Male Parenting Attitudes and Batterer Intervention

Abstract

Objective:

The purpose of the study was to investigate the relationship between parenting attitudes and intimate partner violence (IPV) perpetration and identify factors associated with program completion for a 26-week batterer intervention program (BIP).

Method:

The study employed a nonequivalent, control-group design (comparing program completers to dropouts) in a secondary analysis of 111 men court ordered to the BIP.

Results:

Correlational and logistic regression analysis indicated (1) a modest relationship between the parenting attitudes and the IPV perpetration, (2) a significant model for predicting parenting attitudes scores using number of children and racial group, and (3) BIP treatment completion could be successfully predicted by education.

Conclusion:

These findings reveal characteristics of male batterers, as they relate to parenting attitudes and provide preliminary evidence suggesting that men in treatment for IPV offenses endorse a host of negative parenting attitudes. Implications of these findings were explored and discussed.

Keywords

domestic violence batterers intimate partner violence parenting attitude revised conflict tactics scales male offenders

Despite consistent research documenting the alarming co-occurrence between child maltreatment and intimate partner violence (IPV; Herrenkohl, Sousa, Tajima, Herrenkohl, & Moylan, 2008; Slep & O’Leary, 2005), the parenting attitudes of perpetrators of IPV are far less understood (Slep & O’Leary, 2005). Given parenting attitudes are intimately connected with actual parenting behaviors (Simmons, Lehmann, & Dia, 2009), this lack of understanding is particularly problematic. The co-occurrence of IPV and physical child abuse is a well-documented and pervasive social problem with far-reaching implications for children and families (Simmons et al., 2009). Reviews of the co-occurrence of physical child abuse and IPV place its prevalence among clinical samples at approximately 40%, with the base rate of co-occurrence in community samples being much less, at 6% (Appel & Holden, 1998). Renner and Slack (2006) reported a .52 correlation between childhood physical abuse and witnessing parental IPV in a sample of 1,005 low-income adult women. These rates vary greatly by sample with ranges from 40% to 91% in one study (Margolin & Gordis, 2003). A recent review reported the overlap between child abuse and IPV ranging between 45% and 75% (Holt, Buckley, & Whelan, 2008).

Although IPV and child maltreatment tend to be studied separately, family violence tends to take multiple forms in the contexts in which it occurs. Using representative sampling of 453 families with young children, Slep and O’Leary (2005) reported that among aggressive families, multiple forms of family violence (i.e., partner and parent–child) occurred 82% of the time (Slep & O’Leary, 2005). Relatedly, Ross (1996) reported that IPV significantly increased the risk of physical child abuse by the physically abusive spouse and that this relationship was stronger for husbands in the study. Because IPV tends to have differential impact on the parenting attitudes and practices of men and women (Margolin & Gordis, 2003), the scope of this research is limited to the parenting attitudes of men participating in a Batterer Intervention Program (BIP) for IPV. For the purpose of this research, IPV includes threats or acts of physical, sexual, and psychological violence by a current or former intimate partner (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2013), whereas child maltreatment can include child abuse (physical, sexual, and/or psychological abuse of child) and/or child neglect (failure to supervise and protect children from violence and/or failure to provide children basic physical, emotional, medical, and/or emotional needs; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2014).

Consequences of Witnessing IPV and Child Maltreatment

Both witnessing IPV and experiencing child abuse place children at risk for a host of detrimental consequences across their life course (Kitzmann, Gaylord, Holt, & Kenny, 2003). According to a meta-analysis (Wolfe, Crooks, Lee, McIntyre-Smith, & Jaffe, 2003), children who experience child abuse in addition to witnessing IPV tend to have increased emotional and behavioral problems beyond those who only witness IPV. These problems can include (a) emotional: isolation, shame, guilt, fear, and low-self-esteem; (b) psychological: anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, and depression; (c) behavioral: school dropout, eating disorders, suicide attempts, violence, teen pregnancy, substance use, and delinquency; and (d) relational: insecure attachment, revictimization, violence perpetration, and impaired conflict resolution skills (Herrenkohl et al., 2008; Holt et al., 2008; Taylor, Guterman, Lee, & Rathouz, 2009). Moreover, children in violent contexts were 5 to 7 times more likely to experience childhood depression, anxiety, aggression, insecure attachment, and low self-esteem than children from nonviolent households (Cummings & Davies, 2010; Sturge-Apple, Skibo, & Davies, 2012).

Given the extensive literature investigating the co-occurrence of IPV and child abuse, it is surprising how few studies examine the connections between IPV and parenting (Holden & Ritchie, 1991; Levendosky & Graham-Bermann, 2001). Appel and Holden (1998) explain the relatively little attention to the connection between these co-occurring forms of violence because research on IPV and child abuse have developed along distinct and largely nonintersecting trajectories. Given IPV and child abuse are common co-occurring types of family violence, a more holistic view of their interconnections is sorely needed (Appel & Holden, 1998; Finkelhor, Ormrod, & Turner, 2007; Margolin & Gordis, 2003).

Social Learning Theory and the Spillover Effect

Social learning theory (Bandura, 1976) is useful in understanding the interconnections between parenting and IPV, as it can explain the spillover effect (transmission of parent conflict onto parent–child relations) through the mechanisms of modeling and legitimizing violence (Appel & Holden, 1998). For instance, violence may be modeled as a form of conflict resolution (among parents and parent–child relations), and violence may be legitimized as an acceptable or tolerated norm within families. Thus, if violence is used to solve conflict between couples, this method of conflict resolution may also be used for parent–child conflict. This directly relates to the ample evidence supporting the intergenerational transmission of violence across some families, where children who witness violence growing up are more likely to experience violence as adults (Holt et al., 2008). Indeed, the transfer of negative behavior and emotions across relationships has substantial empirical support (Erel & Burman, 1995; Margolin & Gordis, 2003). Parent conflict can spillover onto parent–child relations, the victimized parent may learn that violence is an effective way to control someone, or IPV may increase the overall context of family stress, which in turn heightens the risk for punitive or harsh parenting (Appel & Holden, 1998; Simmons et al., 2009).

