5_violenta in familie si problemele copiilor

8/6/2019 5_Violenta in Familie Si Problemele Copiilor

1/7

Making Sense of Family Conflict: Intimate Partner Violence andPreschoolers Externalizing Problems

Laura C. Minze, Renee McDonald, Erica L. Rosentraub, and Ernest N. JourilesSouthern Methodist University

This research examines relations among parental intimate partner violence (IPV), preschool-ers narrative coherence about family conflict situations, and preschoolers externalizingproblems. Participants were 57 mothers and their 4- to 5-year-old children. Mothers provideddata on IPV and childrens externalizing problems. Narrative coherence was coded fromchildrens play narratives in response to story stems from the MacArthur Story Stem Battery.Results are consistent with theory suggesting that exposure to IPV may adversely affectpreschoolers ability to understand family conflict situations in an organized manner, whichin turn may contribute to their externalizing problems.

Keywords: narrative coherence, intimate partner violence, family violence, preschoolers,

externalizing problems

Approximately 15.5 million children in the United Stateslive in a dual-parent family in which physical intimatepartner violence (IPV) occurred in the previous year(McDonald, Jouriles, Ramisetty-Mikler, Caetano, & Green,2006). Many more children live in families in which inter-parent psychological aggression occurs (Clarke et al., 2007;Jouriles, Norwood, McDonald, Vincent, & Mahoney,1996). Childrens exposure to IPV increases risk for numer-ous deleterious outcomes (see Kitzmann, Gaylord, Holt, &Kenny, 2003; Wolfe, Crooks, Lee, McIntyre-Smith, &Jaffe, 2003, for reviews), and externalizing problems, such

as noncompliance and aggression, are especially common(Jouriles et al., 2009). Theories involving childrens under-standing and interpretations of their parents conflict showtremendous promise for understanding how IPV might leadto childrens externalizing problems (e.g., Davies & Cum-mings, 1994; Fosco, DeBoard, & Grych, 2007; Grych &Fincham, 1990). With few exceptions, however, research onhow children understand family conflict has focused onschool-age children and adolescents. The omission of pre-schoolers in most of this research is an important one inlight of findings that preschoolers are at greater risk thanolder children for exposure to IPV (Fantuzzo, Boruch,Beriama, Atkins, & Marcus, 1997).

In the present research, we examined the coherence ofchildrens play narratives about family conflict situations toevaluate the relation between IPV and preschoolers under-standing of family conflict. In play narratives, children arepresented with a situation and asked to tell what happensnext in the situation, using toys and props (Bretherton &Oppenheim, 2003). The coherence of the narrative isthought to reflect the childs underlying organization andunderstanding of the situation (Hudson & Shapiro, 1991).To produce a coherent narrative, a childs response must

make sense to the listener, demonstrating an understand-ing of the central aspects of the situation. For conflictsituations, that means recognizing and responding to con-flict as an element of the situation. In addition, a coherentnarrative should adhere to a given topic, present events in alogical sequence, and provide embellishment of the giveninformation (Bliss, McCabe, & Miranda, 1998; Robinson &Mantz-Simmons, 2003; Wainryb, Brehl, & Matwin, 2005).

In violent families, conflict situations often are highlyunpredictable (Patterson, 1982). By definition, conflict inviolent families sometimes involves physical or verbal ag-gression. However, even in violent families, conflict doesnot always culminate in aggressionindeed, it is likely to

be dealt with appropriately at times. According to socialcognitive theory (Bandura, 1986), growing up in a familywith repeated exposure to unpredictable and, at times, vio-lent conflict may make it difficult for a young child todevelop a coherent understanding of how family conflict ismanaged. Consistent with this idea, the work of Grych,Wachsmuth-Schlaefer, and Klockow (2002) indicates thatchildren of mothers receiving counseling or shelter servicesfor IPV have been found to produce less coherent narrativesabout conflict situations than children recruited from thecommunity. Following from this theory and the data, weexpected preschoolers from violent families to produce less

Editors Note. Nadine Kaslow served as the action editor for thisarticle.NJK

Laura C. Minze, Renee McDonald, Erica L. Rosentraub, andErnest N. Jouriles, Department of Psychology, Southern MethodistUniversity.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed toErnest N. Jouriles, Department of Psychology, Southern MethodistUniversity, PO Box 750442, Dallas, TX 75275-0442. E-mail:[email protected]

Journal of Family Psychology 2010 American Psychological Association2010, Vol. 24, No. 1, 511 0893-3200/10/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0018071

5


2/7

coherent play narratives about family conflict situations,compared with preschoolers from nonviolent families.

