Elsevier

Child Abuse & Neglect

Volume 24, Issue 11, November 2000, Pages 1383-1398
Child Abuse & Neglect

The relative importance of wife abuse as a risk factor for violence against children

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0145-2134(00)00194-0Get rights and content

Abstract

Objective: To investigate the relative importance of wife abuse as a risk factor for physical child abuse, physical punishment, and verbal child abuse. The study explored the importance of wife abuse relative to blocks of parent, child, and family characteristics and also relative to specific risk factors.

Method: This study re-analyzed a sub-sample (N = 2,733) of data from the 1985 National Family Violence Survey. Hierarchical logistic regressions were conducted, using five different criterion variables measuring physical child abuse, physical punishment, and verbal abuse separately and in combination.

Results: Blocks of parent, child, and family characteristics were more important predictors of violence towards children than was wife abuse, though the presence of wife abuse in the home was a consistently significant specific risk factor for all forms of violence against children. Of specific risk factors, a respondent’s history of having been hit as an adolescent was a larger risk factor for physical child abuse than was wife abuse. Wife abuse was an important predictor of physical punishment. Non-violent marital discord was a greater factor in predicting likelihood of verbal child abuse than was wife abuse.

Conclusions: Though this study confirms the association between wife abuse and violence towards children, it cautions us not to overlook the contribution of other factors in our attempts to understand the increased risk attributed to wife abuse.

Introduction

TO BETTER UNDERSTAND the problem of violence against children, it is important to study the contexts in which it occurs. In recent years, attention has focused on child abuse in the context of wife abuse. Studies have revealed that children are at increased risk of physical abuse and/or punishment when wife abuse occurs in the home Bowker et al 1988, Ross 1996, Schechter and Edleson 1994, Stark and Flitcraft 1988, Straus and Smith 1990. The co-existence of wife abuse and child abuse is amply documented in the literature and wife abuse is understood to be a clear risk factor for child abuse. What is not found in the literature, however, is much analysis of wife abuse relative to other risk factors for child abuse. In other words, how great a predictor is wife abuse compared to other significant risk factors? The purpose of the present study was therefore to examine the relative importance of wife abuse in understanding violence against children. Because different forms of violence can have distinct etiologies and different correlates, three separate types of violence against children were explored: physical abuse; physical punishment; and verbal abuse. The following research questions were investigated: What is the relative importance of parent characteristics, child factors, family characteristics, and wife abuse for understanding violence against children? How important is wife abuse relative to other risk factors? What are the greatest specific risk factors for different forms of violence against children? Knowledge derived from this research may lead to greater understanding of physical child abuse, corporal punishment, and verbal abuse of children.

Theoretical models of child abuse can be analyzed in terms of their levels of analysis, structure, assumptions about etiology, and their complexity (Azar, 1991). This study used an ecological model of child abuse and considered multiple levels of analysis. As put forth by Bronfenbrenner (1979), the ecological perspective looks at the developing individual, the environment, and their evolving interaction. Bronfenbrenner identified four levels of analysis: microsystems (the immediate setting), mesosystems (relations between settings), exosystems (broader social system settings), and macrosystems (overarching patterns of ideology and/or institutional organization). Belsky (1980) applied this perspective to the problem of child maltreatment, incorporating another level, termed “ontogenic development” to account for what the parent brings to the interaction. The present study analyzed variables related to the following levels of analysis: (1) ontogenic (parent); (2) microsystem, (child characteristics, family factors); and (3) mesosystem (wife abuse) (see Table 1 for list of variables in the analysis).

With regard to structure, the model used in this study considered multiple forms of violence against children and employed multiple predictors, viewing abuse as an interaction between the parent and child in the context of the family setting. As Belsky (1980) observed, “Since the parent-child system (the crucible of child maltreatment) is nested within the spousal relationship, what happens between husbands and wives—from an ecological point of view—has implications for what happens between parents and their children” (p. 326).

The etiology of child abuse is assumed to be related to multiple, interacting factors, including characteristics of the parent, the child, the family, the larger social context, as well as broader cultural norms and beliefs. As Azar (1991) noted, early theories of child maltreatment were single cause theories, followed by more complex theories that considered multiple factors; however, even these later works simply generated “lists of the components of single factor theories with little attempt to specify contingent relationships between components or prioritize their contribution to causality” (p. 35). By utilizing a more complex model of child abuse, the present study sought to address this weakness. Though causality cannot be shown, this research adds to the literature by identifying risk factors and exploring the relative importance (i.e., size and significance of odds ratios) of each risk factor.