It is important to note, not only does parental conflict tend to spillover onto parent–child relations so does parental harmony. Indeed, parents who are in harmony with each other are thought to be more emotionally available and sensitive to children’s needs, whereas conflict can impair parenting behaviors (Erel & Burman, 1995) and constrain the quality of the parent–child relationships (Erel & Burman, 1995; Levendosky & Graham-Bermann, 2001). In Erel and Burman’s (1995) meta-analysis of 68 studies, all indicated a significant and positive relationship between marital quality and the quality of the parent–child relationship, indicating a consistent and robust relationship between marital and parent–child relationships. A more recent review found that the quality of parenting was clearly impaired with households with IPV, through impairing parents’ mental health and thereby inhibiting parental sensitivity to children, impairing parent’s ability to maintain authority, safety, and stability for children, or heightening stress and placing children at risk for experiencing physical violence (Holt et al., 2008). IPV in households has also been associated with increased use of corporal punishment, which is a well-documented risk factor for child abuse (Simmons et al., 2009; Taylor et al., 2009; Taylor, Manganello, Lee, & Rice, 2010).

Family stress levels can be important precursors for child abuse in IPV households. Margolin and Gordis (2003) found in a study of 177 families with small children that husband to wife aggression increased the risk for both husband and wife’s child abuse potential in the context of high parenting and financial stress but was not linked in the context of low stress. Moreover, wife-to-husband aggression was linked only to wives child abuse potential in the context of high stress (Margolin & Gordis, 2003). Importantly, under conditions of low stress, the potential for child abuse is no higher within families experiencing IPV than nonviolent families (Margolin & Gordis, 2003). For instance, IPV and maternal stress were both found to be risk factors for child maltreatment among a sample of 2,508 fragile families (Taylor et al., 2009).

Parenting Attitudes of Males Who Perpetrate IPV

Given the lack of research investigating the topic of this research (parenting attitudes of male perpetrators of IPV), we extend our background to the most relevant available research: the parenting behaviors of fathers who have perpetrated IPV. Although important information differentiates parenting and step-parenting behaviors, because we focus on parenting attitudes, this information is beyond the scope of this article. Despite the demonstrable positive effect of involved fathers, they tend to be systematically left out of research and practice on parenting (Brown, Callahan, Strega, Walmsley, & Dominelli, 2009; Cameron, Coady, & Hoy, 2014; Edleson, 1999; Peled, 2000; Scott & Crooks, 2004). Indeed, fathers who are involved, supportive, and nurturing tend to have thriving children on academic, emotional, and social domains (Dubowitz et al., 2001; Guille, 2004; Scott & Crooks, 2004). According to Appel and Holden’s (1998) review on the co-occurrence of IPV and child abuse, only 3 of 31 studies sampled fathers. The lack of attention to the parenting by fathers in IPV households has been noted in other research as a severe deficit in current understanding (Guille, 2004; Holt et al., 2008; Peled, 2000). Because research on fathers who perpetrate IPV is limited, guidelines to nurture positive relationships with children are virtually nonexistent (Peled, 2000; Scott & Crooks, 2004).

The limited information that is available indicates that, in comparison with nonviolent fathers, violent fathers tend to have less involvement with children, are more likely to use negative child-rearing practices, may be manipulative and self-centered, tend to undermine partners parenting efforts, are less consistent, and are more likely to use authoritarian parenting practices (Bancroft, Silverman, & Ritchie, 2011; Peled, 2000; Simmons et al., 2009). Other research suggests that fathers who perpetrate IPV tend to limit creativity and structure in children’s lives (Margolin & Gordis, 2003). These descriptions parallel findings in a qualitative study with 10 children, aged 8–12, regarding their perceptions of their fathers who have perpetrated IPV (Cater & Forssell, 2012); fathers were described as uninvolved and not responsible for their care, mothers providing the bulk of child care, and a lack of violence being seen as a “good-enough” father (Cater & Forssell, 2012). Yet, most offending fathers will continue to have contact with their children as co-parents, and children desire and can benefit from safe contact (Edleson, 1999; Guille, 2004). Thus, an urgent need exists for information on IPV and propensity for child abuse among males.

Although both perpetrators and victims are at heightened risk for abusing their children (Appel & Holden, 1998), it is important to note that not all parents involved in IPV are aggressive to their children (Margolin & Gordis, 2003). IPV severity is one factor with implications for whether child abuse co-occurs and the pathways by which it occurs. M. A. Straus, Gelles, and Smith (1990) reported that fathers who severely and frequently abused their wives also abused their children 50% of the time. However, in comparison with nonabusive men, fathers exhibiting less severe levels of IPV were not at a heightened risk for also abusing children (M. A. Straus, Gelles, & Smith, 1990).

The Current Study

First, IPV has been found to predict parenting attitudes regarding key factors predicting child abuse, including empathy toward children, role reversal, and attitudes toward corporal punishment (Meyers & Battistoni, 2003). Yet, the strength of the relationship between IPV and parenting attitudes are less well understood, and they have been found to differ by gender (Margolin & Gordis, 2003; Simmons et al., 2009; Taylor et al., 2009). Therefore, to uncover whether this population tends to have higher risk parenting attitudes, this research will investigate the parenting attitudes of male perpetrators of IPV. Second, using social learning theory to examine the spillover effect, this research will investigate whether there is a relationship between parenting attitudes and IPV.

Third, given the saliency of financial and family stress and the cultural context, important variables have been recommended for research on the co-occurrence of IPV and child abuse, namely, socioeconomic information and ethnic/racial information (Appel & Holden, 1998). Financial hardships from low income or unemployment are known risk factors for family violence (Holt et al., 2008; Margolin & Gordis, 2003; Swan & Snow, 2006). Childhood trauma and abuse are consistently found to be very high for both men and women who use violence, and research accounting for this significant background is needed (Guille, 2004; Simmons et al., 2009; M. A. Straus et al., 1990; Swan & Snow, 2006). Childhood trauma is particularly salient, given research has found this construct to be predictive of favorable attitudes toward violence toward spouses and children (Markowitz, 2001; Meyers & Battistoni, 2003). Additionally, younger age is also a risk factor for partner abuse (Swan & Snow, 2006). Thus, in addition to examining whether parenting attitudes predicate IPV perpetration, this research analyzes key demographic variables drawn from the IPV literature as part of its inquiry.

Finally, this study will investigate whether a wide constellation of demographic, self-reported violence, and self-reported parenting attitudes is predictive of BIP completion. With the known spillover relationship between IPV and child maltreatment, a reduction in IPV perpetration is one potential way to concomitantly reduce child maltreatment. Although research has documented mixed results as to the effectiveness of the BIP program, Jones, D’Agostino, Gondolf, and Heckert’s (2004) seminal research with 633 batterers and partners across three geographic locales found that completion of the BIP program reduced the likelihood of perpetrator reassault by 33% in the 15-month follow-up and almost half of the court-ordered men. Thus, completion of the BIP seems to be an important predictor of IPV reoccurrence. Given its potential implications in reducing IPV, a known risk factor for child maltreatment, this research will investigate which factors predict BIP completion.