There are other reasons why preschoolers from violentfamilies might be expected to produce less coherent playnarratives about family conflict situations than preschoolersfrom nonviolent families. Angry adult conflict elicits emo-

tional distress in preschoolers, and repeated exposure toangry conflict tends to have a cumulative effect (e.g., J. S.Cummings, Pellegrini, Notarius, & Cummings, 1989). Thatis, compared with preschoolers without a history of expo-sure to frequent and severe interparent conflict, childrenwith such a history are likely to be more distressed inresponse to later conflict. Emotional distress in a conflictsituation can interfere with the ability to organize informa-tion about the conflict and, consequently, the ability todescribe the events in a coherent way. Emotional distressresulting from exposure to family conflict should thereforeadversely influence childrens ability to develop organizedscripts for understanding how family conflicts are likely to

unfold. Consistent with this idea, child distress at the time ofan event has been found to predict decreased narrativecoherence when the child is later asked to talk about theevent (Peterson & Biggs, 1998).

Narrative coherence may also help explain the relationbetween IPV and preschoolers externalizing problems.How children generally understand conflict situations isthought to guide how they respond to later incidents ofconflict (Davies & Cummings, 1994; Fosco et al., 2007;Grych & Fincham, 1990). Inadequate or poor organizationof conflict-related information, or disorganized understand-ing of how conflict situations are likely to progress, maycause children to feel threatened or unable to cope whenconfronted with conflict (Grych et al., 2002). Such feelingsmay lead to behavioral dysregulation (acting-out behavior)during conflicts, which has been linked to a more generalpattern of externalizing problems (Schermerhorn, Cum-mings, DeCarlo, & Davies, 2007). Although empirical datalinking narrative coherence to problematic behavior aresparse, there is some evidence of a negative relation be-tween narrative coherence and childrens externalizingproblems (Oppenheim, Nir, Warren, & Emde, 1997).

The present research extends knowledge on relationsamong IPV, narrative coherence, and preschoolers exter-nalizing problems. First, we attempted to replicate andextend the findings of Grych and colleagues (2002) byexamining the association between IPV and childrens nar-

rative coherence in families of preschoolers, as opposed toa sample that combines families of preschoolers with fam-ilies of young, school-age children. Older children, com-pared with preschoolers, appear to be more sensitive to thecontext in which adult conflict occurs (e.g., whether or notconflict has been resolved) and are more likely to usecontextual variables in their interpretations of adult angerand conflict (e.g., E. M. Cummings, Ballard, El-Sheikh, &Lake, 1991; E. M. Cummings, Simpson, & Wilson, 1993).Such differences between preschoolers and school-age chil-dren suggest the importance of considering age in the eval-uation of associations between IPV and childrens narrative

coherence. In the present research, we did this by focusingspecifically on a homogeneous age group of children.

In addition, in the present research we recruited a nonre-ferred sample from the community, as opposed to familiesin which the women were seeking shelter or services be-cause of IPV. Given the extreme nature of IPV in many

help-seeking samples, it is not clear whether findings fromsuch samples generalize to other samples. We also tested thehypothesis that narrative coherence helps explain the asso-ciation between IPV and preschoolers externalizing prob-lems, with the expectation that the relation is at least par-tially accounted for by narrative coherence. Because IPV isassociated with parental aggression toward children(Jouriles, McDonald, Smith Slep, Heyman, & Garrido,2008), and because child maltreatment is linked with chil-drens ability to produce coherent narratives (Toth, Cic-chetti, Macfie, Rogosch, & Maughan, 2000), we controlledfor parental aggression toward children in analyses.

Method

Participants

Participants were 57 children ages 4 to 5 years (M 56.5months, SD 6.1) and their biological mothers. There were25 girls and 32 boys. Mothers provided informed consentand children provided verbal assent for participation. Be-cause some of the questionnaires (described below) inquiredabout physical aggression directed at the children, the in-formed consent procedures included a discussion about le-gal limits of confidentiality and referrals to Childrens Pro-tective Services. Sixty-five percent of mothers reported theirethnicity as Caucasian, 14% African American, 16% His-

panic, 3% Asian or Pacific Islander, and 2% indicatedmultiethnic or other. Mothers reported a median annualfamily income of $80,250 (SD $57,395), and 87% re-ported an education level of some college or higher.Eighty-one percent of the children lived in a family withtheir biological father; 16% lived in a family with a step-father or adoptive father, and 3% lived in a family withanother father figure (e.g., live-in boyfriend).

