goal than men. It is possible that the mothers used violence as the mean to protect themselves.

There are several implication of these results. First, a significant percentage of youth attending certain French schools in New Brunswick live in a domestic environment characterized by violence. This outcome supports the importance of raising awareness among all educators concerning the phenomena of interparental violence and child physical abuse and their negative impact on behavior. Teachers, principals, and school counselors need access to information on screening for abuse, approaches to use with teens, etc. This could include information on how to recognize warning signs, develop nonjudgmental listening skills, know when to report to authorities, develop safety plan with the child, etc. (Anderson and Cramer-Benjamin 1999). Also, as noted by Fontes (2000), when school counselors are referred students for bad behavior, its important that they evaluate the presence of violence at home before engaging in a punitive response. “Children who are initially approached accusatorially are unlikely to reveal embarrassing problems at home” (Fontes 2000, p.233).

Second, the result in terms of the co-occurrence of interparental violence and child physical abuse supports the importance of checking for the simultaneous presence of multiple forms of interparental violence in the teens’ environment. Intervention may prove ineffective in situa- tions involving the co-occurrence of interparental violence and child physical abuse where only one of these two variables is detected (O’Keefe 1996). “It essential for child protective service workers, clinicians, researchers, and others who identify abused and neglected children to assess the presence or absence of other types of violence in the home” (Hughes et al. 1989, p.206). The findings that a higher proportion of youths living violence in the home showed problems falling within the clinical range support

the importance for them to receive appropriate help. Concerted, innovative measures need to be implemented to assist children who are traumatized by violence at home.

Third, gender is also important to consider. The findings show that girls and boys may be affected differently by the violence at home. Girls may exhibit more internalized symptoms and show more clinical externalized symptoms. Therefore, intervention must consider how violence impacts differently on youths according to their gender and the different stressors present in their lives.

Finally, children living in an abusive domestic environ- ment need exposure to patterns of behavior and interaction that assist them in modifying their behaviors and attitudes toward violence. They need to learn prosocial ways of interacting with other people. In this regard, it would be useful to implement or continue offering programs in the schools covering healthy relationships, respect, conflict resolution, and cooperation. Early intervention may also assist children in developing an inventory of non-violent means of expressing their emotions and resolving conflicts.

Several limitations must be noted in interpreting the findings presented. One such limitation has to do with the fact that the sample population consisted only of teens aged between 16 and 19; younger teens were not included. Another limitation is related to the proportion of partic- ipants contacted who agreed to participate in the final sample; 30.1% of participants who were approached refused to respond to the questionnaire, and 20.1% of questionnaires were rejected due to an excessive number of missing and/or incoherent responses. The study results may therefore be biased. A third limitation is related to the information source. In the present study, the participants responded directly to the questionnaire, and self-reported data may be biased for various reasons, such as memory problems or social desirability. A fourth limitation has to do with the fact that the socioeconomic status of the respondents was not taken into account. A final limitation is that physical abuse from a parent was the only form of abuse evaluated.

Future research should take the following issues into account with a view to advancing the body of knowledge. First, many studies have not assessed all forms of violence witnessed or experienced by children exposed to interpar- ental violence. As a result, future efforts need to focus more on the co-occurrence of interparental violence and the various possible forms of abuse directed toward young and teenage children (sexual abuse, negligence, etc.). In adition, other studies need to analyze the impact of interparental violence on various aspects of children’s lives (social functioning, attitudes toward women, etc.). Research to date has focused primarily on behavioral problems; how- ever, young and teenage children who live in abusive domestic environments may exhibit few to no behavioral

J Fam Viol (2007) 22:691–701 699

problems, yet demonstrate other types of problems (Davis and Carlson 1987; Jaffe et al. 1985, 1990). Finally, future studies need to focus on identifying protective and risk factors that may account for the variation in adaptation of children in violent homes.

References

Achenback, T. M. (1991). Manual for the youth self report and 1991 profile. Burlington, Vermont: University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry.

Anderson, S. A., & Cramer-Benjamin, D. B. (1999). The impact of couple violence on parenting and children: An overview and clinical implications. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 27, 1–13.

Angold, A., Costello, E. J., & Erkanli, A. (1999). Pubertal changes in hormone levels and depression in girls. Psychological Medicine, 29, 1043–1053.

Appel, A. E., & Holden, G. W. (1998). The co-occurrence of spouse and physical child abuse: A review and appraisal. Journal of Family Psychology, 12, 578–599.

Bandura, A. (1969). Principles of behavior modification. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning approach. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Bourassa, C. (1998). Le point de vue des enfants exposés à la violence conjugale [Children’s perspective on interparental violence]. Master’s thesis. Québec, Canada: Université Laval.

Bourassa, C. (2002). La relation entre la violence conjugale et les troubles de comportement à l’adolescence : les effets médiateurs des relations parents—adolescent et du soutien des amis, Thèse de doctorat, École de service social. Québec, Canada: Université Laval.

Brody, G. H., Arias I., & Fincham, F. D. (1996). Linking marital and child attributions to family processes and parent–child relation- ships. Journal of Family Psychology, 4, 408–421.