Purpose of the Study

In summary, using a sample of male participants in a BIP, the purposes of this study were to (a) add to the existing but scant literature on the parenting attitudes of male perpetrators of IPV; (b) investigate whether there is a relationship between parenting attitudes and IPV perpetration; (c) explore whether demographic factors and parenting attitudes predict IPV perpetration; and, finally, (d) investigate the ability of demographic variables, parenting attitudes, and IPV perpetration to differentiate between completers and noncompleters of a 26-week BIP program. Our specific hypothesis, informed by social learning theory and the spillover effect, include:
Hypothesis 1: Higher risk parenting attitudes for child maltreatment will be associated with greater IPV perpetration.

Hypothesis 2: Higher risk parenting attitudes will predict greater levels of IPV perpetration.

Method

Data Collection

The present study employed a posttest-only design with nonequivalent groups (Cook & Campbell, 1979), which is diagrammed and described in Figure 1. The current study sample included all men referred to the BIP at the Domestic Abuse Center (DAC), a nonprofit agency in Columbia, South Carolina, between the periods of June 2013 and December 2013. By virtue of their inclusion in the BIP program, all men had by definition perpetuated some form of IPV, making this sample an ideal match for this study. Clients attended the DAC outside this date range were excluded.

Figure 1.
Nonequivalent, control group design. Note. In Figure 1, X represents completion of the batterer intervention program (BIP) and the bottom group represents program dropouts. For the purpose of this study, the term dropout refers to those clients who completed the intake interview but failed to complete the entire treatment program. They serve as a nonequivalent control group for treatment completers which are represented on the top of the diagram.

Sampling and Procedures

The current study utilized a secondary analysis of data collected by the DAC. Since 1982, the DAC has been providing batterer intervention services based on agency and court-based referrals. The majority of the 111 sampled BIP participants (41%) were referred by a summary court processing misdemeanors, criminal domestic violence court (20%), or were participants in a pretrial intervention (PTI) program (25%). A small percentage (10%) reported being referred from a governmental agency, such as probation or Department of Social Services, or listed “other” as the referral source. It should be noted that each of these referral sources has a different level of client supervision and different consequences for program dropout.

The BIP is cognitive–behavioral in orientation and is consistent in organization and focus to those programs described in the literature (Buttell & Carney, 2005). The intervention program is a structured, intensive, 26-week, group treatment program that focuses primarily on anger management and skills development. These programs attempt to modify the thinking of perpetrators of IPV and address their use of aggression in intimate relationships (Buttell & Carney, 2005). The intervention program incorporates three phases, namely, (a) orientation and intake interview—2 sessions, (b) psychoeducational classes—20 sessions, and (c) group therapy regarding termination—4 sessions. Groups consist of approximately 15 batterers, male only, and meet one night each week for approximately 2 hr. This batterer treatment program incorporates confrontation, therapy, and educational components. In this setting, the common proximal events of domestic violence are directly addressed with clients, and they are given an opportunity to make changes that will positively affect their personal relationships with others.

Prior to participating in the BIP, clients completed the following assessment process in the first two intake sessions, which is focal to this research. The purpose of the assessment process is to assist agency staff in creating a pretreatment profile of clients. During these sessions, the DAC staff interviewed clients, collecting demographic information as well as completing the following two instruments, namely, The revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2), (M. A. Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996) and the Adult-Adolescent Parenting Inventory–2 (AAPI-2; Bavolek & Keene, 2010). Researchers received deidentified and anonymous data, protecting client privacy and anonymity, ensuring individual responses could not be linked to client identities.

Measures

Along with the demographic variables, including race, relationship status (single, married, unmarried, divorced, and separated), number of children, Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE), educational level, employment status, military background, and referral source, which were collected as part of the DAC intake procedures, the primary measures for this study included the CTS2 and AAPI-2.

The revised CTS2

The CTS2 (M. A. Straus et al., 1996) is the most recent version of the original CTSs (M. Straus, 1979, 1997), which is a widely used self-report measure of psychological and physical assaults as well as negotiation in domestic relationships (M. A. Straus, 1996). The CTS2 has been used in a variety of settings with individuals from varying races, cultures, and ethnic background, including the minority groups represented in this study, that is, African Americans (e.g., Cazenave & Straus, 1979; DuRant, Cadenhead, Pendergrast, Slavens, & Linder, 1994; Hampton, Gelles, & Harrop, 1989) and Hispanics (Kaufman, Jasinski, & Aldarondo, 1994). According to M. A. Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, and Sugarman (1996), the CTS2 consistently demonstrates sound psychometric properties, with internal consistency reliability ranging from .79 to .95. Moreover, the measure has shown construct validity in a number of studies (M. A. Straus et al., 1996).

According to M. A. Straus et al. (1996), the CTS2 was designed to measure the range and frequency of tactics used in response to conflict with a family member. The CTS2 is a comprehensive 39-item (78 question), self-reported inventory designed to measure five scales, namely, Negotiation (which includes two subscales, emotional and cognitive), as well as Psychological Aggression, Physical Assault, Sexual Coercion, and Injury, each of which include two subscales, (minor and severe). Negotiation includes the actions taken to resolve conflict through discussion, psychological aggression measures nonverbal aggressive acts, physical assault includes physical violence, sexual coercion focuses on coercing a partner into unwanted sexual activity, and , finally, injury includes partner-induced physical injury (M. A. Straus, 1996).

Respondents rate each item for the aforementioned scales on a 7-point Likert-type style frequency scale (0 = this has never happened before, 1 = once in the past year, 2 = Twice in the past year, 3 = 3–5 time in the past year, 4 = 6–10 times in the past year, 5 = 11–20 times in the past year, 6 = more than 20 times in the past year, and 7 = not in the past year, but it did happen before). To create interpretable scores, Values 1 and 2 remained the same, and Values 3–6 were recoded to be the midpoints (3 = 4, 4 = 8, 5 = 15, 6 = 25; M. A. Straus et al., 1996).

AAPI-2

The AAPI-2 is an inventory to assess the parenting and child-rearing attitudes of adult and adolescent parent and preparent populations (Bavolek & Keene, 2010). Based on the documented parenting and child-rearing behaviors of abusive parents, the AAPI-2 assesses the level of agreement or disagreement with maladaptive parenting behaviors (Bavolek & Keene, 2010). Based on responses, the AAPI provides an indicator of high-, medium-, or low-risk parenting attitudes in relationship with child abuse and neglect (Bavolek & Keene, 2010). The AAPI-2 consists of five scales assessing parenting attitudes that are thought to be associated with cases of child abuse and neglect (Bavolek & Keene, 2010), namely, (a) inappropriate expectations of children, (b) parental lack of empathetic awareness toward children’s needs, (c) strong belief in the use of corporal punishment as a means of discipline; (d) parent–child role reversal, and (e) oppressing children’s power and independence. With over 20 years of research, the AAPI-2 is regarded as a validated and reliable inventory of parenting attitudes relating to child abuse and neglect (Bavolek & Keene, 2010).