Procedure

All research procedures were approved by the Institu-tional Review Board of the institution at which the researchwas conducted. Fliers were posted in daycare and commu-nity centers, inviting mothers with preschoolers to partici-pate in a study on family interaction. Eligibility criteriaincluded that (a) the mother and child spoke English, (b) themother indicated that she had lived with a male partner forat least 5 of the past 6 months, (c) the child was 4 or 5 yearsof age, and (d) the mother reported that the child did nothave any developmental disorders, hearing or vision diffi-culties, or mental retardation. Mothers received $40 andchildren received a small toy in exchange for participatingin the study.

Mother and child assessments were conducted in separaterooms by different interviewers. Mothers participated in a

6 MINZE ET AL.


3/7

1-hr interview in which they provided responses to standardquestionnaires administered in an interview format. Thechild assessments lasted between 45 min and 1 hr. Inter-viewers took time to play games with the child prior toinitiating the assessments to establish rapport. Childrenwere offered snacks and allowed to take breaks as needed to

minimize fatigue and maintain interest in the assessmentactivities.

Measures

Intimate partner violence. Mothers completed the phys-ical violence scales of the Conflict-Tactics ScaleRevised(CTS2; Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996)to assess occurrences of their own and their partners phys-ical IPV over the past 6 months. The CTS2 assesses minor(e.g., pushed or shoved, grabbed, slapped) and severe (e.g.,kicked, punched or hit with something that could hurt, beatup) acts of physical IPV. Frequency was indicated on a

7-point scale (0 none to 6 more than 20 times).Mothers also completed the Index of Psychological Abuse(IPA; Sullivan, Parisian, & Davidson, 1991) to assesspartner-to-mother psychological aggression. Mothers wereasked to indicate on a 4-point scale (0 neverto 3 often)how often in the past 6 months their partner had committedspecific acts of psychological aggression. Examples ofitems include ridiculed or criticized, threatened to hurtyour family or friends, and tried to control your activi-ties.

Ten mothers (17.5%) reported that at least one act ofphysical IPV had occurred in the past 6 months (sample

M 0.32, SD 0.83); 53 (93%) reported at least one actof psychological aggression had occurred in the past 6months (sample M 7.16, SD 6.15). The correlationbetween the CTS2 and IPA was r .45, p .001. Guidedby theory and empirical data suggesting that the physicaland psychological aggression occurring between adult part-ners is part of the same broad construct of IPV (Smith,Smith, & Earp, 1999) and results from studies suggestingthat interparent psychological aggression is as harmful tochildren as interparent physical aggression (Clarke et al.,2007; Jouriles et al., 1996), we standardized and combinedscores from the CTS2 and IPA to create a composite mea-sure of IPV. The practice of operationalizing physical andpsychological aggression as part of the same broad con-struct of IPV is becoming more common in the literature on

IPV and child adjustment (e.g., El-Sheikh, Cummings,Kouros, Elmore-Staton, & Buckhalt, 2008).

Narrative coherence. Preschoolers were asked to com-plete the stories for six story stems from the MacArthurStory Stem Battery (MSSB; Bretherton & Oppenheim,2003). The story stems center on everyday family andconflict situations. For example, one of the story stems is thefollowing:

Mother and father are standing in the living room looking ateach other in anger. Mother: You lost my keys!! Father: I didnot. Mother: Yes you did!! You always lose my keys!! Father:I did not lose them this time.

After reading the stem to the child, the child was then asked,Can you show me what happens next? Deviating slightlyfrom the standard MSSB protocol, which requests childrento show and tell what happens next in a single prompt,children who did not respond verbally to the initial promptwere prompted a second time with the question, Can you

tell me what happens next? Dolls, toys, and props appro-priate to the story stem scenario were used to introduce thestory stems; dolls were matched to the childs ethnicity. Inaddition to the story stem presented above, others involveda child spilling juice, a child not heeding the motherswarning and burning a finger, Mom and Dad driving awayon a trip and leaving the child with Grandma, Mom and Dadreturning from the trip, and Mom and Dad asking the childto go to his/her room, so they can be alone.