Canadian Centre for Justice Statistic (2000). Family violence in Canada: A statistical profile (No. 85-224-XPE). Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Statistics Canada.

Carlson, B. E. (1984). Children’s observation of interparental violence. In A. R. Roberts (Ed.), Battered women and their families (pp. 147–167). New York: Springher.

Carlson, B. E. (1991). Outcomes of physical abuse and observation of marital violence among adolescents in placement. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 6, 526–534.

Chamberland, C., Laporte, L., Lavergne, C., Tourigny, M., Mayer, M., & Wright, J. (2007). Psychological maltreatment: A social problem captured in the Quebec incidence study of child protection services. Journal of Emotional Abusefs, in press.

Chénard, L. (1994). ...et les enfants. In M. Rinfret-Raynor & S. Cantin (Eds.), Violence conjugale: Recherches sur la violence faite aux femmes en milieu conjugal (pp. 113–130). Boucherville: Gaëtan morin.

Christopoulos, C., Cohn, D. A., Shaw, D. S., Joyce, S., Sullivan-Hanson, J., Karft, S. P., et al. (1987). Children of abused women: Adjustment at time of shelter residence. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 49, 611–619.

Cummings, E. M., & Davies, P. T. (1994). Maternal depression and child development. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 35, 73–112.

Davis, L., & Carlson, B. (1987). Observation of Spouse Abuse: What Happens to the Children. Journal of Interpersonnal Violence, 2, 278–291.

Dumas, S., & Beauchesne, C. (1993). Étudier et travailler? Enquête auprès des élèves du secondaire sur le travail rémunéré durant l’année scolaire [Study or work? Study with secondary students pertaining to paid work during school year]. Québec, Québec, Canada: Ministère de l’Éducation, Gouvernement du Québec.

Echlin, C., & Marshall, L. (1995). Child protection services for children of battered women. Practice and controversy. In E. Peled, P. G. Jaffe, & J. L. Edleson (Eds.), Ending the cycle of violence: Community responses to children of battered women (pp. 170–185). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Edleson, J. L. (1999). The overlap between child maltreatment and woman battering. Violence Against Women, 5, 134–154.

Edleson, J. L. (2001). Studying the co-occurrence of child maltreat- ment and domestic violence in families. In S. A. Graham- Bermann & E. R. Edleson (Eds.), Domestic violence in the lives of children (pp. 91–110). Washington: American Psychological Association.

Émond, I. (2000). La relation entre la violence conjugale et les troubles extériorisés et intériorisés des enfants, Thèse de doctorat, Faculté d’éducation, Université de Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada.

Fantuzzo, J. W., Depaola, L. M., Lambert, L., Martino, T., Anderson, G., & Sutton, S. (1991). Effects of interparental violence on the psychological adjustment and competencies of young children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59, 258–265.

Fontes, L. A. (2000). Children exposed to marital violence: How school counselors can help. Professional School Counseling, 3, 231–237.

Fortin, A., Cyr, M., & Chénier, N. (1996). Questionnaire sur la résolution de conflits : stratégies utilisées par les parents envers les enfants [Resolution of conflicts Questionnaire: strategies used by parents toward their childrens]. Unpublished manuscript, Université de Montréal at Montreal. Canada.

Fortin, A., Cyr, M., & Lachance, L. (2000). Les enfants témoins de violence conjugale: Analyse des variables de protection [Chil- dren witnesses of domestic violence: Analysis of protection variables]. Collection Études et analyses, 13, Québec, Québec, Canada: Centre de recherche interdisciplinaire sur la violence familiale et la violence faite aux femmes.

Gleason, W. J. (1995). Children of battered women: Developmental delays and behavioral dysfunction. Violence and Victims, 10, 153–160.

Graham-Bermann, S. A. (1998). The impact of woman abuse on children’s social development: Research and theoretical perspec- tives. In G. W. Holden, R. Geffner, & E. N. Jouriles (Eds.), Children exposed to marital violence: Theory, research, and applied issues (pp. 21–54). Washington, DC: American psycho- logical Association.

Grych, J. H.; Jouriles, E. N., & Swank, P.R. (2000). Patterns of adjustment among children of battered women. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, 84–94.

Holden, G. W., & Ritchie, K. L. (1991). Linking extreme marital discord, child rearing, and child behavior problems: Evidence from battered women. Child Development, 62, 311–327.

Holden, G. W., Stein, J. D., Ritchie, K. L., Harris, S. D., & Jouriles, E. N. (1998). Introduction. In G. W. Holden, R. Geffner, & E. N. Jouriles (Eds.), Children exposed to marital violence: Theory, research, and applied issues (pp. 289–234). Washington, DC: American psychological Association.

Hughes, H. M. (1986). Research with children in shelters: implications for clinical services. Children Today, 15, 21–25.

Hughes, H. M. (1988). Psychological and behavioral correlates of family violence in child witnesses and victims. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 58, 77–90.

Hughes, H. M., & Barad, S. J. (1983). Psychological functioning of children in a battered women’s shelter: A preliminary investiga- tion. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 53, 525–531.