Results

The sample of 111 men consisted of 51.4% (n = 57) Caucasians and 43.2% (n = 48) African Americans and was made up by a small percentage of Other (i.e., Latino/Hispanic, Asian, and American Indian) 5.4% (n = 6). Caucasians had the highest percentage of program completion with 78.9% (n = 45), compared to African American 72.9% (n = 35). The mean age for Caucasian men in the study was 37.47 years (SD = 10.49), compared to 33.5 years (SD = 11.29) for African American men and 38.50 years (SD = 10.17) for Other men. Participants receiving a high school degree or greater were highest among African Americans 68.7% (n = 33) followed by Caucasians 64.9% (n = 37). Employment was higher among Caucasians with 80.7% (n = 46) being employed, compared to 64.6% (n = 31) for African Americans. Regarding relationship status, Caucasians 49.2% (n = 28) reported they were either living with a partner or were married, compared to 41.7% (n = 20) among African Americans. Reported experiences of ACE were highest among Caucasians with 17.5% (n = 10) compared to 4.2% (n = 2) for African Americans. Among the sample, only 2.7 % (n = 3) tested within the low-risk category for the AAPI-2, with roughly 55% (n = 61) testing in the medium risk category and 42.3% (n = 47) within the high-risk category for the AAPI-2. Therefore, given the very small number of men in the low-risk parenting category for parenting, the remainder of the analyses used the AAPI medium and high-risk groups (n = 108). The demographic characteristics of the sample are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.
Demographic Characteristics.

Program Participants (N = 111)

Characteristic Completers Dropouts Total

% (n) % (n) % (N)

100 (111)

Client Status 75.7 (84) 24.3 (27)

Race

Caucasian 53.9 (45) 44.4 (12) 51.3 (57)

African American 41.7 (35) 48.1 (13) 43.2 (48)

Other 4.8 (4) 7.4 (2) 5.4 (6)

Age 37.25 (84) 31.33 (27) 35.81 (111)

SD 11.44 7.71 10.93

Relationship status

Single 32.1 (27) 44.4 (12) 35.1 (39)

Married 38.1 (32) 29.6 (8) 36 (40)

Unmarried partners 8.8 (5) 14.8 (4) 10.8 (12)

Divorced 7.1 (6) 3.7 (1) 6.3 (7)

Separated 13.1 (11) 7.4 (2) 11.7 (13)

Children

0 20.2 (17) 22.2 (6) 20.7 (23)

1 29.8 (25) 22.2 (6) 27.9 (31)

2 17.9 (15) 18.5 (5) 18 (20)

3 17.9 (15) 18.5 (5) 18 (20)

4 9.5 (8) 14.8 (4) 10.8 (12)

5 3.6 (3) 3.7 (1) 3.6 (4)

11 1.2 (1) — .9 (1)

Education level

<High school 26.2 (22) 48.1 (13) 31.5 (35)

High school graduate 32.1 (27) 40.7 (11) 34.2 (38)

Some college 25.0 (21) 7.4 (2) 20.7 (23)

Grad college 16.7 (14) 3.7 (1) 13.5 (15)

Employed

Yes 76.2 (64) 66.7 (18) 73.9 (82)

No 23.8 (20) 33.3 (9) 26.1 (29)

Military

Yes 17.9 (15) 7.4 (2) 15.3 (17)

No 82.1 (69) 92.6 (25) 84.7 (94)

Referral status

CDV CT 17.9 (15) 25.9 (7) 19.8 (22)

Regular court 36.9 (31) 51.9 (14) 40.5 (45)

PTI 29.8 (25) 11.1 (3) 25.2 (28)

PPP 3.6 (3) 3.7 (1) 3.6 (4)

DSS — 7.4 (2) 1.8 (2)

Other 11.9 (10) — 9 (10)

AAPI-2 risk category

Low 3.6 (3) — 2.7 (3)

Medium 56.0 (47) 51.9 (14) 55 (61)

High 40.4 (34) 48.1 (13) 42.3 (47)

CTS scores

Negotiation 22.28 (6.40) 21.7 (6.73) 22.13 (6.46)

Psychological 15.25 (9.76) 13.96 (10.0) 14.93 (9.79)

Aggression 3.56 (4.84) 5.40 (7.73) 4.02 (5.78)

Physical assault 2.06 (4.32) 2.88 (5.40) 2.26 (4.60)

Injury sexual coercion .67 (2.99) 1.92 (6.65) .99 (4.21)

CTS2 Total Score^a 21.56 (13.45) 24.18 (20.14) 22.22 (15.33)

Note. CDV = criminal domestic violence; PTI = pretrial intervention; DSS = Department of Social Services; PPP = Public Private Partnership. Table statistics include Mean followed by (Standard deviation).

^aTotal score for CTS2 includes psychological aggression, physical assault, injury, and sexual coercion.

Hypothesis 1: Investigate Relationship Between Parenting Attitudes and IPV Perpetration

To address the first hypothesis of this study, a point-biserial correlation was conducted. The point-biserial correlation coefficient (r_pb) is a special case of the Pearson R and is used when one variable is dichotomous. Similar to the Pearson R, point-biserial values range from −1 to +1. In the present study, the AAPI-2 variable was recoded into a high-risk and medium category of parenting behavior. The point-biserial correlation was conducted with the AAPI-2 risk category variable and the five subscales of CTS2 (Negotiation, Psychological Aggression, Physical Assault, Sexual Coercion, and Injury). The only significant point-biserial correlation was for sexual coercion, indicating a weak positive correlation between high-risk parenting behavior and sexual coercion (r _pb = .189, p = .050).

Hypothesis 2: Parenting Attitudes as a Predictor of IPV Perpetration

To address the second hypothesis, a standard multiple regression was conducted. For the purpose of the analysis, the AAPI-2 low-risk group (n = 3) was removed from the sample. A standard multiple regression investigated whether demographic variables and parenting factors (age, relationship status, referral, education, children, employment status, military service, referral status, race, AAPI-2, and ACE) resulted in an increased level of scoring on the revised CTS2 for men (Model 1). Results of the standard multiple regression analysis indicated that the model was not significant. The estimated coefficients of the multiple regression model art presented in Table 2.