Administration of the MSSB was recorded and coded fornarrative coherence. The coherence code was derived fromthe Narrative Assessment Profile (Bliss et al., 1998) andfrom the coding manual for the MSSB (Robinson & Mantz-

Simmons, 2003). The narratives were coded on four dimen-sions: (a) conflict addressedthe extent to which the con-flict presented in the story stem was addressed in the childsnarrative (1 conflict not addressed to 4 conflict re-solved without prompt), (b) topic maintenancehowclosely the story adhered to and maintained focus on thetopic presented (1 story unrelated, vague, or ambiguousto 3 all utterances relate to the central topic), (c) eventsequencehow well the child presented the elements in achronological or logical order (1 no logical order to 3 well thought out and logical order), and (d) explicitnessthe amount of information given in the story (1 littleinformation/omission of crucial information to 4 coher-ent story, elaborate details with a sense of completion ).

Two coders independently coded 37 narratives each,overlapping on 17 narratives. Both coders were blind to thedata provided by the mothers. Intraclass correlation coeffi-cients between the two coders rating across the six stories,for each of the four dimensions, were as follows: conflictaddressed, range 0.821.00; topic maintenance, range 0.821.00; event sequence, range 0.901.00; and explic-itness, range 0.941.00. An average score across all sixstories was calculated for each of the dimensions of narra-tive coherence, yielding separate scores for the conflictaddressed, topic maintenance, event sequence, and explic-itness dimensions. The means, standard deviations, andcoefficients alpha for each of the four dimensions (i.e.,

coded responses to each of the six stories were conceptual-ized as separate items, resulting in a six-item scale foreach dimension) were conflict addressed, M 18.8, SD 4.09, .70; topic maintenance, M 15.3, SD 3.07, .86; event sequence, M 14.4, SD 3.44, .87;and explicitness, M 17.1, SD 5.25, .89. Althoughthe original intent was to use each of the four dimensions ofcoherence separately, they were highly intercorrelated (rs.79), suggesting that they represented a single construct.Thus, the scores for each of the four dimensions werestandardized and summed to create a single narrative co-herence score.

7NARRATIVE COHERENCE


4/7

Child externalizing problems. Mothers completed theExternalizing Disorder Scale of the Child Behavior Check-list (CBCL; Achenbach, 1991), rating the extent to whichitems reflecting externalizing problems (e.g., cruel, bully-ing, or mean to others) described their childrens behaviorduring the previous 6 months. Behaviors were rated on a

3-point scale (0 not true, 1 somewhat/sometimes true,2 very true/often true). The CBCL has well-documentedpsychometric properties. Tscores were used in the analyses.

Parentchild aggression. Mothers completed two itemsfrom the Hazzard Parenting Measure (Hazzard, Christensen,& Margolin, 1983) and four items from the Parent BehaviorInventory (Lovejoy, Weis, OHare, & Rubin, 1999) to as-sess their own as well as their partners physical aggressiontoward the child (e.g., Spank, slap, hit or Grab or handlechild roughly). Because the measures use different scales(1 neverto 3 a lotfor the Hazzard Parenting Measure;0 not at all true to 5 very true for the Parent BehaviorInventory), scores for the two scales were converted to zscores and then combined. Coefficient alpha for this six-item scale was .74.

Results

Prior to evaluating the study hypotheses, we examinedthe need to control for parental physical aggression and themeasured demographic variables. None of the demographicvariables were associated with IPV, narrative coherence, orexternalizing problems. Parent child physical aggressionwas associated with externalizing problems. Thus, it wasentered as a control variable in analyses evaluating the studyhypotheses.

Means, standard deviations, and correlations among the

primary study variables are presented in Table 1. As indi-cated in the table, IPV was associated with preschoolersexternalizing problems and with narrative coherence, andnarrative coherence was associated with externalizing prob-lems. This pattern of relations is consistent with our hypoth-esis that narrative coherence might mediate the relationbetween IPV and preschoolers externalizing problems.Path analyses were therefore conducted to test this hypoth-esis; parent child physical aggression was included as acontrol variable in the analyses. For evaluating the statistical

significance of a mediating effect, we used the distribution ofproducts test to estimate the effect parameter (MacKinnon,Lockwood, & Williams, 2004) and used PRODCLIN(MacKinnon, Fritz, Williams, & Lockwood, 2007) to esti-mate the 95% confidence interval around that effect. Aconfidence interval that did not include zero was considered

to represent a statistically significant effect (MacKinnon etal., 2004). We computed the proportion mediated (PM; seeShrout & Bolger, 2002) as a measure of the mediation effectsize. In this case, PM indicates the proportion of the totaleffect of IPV on preschoolers externalizing problems thatwas accounted for by narrative coherence (controlling forparent child aggression).