Much research on the link between wife abuse and child abuse focuses solely on rates of violence against children in homes with wife abuse, usually looking only at physical child abuse. Clinical studies indicate that between 40 and 70% of men who batter their partners also abuse their children (40%, O’Keefe, 1995; 63%, Giles-Sims, 1985; 70%, Bowker et al., 1988), while rates of abuse committed by battered women reportedly range from 44% to 56% O’Keefe 1995, Stacey and Shupe 1983, Giles-Sims 1985. A methodological shortcoming of many studies that rely on non-representative samples is their failure to use comparison groups. Consequently, though the above studies showed that child abuse and wife abuse frequently co-occurred, they failed to demonstrate the increased risk posed by wife abuse.

Certain clinical sample studies did use comparison groups (e.g., Holden and Ritchie 1991, Stark and Flitcraft 1988). Focusing on child rearing behavior and physical punishment, Holden and Ritchie indicated that over 50% of the battered women reported that their partners “spanked the children at least once a week,” compared to only 24% for the non-battered comparison group. Stark and Flitcraft studied the medical records of 116 mothers of children who had been seen at the hospital and whose cases had been referred to child protective services for suspected child abuse, identifying 45% of the mothers as battered women. Compared to women coming in for surgery or prenatal care, the risk of battering was twice as high in the records of the women whose children were allegedly abused.

Straus and Smith (1990) explored child abuse among nationally representative samples, using the 1975 and 1985 National Family Violence Surveys (NFVS). Using discriminant analysis they identified risk factors for physical child abuse, finding that wife abuse was a significant factor. Even “minor” violence (defined by Straus and Smith as slapping, pushing, shoving, or throwing things at one’s partner) was associated with a 150% increase in the rate of child abuse (22.3 versus 8.0). In her re-analysis of the 1985 NFVS data, Ross (1996) found that 22.8% of the male batterers also abused their child at least once, compared to 8.5% for non-batterers. Straus (1994) analyzed the 1985 NFVS data with a focus on corporal punishment of children, finding that mothers who had been hit by their partners had a 71% chance of hitting their adolescent child, whereas women who had not been hit had a 48% probability of doing so.

Age of the parent may be a risk factor for violence against children (Straus, 1994). Parental education has been also been associated with risk of physical child abuse; surprisingly, more education was related to increased risk in two different studies Margolin and Larson 1988, Bowker et al 1988. Rates of child abuse have been compared between different racial groups, with varied results. Ross (1996) found increased risk of physical child abuse by African American fathers compared to Latinos, and greater risk of child abuse by Latina mothers compared to Whites. Straus and Smith (1990) found African American children to be at greater risk of physical abuse relative to White children. Straus (1994) found White parents to be more likely to use corporal punishment than minorities.

Having been abused as a child and having witnessed violence in one’s home of origin are regarded as risk factors for perpetrating child abuse Merrill et al 1996, Ross 1996, Straus and Smith 1990 and corporal punishment (Straus, 1994). Parental physical and mental health has also been connected to risk of child abuse Cicchetti and Rizley 1981, Margolin and Larson 1988). Holden and Ritchie (1991) identified stress as having a negative effect on parenting among battered women. Merrill and colleagues (1996) found alcohol to be a significant risk factor for child abuse among both men and women.

Gender of the child has been associated with risk of physical abuse. Ross (1996) found that boys were at increased risk of abuse in homes in which spousal assault had occurred. Straus (1994) noted that rates of violence also varied with the age of the child. In addition, the type of violence and its etiology may also vary by age of the child (Wauchope & Straus, 1990). Children with certain problems are at increased risk of abuse; children with physical disabilities are particularly vulnerable Goldson 1998, Oates 1996, as are children with behavioral problems such as child aggression (O’Keefe, 1995). It is difficult to interpret findings regarding the relationship between child behavior problems and risk of abuse because it is unclear which came first; that is, the causal direction of the relationship is ambiguous. It should be noted that, though examining child characteristics is important, what the child brings to the setting can not singly precipitate violence towards him/her. As Belsky noted (1980), “… characteristics of the child make sense as elicitors of maltreatment only when considered vis à vis the caregiver’s attributes” (p. 324).