Table 2.
Standard Multiple Regression Analysis for Demographic and Parenting Predictors of the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2).

B β t p Bivariate r Partial r

Age −0.252 −.180 −1.700 .092 −.207 −.170

Referral 0.780 .071 0.684 .495 .028 .069

Relationship status 0.906 .080 0.795 .429 .099 .080

Education level 2.008 .138 1.275 .205 .081 .128

Children −0.326 −.009 −0.085 .932 .013 −.009

Military 2.594 .059 0.542 .589 .022 .055

AAPI-2 category 2.601 .084 0.834 .406 .057 .084

BIP program participation 2.563 .073 0.707 .482 .074 .072

Employment −12.689 −.112 −0.999 .320 −.114 −.101

ACE −3.411 −.123 −1.237 .219 −.119 −.125

Note. ACE = Adverse Childhood Experiences; AAPI = Adult-Adolescent Parenting Inventory; BIP = batterer intervention program. N = 108; df = 10.

To further investigate the differential impact of demographics and conflict tactics for male batterers in a community-based BIP, the current study employed logistic regression to predict high- or medium-risk parenting attitudes. The model consisted of 13 demographic and conflict tactic predictors (age, program completion, education, children, employment, race, referral, CTS2 Negotiation, CTS2 Psychological Aggression, CTS2 Physical Assault, CTS2 Injury, CTS2 Sexual Coercion, and military). The study employed an analysis strategy that allowed for simultaneous entry of the independent variables. All assumptions of logistic regression were met. The estimated coefficients of the logistic regression model are presented in Table 3.

Table 3.
Logistic Regression Analysis of High Risk and Medium Risk AAPI-2 for Demographics and Conflict Tactics (CTS2).

B SE Wald Significance Exp (B) 95% CI for EXP (B)

Lower Upper

Age .028 .023 1.450 .229 1.028 .983 1.076

Program participation .056 .582 0.009 .923 1.058 .338 3.311

Education −.302 .250 1.454 .228 .739 .453 1.208

Children* −.574 .189 9.275 .002 .563 .389 .815

Employment −.430 .553 0.603 .437 .651 .220 1.925

Race* 1.543 .517 8.917 .003 4.677 1.699 12.875

Referral −.061 .169 0.129 .701 .976 .676 1.311

Negotiation .025 .039 0.407 .523 1.025 .950 1.107

Psychological aggression −.010 .027 0.147 .701 .990 .939 1.043

Physical assault −.024 .047 0.272 .602 .976 .891 1.069

Injury .073 .069 1.125 .289 1.076 .940 1.233

Sexual coercion .233 .232 1.013 .314 1.263 .802 1.990

Military −.887 .759 1.369 .242 .412 .093 1.821

Constant −.501 1.491 0.113 .737 .606

Note. SE = standard error; CI = confidence interval. N = 108. df = 13.

p < .05.

A test of the full model against a constant-only model was statistically significant (χ² = 32.541, df = 13, p = .002). The model R ² indicates that the model accounted for 34.9% of the total variance. This suggests that the set of predictors successfully discriminates between those in the high-risk parenting attitude group and those in the medium-risk parenting attitude group. Prediction success for the cases used in the development of the model were high, with an overall success rate of 71.3% and prediction rates of 59.6% for the high-risk AAPI-2 group as opposed to 80.3% for those in the medium-risk AAPI-2 group.

Two of the predictive variables were significant in relationship with AAPI high-risk parenting attitudes: Number of children (Wald χ² = 9.275, df = 1, p = .002, CI_.95 = .389, .815) and racial group (African-American reference category; Wald χ² = 8.917, df = 1, p = .003, CI_.95 = 1.699, 12.875) were significantly related to predicting AAPI-2 group membership. Based on the model, there is an increased likelihood of .563 times to be in the high-risk AAPI-2 category for every one additional child. African American men are 4.677 more likely to be within the high-risk category group compared to Caucasian men.

To address the fourth study purpose, a second logistic regression model was constructed to investigate the differential impact of demographic variables, parenting attitudes, and IPV perpetration between BIP program completers and dropouts. A binary logistic regression analysis was performed to investigate how well age, education, number of children, employment status, race, AAPI-2 risk categories, referral, and CTS2 total score (the total score omitted the negotiation subscale, as it is a positive relationship tactic) predicted BIP program completion. All assumptions of logistic regression were met. The estimated coefficients of the logistic regression model are presented in Table 4.

Table 4.
Logistic Regression Analysis of Program Completion for Demographics, Parenting and Conflict Tactics (CTS2).

B SE Wald Significance Exp (B) 95% CI for EXP (B)

Lower Upper

Age −0.054 0.029 3.623 .057 0.947 .895 1.002

Education −0.604 0.286 4.471 .034 0.547 .312 0.957

Children 0.093 0.151 0.384 .535 1.098 .817 1.475

Employment 0.228 0.550 0.172 .678 1.256 .427 3.694

Race −0.294 0.554 0.282 .596 0.745 .251 2.209

AAPI-2 0.042 0.560 0.006 .941 1.043 .348 3.126

Referral status −0.282 0.205 1.888 .169 0.754 .504 1.128

CTS2 total score 0.008 0.016 0.261 .610 1.008 .977 1.040

Constant 2.298 1.379 2.775 .096 9.951

Note. SE = standard error; CI = confidence interval; AAPI = Adult-Adolescent Parenting Inventory; CTS2 = Conflict Tactics Scales. N = 108. df = 8.

*p < .05.

A test of the full model against a constant-only model was statistically significant (χ² = 15.929, df = 8, p = .035). The model R ² indicates that the model accounted for 20.3% of the total variance. This suggests that the set of predictors successfully discriminates between those completing the BIP program and those who don’t complete the program. Prediction success for the cases used in the development of the model was high, with an overall program completion success rate of 75.0% and prediction rates of 100% for program completion. When BIP program completion was modeled to be dependent on the eight factors of the model, one of the predictive variables was significant. Education level (Wald χ² = 4.471, df = 1, p = .034, CI_.95 = .312, .957) was significantly related to predicting BIP program completion. Based on the model an increase in one education level, results in .547 times likelihood to complete the 26-week BIP.