Figure 1 depicts the path model used to evaluate thehypothesized mediating effect and the path coefficientsresulting from analysis of the model. Results indicate thatIPV was negatively associated with narrative coherence,b 0.30, t(56) 2.34, p .02, sr2 .09, which wasin turn negatively associated with preschoolers external-izing problems, b 0.28, t(56) 2.28, p .03, sr2

.07. Results of the distribution of products test and thePRODCLIN computation indicated that narrative coher-ence mediated the association between IPV and chil-drens externalizing problems, .84, CI [0.06, 1.99].The estimate of the total effect of IPV on preschoolersexternalizing problems was 2.26; the estimate of themediated effect was 0.82. Thus, narrative coherence ac-counted for 36% (PM [0.82/2.26] 0.36) of the totaleffect of IPV on preschoolers externalizing problems.The model indicated no direct effect of IPV on preschool-ers externalizing problems, b 0.15, t(56) 1.21, p .23, sr2 .02.

Although sex differences did not emerge on preschoolers

narrative coherence scores, (Mboys 0.17, SD 0.86;Mgirls 0.31, SD 0.94), t(55) 0.22, ns, other inves-tigators have found sex differences on narrative coherence(e.g., Fiorentino & Howe, 2004) and have speculated aboutsex differences in relations between narrative coherence andother variables. Thus, we evaluated whether child sex mod-erated relations between IPV and narrative coherence andbetween narrative coherence and preschoolers externaliz-ing problems. No moderator effects emerged in our analy-ses.

Discussion

Results of this research are consistent with theory andprior research (Grych et al., 2002) suggesting that exposureto IPV may adversely affect preschoolers ability to under-stand family conflict in an organized manner, which in turnmay contribute to their externalizing problems. Specifically,our findings indicate that an association between IPV andnarrative coherence is present at an early age (amongpreschool-age children), and it is not limited to children whohave lived with extreme levels of IPV, such as those whoare brought to domestic violence shelters. In addition, whilethere is emerging evidence of links between preschoolersexposure to IPV and their cognitive functioning (e.g.,Jouriles, Brown, et al., 2008), the present study is among the

Table 1

Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations AmongPrimary Study Variables (N 57)

Variable 1 2 3 Mean (SD)

1. IPV 0.00 (0.86)2. Narrative coherence .30 0.00 (0.95)3. Externalizing

problems (CBCL) .26 .32 58.49 (8.31)4. Parentchild

aggression .07 .01 .39 0.00 (0.77)

Note. IPV intimate partner violence; CBCL ExternalizingDisorder Scale of the Child Behavior Checklist. IPV, narrativecoherence, and parent child aggression scores are z scores. p .05. p .01.

8 MINZE ET AL.


5/7

first to suggest that cognitive processes may mediate the

relation between IPV and externalizing problems amongpreschoolers.

The present research was guided by theory suggestingcausal links between the variables investigated, but ourdata were cross-sectional, which precludes making firmconclusions about causality. However, if IPV does indeedinfluence preschoolers responses to the MSSB, it mayhelp explain links between IPV and a variety of concur-rent as well as future adjustment difficulties. Specifically,childrens understanding of family conflict and how con-flict situations are likely to unfold conceivably influenceshow a child responds when confronted with conflictin their relationships with family members and peers

(Davies & Cummings, 1994; Fosco et al., 2007; Grych &Fincham, 1990). This understanding might reflect a cog-nitive mechanism that helps explain the link between IPVand child functioning in a variety of settings (Grych etal., 2002). Furthermore, there is significant stability inthe coherence of preschoolers MSSB narratives over a1-year period (Oppenheim et al., 1997), suggesting that ifIPV does indeed influence narrative coherence, the ef-fects may endure over a period of time. It will be impor-tant to follow up the results of the present research withexperimental studies that can more clearly delineatecausal links between variables.