Risk of child abuse may be related to the number of years a family has lived in a neighborhood and the social support networks available Cicchetti and Rizley 1981, O’Keefe 1995, Straus and Smith 1990. Family income was identified as having an inverse relationship with risk of child abuse Bowker et al 1988, Cicchetti and Rizley 1981, Straus and Smith 1990. Family type may also be relevant to understanding child abuse. O’Keefe (1995) identified three family types: single-parent, biological, and step-families. The present study looked at two-parent homes, and compared biological versus step-families.

Non-violent marital discord in the home is an important but understudied potential risk factor; most research on the link between wife abuse and child abuse considers only physical violence between the marital couple. Straus and Smith (1990) found marital conflict increased the risk of physical child abuse. However, Hershorn and Rosenbaum (1985) compared abused mothers to those in non-violent but maritally discordant relationships and found little difference in punitive child-rearing methods between the groups.

The present study analyzed data from the 1985 National Family Violence Survey (NFVS) to address previously unexamined questions. Prior analyses of the NFVS established wife abuse as a key risk factor for violence against children; the present research built upon these findings by examining wife abuse relative to other risk factors. By examining physical child abuse, physical punishment, and verbal child abuse, this research also broadened the scope of previous analyses. This study aimed to: (1) identify risk factors for physical child abuse, physical punishment, and for verbal child abuse; (2) compare the relative contribution of parent characteristics, child factors, family characteristics, and wife abuse to predicting violence against children; and (3) identify the most important specific risk factors for each type of violence.

Section snippets

The data and sample

This study analyzed data from the 1985 NFVS, which was a nationally representative sample of 6,002 households (representative of adult, heterosexual persons with telephone service). Both men and women were interviewed, with one respondent (selected randomly) interviewed per household. Telephone interviews were conducted by trained, female interviewers, with a response rate of 84%; telephone numbers were chosen by random digit dialing, stratified by region and size of place (Straus, 1990). The

Physical child abuse

Physical child abuse occurred in 4.1% (n = 112) of the cases in this sample. Looking at the relative contribution of different blocks of risk factors, Table 2 shows that, controlling for all other predictors, wife abuse explained less than 1% (.5%) of the variance in this criterion variable. Parent characteristics, as a block, explained more of the variation in physical abuse than any other block (6.4%). Child factors accounted for 2.1% of the variance and family characteristics explained 2.0%.

Limitations of the data and study

The data from the NFVS offered the opportunity to study connections between wife abuse and child abuse among a large, representative sample of families in the US. Nonetheless, these data have several limitations. As is often the case with secondary analysis, ideal measures of important variables may not be available. In the present study, this limitation was most acute in relation to “exosystem” and “macrosystem” variables. The ecological model of child abuse calls for measures of elements such

Summary and discussion

This study of risk factors for different forms of violence towards children suggests that sets of parent, child, and family characteristics are more important predictors of violence towards children than is the presence of wife abuse in the home. Compared to other blocks of factors, wife abuse explained relatively little of the variation in the criterion variables. Parent characteristics accounted for the greatest percentage of the explained variance in physical child abuse, though the total

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Julia H. Littell, Jeffrey L. Edleson, and Mary R. Gillmore for their helpful comments.

References (31)

  • E Goldson

    Children with disabilities and child maltreatment

    Child Abuse & Neglect

    (1998)
  • B Henry et al.

    Temperamental and familial predictors of violent and nonviolent criminal convictionsAge 3 to age 18

    Developmental Psychology

    (1996)
  • B Henry et al.

    On the “remembrance of things past:” A longitudinal evaluation of the retrospective method

    Psychological Assessment

    (1994)
  • M Hershorn et al.

    Children of marital violenceA closer look at the unintended victims

    American Journal of Orthopsychiatry

    (1985)
  • G.W Holden et al.

    Linking extreme marital discord, child rearing, and child behavior problemsEvidence from battered women

    Child Development

    (1991)
  • Cited by (97)

    • Co-Occurrence of Animal Abuse and Intimate Partner Violence

      2023, The Routledge International Handbook of Human-Animal Interactions and Anthrozoology
    View all citing articles on Scopus

    This paper uses data from the “National Family Violence Resurvey” conducted by Richard J. Gelles and Murray A. Straus, with funding from the National Institute of Mental Health, grant MH40027.

    View full text