Discussion and Application to Social Work

This study provides important information about the parenting attitudes of men attending a community-based BIP, a phenomenon for which there is very little empirical information and virtually no meaningful understanding. One of the most striking findings of this research is that virtually all participants reported either having medium- or high-risk parenting attitudes for child maltreatment as measured by inappropriate developmental expectations for children, lacking empathy for children, believing in the use of corporal punishment, seeing children as a responsible for meeting parent’s needs (parent–child role reversal), and holding oppressive views of children’s power and independence. With only three participants scoring in the low-risk category, these findings support the proposition that males who have perpetrated IPV are at increased risk for poor child-rearing practices and potentially child abuse (Appel & Holden, 1998; Bancroft et al., 2011; Peled, 2000; Simmons et al., 2009).

With some empirical support for the spillover effect (Erel & Burman, 1995; Margolin & Gordis, 2003), Hypothesis 1 predicted higher risk parenting attitudes for child maltreatment would be associated with greater IPV perpetration. The results of this study found a week positive relationship between high-risk parenting and the sexual coercion scale of the CTS2. This finding is somewhat surprising, as a more robust correlation was anticipated. There are several possible reasons for this finding. First, both the CTS-2 scores and the AAPI-2 scores for this sample were clustered at the high end. It is possible that the lack of variability created a “ceiling effect” that reduced the strength of the association. Second, it is possible that there is some other intervening variable which is mediating or moderating the observed relationship but was not captured in this data set. For example, it is possible that the behaviors of the other parent impact the relationship between self-reported violence and parenting. It may be that mothers intervene on the child’s behalf and redirect the anger or violence away from the child onto another target. This type of situation is not captured by this data and might explain the low correlation observed here.

The second hypothesis predicted that higher risk parenting attitudes would predict greater levels of IPV perpetration. These data revealed no relationship between the CTS-2 and various demographic variables and the AAPI-2. Despite the lack of confirmation of this hypothesis, the logistic regression equation identified an unexpected significant model for predicting AAPI-2 scores using number of children and racial group. The model suggests that having more children increases negative parenting behaviors and attitudes. This finding is consistent with the literature (Margolin & Gordis, 2003) and indicates that as stressors increase so does negative parenting.

The finding that African American parents are 4 times as likely to report negative parenting attitudes is also consistent with the increased stressors model. Likewise, Taylor, Lee, Guterman, and Rice (2010) found that African Americans were at greater risk for the use of corporal punishment, one of the constructs assessed as a risk factor for child maltreatment on the AAPI-2. This tendency for this population to use corporal punishment to a greater degree may well explain the results. Given perceived social norms have been found to be highly predictive of having positive attitudes toward corporal punishment, social norms among differing racial groups are pertinent (Taylor, Hamvas, Rice, Newman, & Dejong, 2011). Indeed, Taylor, Hamvas, and Paris’s (2011) qualitative study with African American mothers found that mothers felt that corporal punishment was more common in their communities and that it was better for them discipline children rather than police harshly penalizing their children. Moreover, Hill (2001) reports that African American families experiences disproportionate stressors and problems due to racism and socioeconomic inequality. Hill goes on to describe racial socialization, where African American parents have attempted to prepare children for the oppressive forces of racism. In many ways, African American men are marginalized to an even greater extent than African American women and are treated differently by social, police, and judicial systems. From a structural inequality standpoint, African Americans have higher levels of unemployment and are largely overrepresented in the U.S. prison population. Given the location of the BIP in the rural south, this explanation certainly seem possible, which were points made in similar discussions of demographic and psychological differences between African American and Caucasian male and female batterers (Buttell & Carney, 2005; Ferreira & Buttell, 2014).

A logistic regression model, which indicated that treatment completion could be successfully predicted by education answered the final research question. This suggests that those men in the BIP who had more education were more likely to complete the program and that every additional grade of education improved the chance of program completion by over 50%. This finding is consistent with the criminal justice literature which suggests that men who have a “stake in conformity” are less likely to recidivate (e.g., Wooldredge & Thistlethwaite, 2002). Similarly, and by extension, the relationship between education and earnings over a lifetime would suggest that batterers would want to complete a BIP program and continue with their lives because they have more at stake to lose financially. Conversely, program completion might not always be the possible for some program attendees, given various structural barriers. For example, program completion may not be feasible with work commitments, child care, and transportation possibly being a roadblock in attending the 26-Week BIP program (Ferreira & Buttell, 2014).

Despite many contributions, there are several limitations to this research. First, the posttest only nonequivalent group design limits the ability understand changes in parenting attitudes over time and how they may relate to IPV perpetration. Longitudinal designs may be informative to add to understanding of this temporal relationship. This research is not generalizable beyond the sample population and reflects the parenting attitudes of a court-ordered clinical sample, which may differ significantly from a community population. Moreover, although socioeconomic variables were included, items assessing family stress may explain additional variance, given stress has been a relevant factor in other research (Taylor et al., 2009). Likewise, this research assessed parenting attitudes, rather than parenting behaviors. Assessing parenting behaviors and IPV may highlight a stronger link between multiple forms of family violence. Finally, because almost all participants scored as having medium- or high-risk parenting attitudes, a lack of variability in results may have weakened the relationships between the constructs at hand.

This research adds to the scant research on the parenting attitudes of males who have perpetrated IPV and provides additional support for the contention that IPV places children at increased risk for maltreatment. This finding has direct relevancy to not only social work researchers, but practitioners as well. For instance, social workers can assess the parenting attitudes of IPV perpetrators who have children to evaluate whether their children may be at risk for child maltreatment. Results of these screenings can inform decisions on parenting visitation for children affected by IPV. Likewise, families of children in the child welfare system may be screened to assess the presence of IPV in the home. Given the spillover effect, which is informed by social learning theory, this information may indicate specific interventions that can address multiple forms of family violence for enhanced effectiveness of social services.

Despite the demonstrable positive effect of involved fathers, they tend to be systematically left out of many child welfare policies and procedures, placing the sole responsibility of children on mothers and impairing the important role of fathers in this process (Brown et al., 2009; Cameron et al., 2014; Edleson, 1999; Peled, 2000). Given the important role fathers play in their children’s lives, ways to improve the parenting relationship in households with IPV should be the foci of future research. More research focusing on the parenting behaviors of fathers who have perpetrated IPV is needed. Moreover, prevention research that focuses on improving marital quality to lower risk for child maltreatment is recommended. Furthermore, because the parenting attitudes of African American males and Caucasian males differed significantly, more research to explicate this relationship is needed. Undoubtedly, culturally sensitive research that incorporates structural inequality, perceptions, and cultural factors to explain these differences is promising.