Several additional limitations also need to be consid-ered in interpreting the present findings. Because of thedesign, it is impossible to rule out certain unmeasuredvariables that may have influenced some of the docu-mented associations. For example, positive family inter-action and parentchild discourse are thought to be im-portant in the development of childrens narrative skills(Bretherton & Oppenheim, 2003; Peterson, Jesso, &McCabe, 1999). It is possible that diminished positivefamily interaction, as opposed to the presence of IPV, isresponsible for the observed associations between IPVand narrative coherence. In future research, it would bedesirable to collect more information on family interac-tion and the motherchild and fatherchild relationship

to help rule out the influence of these variables on nar-rative coherence. Another limitation of the present re-search is the small sample. Some of our findings replicatethose of other studies (Grych et al., 2002; Oppenheim etal., 1997), but these other studies also included relativelysmall samples. Replication in larger samples would in-

crease confidence in the robustness of the results.It should also be acknowledged that our research wasbased on the assumption that play narratives reflect pre-schoolers understanding of family conflict and how con-flict situations unfold. However, it is not clear whetherthe narratives produced in the task employed in thepresent research (MSSB) actually reflect how preschool-ers think about and understand conflict in their lives. Inaddition, narratives produced in response to MSSB storystems most likely are not pure measures of preschoolersunderstanding of conflict. Specifically, in addition toreflecting childrens understanding of family conflict,their MSSB responses are thought to reflect their cogni-tive and linguistic skill in describing a logical sequence

of events and their ability to manage emotions whenconfronting complex and conflictual relationship themes(Fiorentino & Howe, 2004; Oppenheim et al., 1997). It ispossible that these abilities go hand in hand with howchildren understand family conflict, or alternatively, thatthey operate as third variable explanations for the linksamong IPV, narrative coherence, and childrens external-izing problems. Either way, the complex nature of playnarratives, and what they reflect, should be kept in mindwhen interpreting the present results.

Despite these limitations, this study enhances our sci-entific understanding of how young children respond tofamily conflict. It is the first to indicate that young

childrens understanding of conflict may help explain therelation between IPV and preschoolers externalizingproblems. It is also among the first to indicate that therelation between IPV and childrens cognitions aboutconflict are apparent as early as age 4. The findings fromthis study, in combination with those from other studies(Grych et al., 2002; Oppenheim et al., 1997), might alsoprove useful in informing clinical efforts for preschoolersin families characterized by interparent conflict and vio-lence. There already is evidence that preschoolers nar-rative coherence can be improved through intervention(Baumer, Ferholt, & Lecusay, 2005; Peterson et al.,1999; Reese & Newcombe, 2007). Thus, to the extentthat narrative coherence is an important mediator of therelation between IPV and preschoolers externalizingproblems, these findings suggest a new, potentially prom-ising target for clinical intervention.

References

Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Manual for the Child BehaviorChecklist/418 and 1991 profile. Burlington: University of Ver-mont Department of Psychiatry.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: Asocial cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Baumer, S., Ferholt, B., & Lecusay, R. (2005). Promoting narra-

Figure 1. Results of path analyses evaluating narrative coherenceas a mediator of the association between IPV and preschoolersexternalizing problems. Solid lines represent statistically signifi-cant path coefficients. IPV Intimate partner violence. p .05.p .01.



6/7

tive competence through adultchild joint pretense: Lessonsfrom the Scandinavian educational practice of playworld. Cog-nitive Development, 20, 576590.

Bliss, L. S., McCabe, A., & Miranda, A. E. (1998). Narrativeassessment profile: Discourse analysis for school-age children.Journal of Communication Disorders, 31, 347363.

Bretherton, I., & Oppenheim, D. (2003). The MacArthur StoryStem Battery: Development, administration, reliability, validity,and reflections about meaning. In R. N. Emde, D. P. Wolf, & D.Oppenheim (Eds.), Revealing the inner worlds of young chil-dren: The MacArthur Story Stem Battery and parentchild nar-

ratives (pp. 326). New York: Oxford University Press.Clarke, S. B., Koenen, K. C., Taft, C. T., Street, A. E., King, L. A., &

King, D. W. (2007). Intimate partner psychological aggression andchild behavior problems. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 20, 97101.

Cummings, E. M., Ballard, M., El-Sheikh, M., & Lake, M. (1991).Resolution and childrens responses to interadult anger. Devel-opmental Psychology, 27, 462470.