700 J Fam Viol (2007) 22:691–701

Hughes, H. M., & Luke, K. A. (1998). Heterogeneity in adjustment among children of battered women. In G. W. Holden, R. Geffner, & E. N. Jouriles (Eds.), Children exposed to marital violence. Theory, research and applied issues (pp. 185–221). Washington: American Psychological Association.

Hughes, H. M., Parkinson, D., & Vargo, M. (1989). Witnessing spouse abuse and experiencing physical abuse: A double whammy? Journal of Family Violence, 4, 197–209.

Jaffe, P. G., Wolfe, D. A., & Wilson, S. K. (1990). Children of battered women. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Jaffe, P. G., Wolfe, D. A., Wilson, S. K., & Zak, L. (1985). Critical issues in the assessment of children’s adjustment to witnessing family violence. Canada’s Mental Health, 33, 15–19.

Jaffe, P. G., Wolfe, D. A., Wilson, S. K., & Zak, L. (1986). Family violence and child adjustment: A comparative analysis of girl’s and boy’s behavioral symptoms. American Journal of Psychiatry, 143, 74–77.

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.

Jouriles, E. N., Norwood, W. D., McDonald, R., Vincent, J. P., & Mahoney, A. (1996). Physical violence and other forms of marital aggression: links with children’s behavior problems. Journal of Family Psychology, 10, 223–234.

Kashani, J. H., Daniel, A. E., Dandoy, A. C., & Holcomb, W. R. (1991). Family violence: impact on children. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 32, 181–189.

Leadbeater, B. J., Kupeminc, G. P., Hertzok, C., & Blatt, S. J. (1999). A multivariate model of gender differences in adolescents’ internalizing and externalizing problems. Developmental Psychology, 35, 1268–1282.

Margolin, G., & Gordis, E. B. (2003). Co-occurrence between marital aggression and parents’ child abuse potential: the impact of cumulative stress. Violence & Victims, 18, 243–258.

Margolin, G., & John R. S. (1997). Children’s exposure to marital aggression. Direct and mediated effects. In G. K. Kantor, & J. L. Jasinski (Eds.), Out of the darkness. Contemporary perspectives on family violence (pp. 90–104). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Margolin, G., & Patterson, G. R. (1975). Differential consequences provided by mothers and fathers for their sons and daughters. Developmental Psychology, 11, 537–538.

McCloskey, L. A., Figueredo, A. J., & Koss, M. P. (1995). The effects of systemic family violence on children’s mental health. Child Development, 66, 1239–1261.

McKay, M. M. (1994). The link between domestic violence and child abuse: assessment and treatment considerations. Child Welfare, 13, 29–39.

Muller, R. T., Goebel-Fabbri, A. E., Diamond, T., & Dinklage, D. (2000). Social support and the relationship between family and community violence exposure and psychopathology among high risk adolescents. Child Abuse and Neglect, 24, 449–464.

O’Keefe, M. (1994b). Adjustment of children from martially violent homes. The Journal of Contemporary Human Services, 403–415.

O’Keefe, M. (1996). The differential effects of family violence on adolescent adjustment. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 13, 51–68.

Osofsky, J. D. (1995). Children who witness domestic violence: The invisible victims. Social Policy Report: The Society for Research in Child Development, 9, 1–16.

Patterson, G. R., Dishion, T. J., & Bank, L. (1984). Family interactions: A process model of deviancy training. Aggressive Behavior, 10, 253–267.

Peled, E., Jaffe, P. G., & Edleson, J. L. (1995). Introduction. In E. Peled, P. Jaffe, & J. Edleson (Eds.), Ending the cycle of violence: Community responses to children of battered women (pp. 3–9). New York: Sage.

Petersen, A. C., Sirigiani, P. A., & Kennedy, R. E. (1991). Adolescent depression: Why more girls? Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 20, 247–271.

Rutter, M. (1981). Stress, coping, and development: Some issues and some questions. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 22, 323–356.

Stagg, V., Wills, G. D., & Howell, M. (1989). Psychopathology in early childhood witnesses of family violence. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 9, 73–87.

Straus, M. (2000). Handbook for the Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS). New Hamphire: Family Research Laboratory, University of New Hampshire.

Straus, M., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. B. (1996). The revised conflict tactic scales (CTS2). Journal of Family Issues, 17, 283–316.

Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Finkelhor, D., Moore, D. W., & Runyan, D. (1998). Identification of child maltreatment with the parent–child conflict tactics scales: development and psychometric data for a national sample of american parents. Child Abuse And Neglect, 22, 249–270.

Sudermann, M., & Jaffe, P. (1999). A handbook for health and social service provdiers and educators on children exposed to women abuse/ family violence. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Health Canada, Family Violence Prevention Unit.

Wolfe, D. A., Jaffe, P., Wilson, K, & Zak, L. (1985). Children of battered women: The relation of child behavior to family violence and maternal stress. Journal of Consulting and Clinical, 53, 657–665.

J Fam Viol (2007) 22:691–701 701