In closing, more research is needed to disentangle the relationships between IPV, parenting attitudes, and parenting practices. Social work practitioners and researchers should investigate child maltreatment and IPV holistically and conduct thorough assessments for child maltreatment in families where IPV occurs. Research to uncover potential mediating variables between IPV and parenting behaviors is warranted, and developing measures to assess this relationship directly would assist in this inquiry. Given the prevalence of medium- and high-risk parenting attitudes among the male BIP participants in this sample, interventions that simultaneously address IPV and parenting are warranted. Research focusing on developing these interventions and evaluating their effectiveness are important areas for future inquiry. Finally, given the scarcity of research examining the relationship between parenting attitudes and IPV perpetration, this research indicates a need to develop theory to understand linkages between the parenting attitudes and IPV.

	Program Participants (N = 111)
Client Status	75.7 (84)	24.3 (27)
Race
Caucasian	53.9 (45)	44.4 (12)	51.3 (57)
African American	41.7 (35)	48.1 (13)	43.2 (48)
Other	4.8 (4)	7.4 (2)	5.4 (6)
Age	37.25 (84)	31.33 (27)	35.81 (111)
SD	11.44	7.71	10.93
Relationship status
Single	32.1 (27)	44.4 (12)	35.1 (39)
Married	38.1 (32)	29.6 (8)	36 (40)
Unmarried partners	8.8 (5)	14.8 (4)	10.8 (12)
Divorced	7.1 (6)	3.7 (1)	6.3 (7)
Separated	13.1 (11)	7.4 (2)	11.7 (13)
Children
0	20.2 (17)	22.2 (6)	20.7 (23)
1	29.8 (25)	22.2 (6)	27.9 (31)
2	17.9 (15)	18.5 (5)	18 (20)
3	17.9 (15)	18.5 (5)	18 (20)
4	9.5 (8)	14.8 (4)	10.8 (12)
5	3.6 (3)	3.7 (1)	3.6 (4)
11	1.2 (1)	—	.9 (1)
Education level
<High school	26.2 (22)	48.1 (13)	31.5 (35)
High school graduate	32.1 (27)	40.7 (11)	34.2 (38)
Some college	25.0 (21)	7.4 (2)	20.7 (23)
Grad college	16.7 (14)	3.7 (1)	13.5 (15)
Employed
Yes	76.2 (64)	66.7 (18)	73.9 (82)
No	23.8 (20)	33.3 (9)	26.1 (29)
Military
Yes	17.9 (15)	7.4 (2)	15.3 (17)
No	82.1 (69)	92.6 (25)	84.7 (94)
Referral status
CDV CT	17.9 (15)	25.9 (7)	19.8 (22)
Regular court	36.9 (31)	51.9 (14)	40.5 (45)
PTI	29.8 (25)	11.1 (3)	25.2 (28)
PPP	3.6 (3)	3.7 (1)	3.6 (4)
DSS	—	7.4 (2)	1.8 (2)
Other	11.9 (10)	—	9 (10)
AAPI-2 risk category
Low	3.6 (3)	—	2.7 (3)
Medium	56.0 (47)	51.9 (14)	55 (61)
High	40.4 (34)	48.1 (13)	42.3 (47)
CTS scores
Negotiation	22.28 (6.40)	21.7 (6.73)	22.13 (6.46)
Psychological	15.25 (9.76)	13.96 (10.0)	14.93 (9.79)
Aggression	3.56 (4.84)	5.40 (7.73)	4.02 (5.78)
Physical assault	2.06 (4.32)	2.88 (5.40)	2.26 (4.60)
Injury sexual coercion	.67 (2.99)	1.92 (6.65)	.99 (4.21)
CTS2 Total Score^a	21.56 (13.45)	24.18 (20.14)	22.22 (15.33)

	B	β	t	p	Bivariate r	Partial r
Age	−0.252	−.180	−1.700	.092	−.207	−.170
Referral	0.780	.071	0.684	.495	.028	.069
Relationship status	0.906	.080	0.795	.429	.099	.080
Education level	2.008	.138	1.275	.205	.081	.128
Children	−0.326	−.009	−0.085	.932	.013	−.009
Military	2.594	.059	0.542	.589	.022	.055
AAPI-2 category	2.601	.084	0.834	.406	.057	.084
BIP program participation	2.563	.073	0.707	.482	.074	.072
Employment	−12.689	−.112	−0.999	.320	−.114	−.101
ACE	−3.411	−.123	−1.237	.219	−.119	−.125

	B	SE	Wald	Significance	Exp (B)	95% CI for EXP (B)
Age	.028	.023	1.450	.229	1.028	.983	1.076
Program participation	.056	.582	0.009	.923	1.058	.338	3.311
Education	−.302	.250	1.454	.228	.739	.453	1.208
Children*	−.574	.189	9.275	.002	.563	.389	.815
Employment	−.430	.553	0.603	.437	.651	.220	1.925
Race*	1.543	.517	8.917	.003	4.677	1.699	12.875
Referral	−.061	.169	0.129	.701	.976	.676	1.311
Negotiation	.025	.039	0.407	.523	1.025	.950	1.107
Psychological aggression	−.010	.027	0.147	.701	.990	.939	1.043
Physical assault	−.024	.047	0.272	.602	.976	.891	1.069
Injury	.073	.069	1.125	.289	1.076	.940	1.233
Sexual coercion	.233	.232	1.013	.314	1.263	.802	1.990
Military	−.887	.759	1.369	.242	.412	.093	1.821
Constant	−.501	1.491	0.113	.737	.606

	B	SE	Wald	Significance	Exp (B)	95% CI for EXP (B)
Age	−0.054	0.029	3.623	.057	0.947	.895	1.002
Education*	−0.604	0.286	4.471	.034	0.547	.312	0.957
Children	0.093	0.151	0.384	.535	1.098	.817	1.475
Employment	0.228	0.550	0.172	.678	1.256	.427	3.694
Race	−0.294	0.554	0.282	.596	0.745	.251	2.209
AAPI-2	0.042	0.560	0.006	.941	1.043	.348	3.126
Referral status	−0.282	0.205	1.888	.169	0.754	.504	1.128
CTS2 total score	0.008	0.016	0.261	.610	1.008	.977	1.040
Constant	2.298	1.379	2.775	.096	9.951

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by funds from the Wisner Center for Research on Children and Families at the Tulane University School of Social Work.

References

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.

Bancroft

Silverman

J. G.

Ritchie

(2011). The batterer as parent: Addressing the impact of domestic violence on family dynamics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bandura

(1976). Social learning theory. New York, NY: Pearson.

Bavolek

S. J.

Keene

R. G.

(2010). Adult-adolescent Parenting Inventory (AAPI-2) assessing high-risk parenting attitudes and behaviors: AAPI online development handbook. Park City, UT: Family Development Resources, Incorporated.