Cummings, E. M., Simpson, K. S., & Wilson, A. (1993). Chil-drens responses to interadult anger as a function of informationabout resolution. Developmental Psychology, 29, 978985.

Cummings, J. S., Pellegrini, D. S., Notarius, C. I., & Cummings,E. M. (1989). Childrens responses to angry adult behavior as afunction of marital distress and history of interparent hostility.Child Development, 60, 10351043.

Davies, P. T., & Cummings, E. M. (1994). Marital conflict andchild adjustment: An emotional security hypothesis. Psycholog-ical Bulletin, 116, 387411.

El-Sheikh, M., Cummings, E. M., Kouros, C. D., Elmore-Staton,L., & Buckhalt, J. (2008). Marital psychological and physicalaggression and childrens mental and physical health. Journal ofConsulting and Clinical Psychology, 76, 138148.

Fantuzzo, J., Boruch, R., Beriama, A., Atkins, M., & Marcus, S.(1997). Domestic violence and children: Prevalence and risk infive major U.S. cities. Journal of the American Academy of Child

& Adolescent Psychiatry, 36, 116122.Fiorentino, L., & Howe, N. (2004). Language competence, narra-

tive ability, and school readiness in low-income preschool chil-dren. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 36, 280294.

Fosco, G. M., DeBoard, R. L., & Grych, J. H. (2007). Makingsense of family violence: Implications of childrens appraisals ofinterparental aggression for their short- and long-term function-ing. European Psychologist, 12, 616.

Grych, J. H., & Fincham, F. D. (1990). Marital conflict andchildrens adjustment: A cognitivecontextual framework. Psy-chological Bulletin, 108, 267290.

Grych, J. H., Wachsmuth-Schlaefer, T., & Klockow, L. (2002). In-terparental aggression and young childrens representations of fam-ily relationships. Journal of Family Psychology, 16, 259272.

Hazzard, A., Christensen, A., & Margolin, G. (1983). Childrensperceptions of parental behaviors. Journal of Abnormal ChildPsychology, 11, 4959.

Hudson, J. A., & Shapiro, L. R. (1991). From knowing to telling:The development of childrens scripts, stories, and personalnarratives. In A. McCabe & C. Peterson (Eds.), Developingnarrative structure (pp. 89136), Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Jouriles, E. N., Brown, A. S., McDonald, R., Rosenfield, D.,Leahy, M. M., & Silver, C. (2008). Intimate partner violence andpreschoolers explicit memory functioning. Journal of FamilyPsychology, 22, 420428.

Jouriles, E. N., McDonald, R., Rosenfield, D., Stephens, N.,Corbitt-Shindler, D., & Miller, P. C. (2009). Reducing conduct

problems among children exposed to intimate partner violence:A randomized clinical trial examining effects of Project Support.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77, 705717.

Jouriles, E. N., McDonald, R., Smith Slep, A. M., Heyman, R. E.,& Garrido, E. (2008). Child abuse in the context of domesticviolence: Prevalence, explanations, and practice implications.Violence and Victims, 23, 221235.

Jouriles, E. N., Norwood, W. D., McDonald, R., Vincent, J. P., &Mahoney, A. (1996). Physical marital violence and other formsof marital aggression: Links with child behavior problems. Jour-nal of Family Psychology, 10, 223234.

Kitzmann, K. M., Gaylord, N., Holt, A., & Kenny, E. (2003). Childwitnesses to domestic violence: A meta-analytic review. Journalof Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71, 339352.

Lovejoy, M. C., Weis, R., OHare, E., & Rubin, E. C. (1999).Development and initial validation of the Parent Behavior Inven-tory. Psychological Assessment, 11, 534545.

MacKinnon, D. P., Fritz, M. S., Williams, J., & Lockwood, C.(2007). Distribution of the product confidence limits for theindirect effect: Program PRODCLIN. Behavior Research Meth-ods, 39, 384389.

MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. (2004).Confidence limits for the indirect effect. Multivariate BehavioralResearch, 39, 99128.

McDonald, R., Jouriles, E., Ramisetty-Mikler, S., Caetano, R., &Green, C. E. (2006). Estimating the number of American chil-dren living in partner-violent families. Journal of Family Psy-chology, 20, 137142.

Oppenheim, D., Nir, A., Warren, S., & Emde, R. N. (1997).Emotion regulation in motherchild narrative co-construction:Associations with childrens narratives and adaptation. Develop-mental Psychology, 33, 284294.

Patterson, G. R. (1982). Coercive family process. Eugene, OR:Castalia.

Peterson, C., & Biggs, M. (1998). Stitches and casts: Emotionalityand narrative coherence. Narrative Inquiry, 8, 5176.

Peterson, C., Jesso, B., & McCabe, A. (1999). Encouraging nar-ratives in preschoolers: An intervention study. Journal of ChildLanguage, 26, 4967.

Reese, E., & Newcombe, R. (2007). Training mothers in elabora-tive reminiscing enhances childrens autobiographical memoryand narrative. Child Development, 78, 11531170.

Robinson, J. L., & Mantz-Simmons, L. (2003). The MacArthurNarrative Coding System: One approach to highlighting affectivemeaning making in the MacArthur Story Stem Battery. In R. N.Emde, D. P. Wolf, & D. Oppenheim (Eds.), Revealing the innerworlds of young children: The MacArthur Story Stem Battery

and parentchild narratives (pp. 8191) New York: OxfordUniversity Press.

Schermerhorn, A. C., Cummings, E. M., DeCarlo, C. A., &

Davies, P. T. (2007). Childrens influence in the marital relation-ship. Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 259269.

Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental andnonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations.Psychological Methods, 7, 422445.

Smith, P. H., Smith, J. B., & Earp, J. L. (1999). Beyond themeasurement trap: A reconstructed conceptualization and mea-surement of woman battering. Psychology of Women Quarterly,23, 173193.

Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman,D. B. (1996). The revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2): De-velopment and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of FamilyIssues, 17, 283316.

10 MINZE ET AL.


7/7

Sullivan, C. M., Parisian, J. A., & Davidson, W. S. (1991, August).Index of psychological abuse: Development of a measure. Posterpresentation at the annual conference of the American Psycho-logical Association, San Francisco.

Toth, S. L., Cicchetti, D., Macfie, J., Rogosch, F. A., & Maughan,A. (2000). Narrative representations of moral-affiliative and con-flictual themes and behavioral problems in maltreated preschool-

ers. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 29, 307318.Wainryb, C., Brehl, B. A., & Matwin, S. (2005). Being hurt and

hurting others: Childrens narrative accounts and moral judg-

ments of their own interpersonal conflicts. Monographs of theSociety for Research in Child Development, 70(3), 1114.

Wolfe, D. W., Crooks, C. V., Lee, V., McIntyre-Smith, A., &Jaffe, P. G. (2003). The effects of childrens exposure to domes-tic violence: A meta-analysis and critique. Clinical Child andFamily Psychology Review, 6, 171187.

Received June 3, 2009Revision received September 14, 2009

Accepted September 14, 2009

Call for Papers for a Special Section of theJournal of Family Psychology:

New Perspectives and Approaches in UnderstandingParenting at Risk

Editors: Douglas Teti and Ernest Jouriles

The Journal of Family Psychology invites manuscripts for a special section on parent-

ing at risk. Faulty parenting is frequently cited as a major causal factor in the development

of child psychopathology. At the same time, parenting at risk has most often been studied

with respect to static psychiatric (e.g., maternal depression), medical (e.g., low birth

weight), or social address (e.g., poverty) conditions. Whereas this approach has been

invaluable in emphasizing the overall impact of specific risk factors on parenting and

child development, it does not address parenting as an ongoing, dynamic process. Nor

does it address the origins and impact of individual differences in parents ability toregulate behavior and emotions during interactions with their children. The intent of this

special section is to provide a conceptual framework for understanding parenting at risk

as a dynamic, transactional process that is affected by multiple, ongoing influences and to

showcase with empirical papers new developments in the study of parenting at risk.

The deadline for receipt of papers for this special section is July 31, 2010. Please

follow the journals Instructions to Authors for information about how to prepare an

article, which can be found on the journals web page (www.apa.org/pubs/journals/fam).

Manuscripts must be submitted electronically through the Manuscript Submission Web

Portal of the Journal of Family Psychology (www.apa.org/pubs/journals/fam). Please be

sure to specify in the cover letter that the submission is intended for the special section

on parenting at risk. All papers will be initially screened by the editors, and papers that

fit well with the theme of this special section will be sent out for blind peer review.


5_violenta in familie si problemele copiilor

Documents