Brown

Callahan

Strega

Walmsley

Dominelli

(2009). Manufacturing ghost fathers: The paradox of father presence and absence in child welfare. Child & Family Social Work, 14, 25–34.

Buttell

Carney

(2005). Do batterer intervention programs serve African American and Caucasian batterers equally well? An investigation of a 26-week program. Research on Social Work Practice, 15, 19–28.

Cameron

Coady

Hoy

(2014). Perspectives on being a father from men involved with child welfare services. Child & Family Social Work, 19, 14–23.

Cater

Å.

Forssell

A. M.

(2012). Descriptions of fathers’ care by children exposed to intimate partner violence (IPV)–relative neglect and children’s needs. Child & Family Social Work, 19, 185–193. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2206.2012.00892.x

Cazenave

N. A.

Straus

(1979). Race, class, network embeddedness and family violence: A search for potent support systems. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 10, 281–299.

10.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2013). Intimate partner violence: Definitions. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/intimatepartnerviolence/definitions.html

11.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2014). Child maltreatment: Definitions. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/childmaltreatment/definitions.html

12.

Cook

Campbell

(1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design & analysis issues for field settings. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally College Publishing.

13.

Cummings

Davies

(2010). Marital conflict and children: An emotional security perspective. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

14.

Dubowitz

Black

M. M.

Cox

C. E.

Kerr

M. A.

Litrownik

A. J.

Radhakrishna

… Runyan

D. K.

(2001). Father involvement and children’s functioning at age 6 years: A multisite study. Child Maltreatment, 6, 300–309.

15.

DuRant

Cadenhead

Pendergrast

Slavens

Linder

(1994). Factors associated with the use of violence among urban Black adolescents. American Journal of Public Health, 84, 612–617.

16.

Edleson

J. L.

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

17.

Erel

Burman

(1995). Interrelatedness of marital relations and parent-child relations: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 108–132.

18.

Ferreira

R. J.

Buttell

(2014). Can a “Psychosocial Model” help explain violence perpetrated by female batterers?” Research on Social Work Practice. doi:10.1177/1049731514543665

19.

Finkelhor

Ormrod

R. K.

Turner

H. A.

(2007). Poly-victimization: A neglected component in child victimization. Child Abuse & Neglect, 31, 7–26.

20.

Guille

(2004). Men who batter and their children: An integrated review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9, 129–163.

21.

Hampton

Gelles

Harrop

(1989). Is violence in Black families increasing? A comparison of 1975 and 1985 national survey rates. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 51, 969–980.

22.

Herrenkohl

T. I.

Sousa

Tajima

E. A.

Herrenkohl

R. C.

Moylan

C. A.

(2008). Intersection of child abuse and children’s exposure to domestic violence. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 9, 84–99. doi:10.1177/1524838008314797

23.

Hill

S. A.

(2001). Class, race, and gender dimensions of child rearing in African American families. Journal of Black Studies, 31, 494–508.

24.

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.

25.

Holt

Buckley

Whelan

(2008). The impact of exposure to domestic violence on children and young people: A review of the literature. Child Abuse & Neglect, 32, 797–810.

26.

Jones

A. S.

D’Agostino

R. B.

Gondolf

E. W.

Heckert

(2004). Assessing the effect of batterer program completion on reassault using propensity scores. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 1002–1020.

27.

Kaufman

K. G.

Jasinski

Aldarondo

(1994). Sociocultural status and incidence of marital violence in hispanic families. Violence and Victims, 9, 207–222.

28.

Kitzmann

K. M.

Gaylord

N. K.

Holt

A. R.

Kenny

E. D.

(2003). Child witnesses to domestic violence: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71, 339–352.

29.

Levendosky

A. A.

Graham-Bermann

S. A.

(2001). Parenting in battered women: The effects of domestic violence on women and their children. Journal of Family Violence, 16, 171–192.

30.

Margolin

Gordis

E. B.

(2003). Co-occurrence between marital aggression and parents’ child abuse potential: The impact of cumulative stress. Violence and Victims, 18, 243–258.

31.

Markowitz

F. E.

(2001). Attitudes and family violence: Linking intergenerational and cultural theories. Journal of Family Violence, 16, 205–218.

32.

Meyers

S. A.

Battistoni

(2003). Proximal and distal correlates of adolescent mothers’ parenting attitudes. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 24, 33–49.

33.

Peled

(2000). Parenting by men who abuse women: Issues and dilemmas. British Journal of Social Work, 30, 25–36.

34.

Renner

L. M.

Slack

K. S.

(2006). Intimate partner violence and child maltreatment: Understanding intra-and intergenerational connections. Child Abuse & Neglect, 30, 599–617.

35.

Ross

S. M.

(1996). Risk of physical abuse to children of spouse abusing parents. Child Abuse & Neglect, 20, 589–598.

36.

Scott

K. L.

Crooks

C. V.

(2004). Effecting change in maltreating fathers: Critical principles for intervention planning. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 11, 95–111.

37.

Simmons

C. A.

Lehmann

Dia

D. A.

(2009). Parenting and women arrested for intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28, 1429–1448. doi:10.1177/0886260509346064

38.

Slep

A. M. S.

O’leary

S. G.

(2005). Parent and partner violence in families with young children: Rates, patterns, and connections. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 435.

39.

Straus

(1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The conflict tactics scales. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41, 75–88.

40.

Straus

(1997). Manual for the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS). Durham, NH: University of New Hampshire.

41.

Straus

M. A.

Gelles

R. J.

Smith

(1990). Physical violence in American families: Risk factors and adaptations to violence in 8,145 families (pp. 29–47). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

42.

Straus

M. A.

Hamby

S. L.

Boney-McCoy

Sugarman

D. B.

(1996). The revised conflict tactics scales: Development and preliminary psychometric data (CTS2). Journal of Family Issues, 17, 283–316.

43.

Sturge-Apple

Skibo

Davies

(2012). Impact of parental conflict and emotional abuse on children and families. Partner Abuse, 3, 379–400.

44.

Swan

S. C.

Snow

D. L.

(2006). The development of a theory of women’s use of violence in intimate relationships. Violence Against Women, 12, 1026–1045.

45.

Taylor

C. A.

Guterman

N. B.

Lee

S. J.

Rathouz

P. J.

(2009). Intimate partner violence, maternal stress, nativity, and risk for maternal maltreatment of young children. American Journal of Public Health, 99, 175–183.

46.

Taylor

C. A.

Hamvas

Paris

(2011). Perceived instrumentality and normativeness of corporal punishment use among black mothers. Family relations, 60, 60–72.

47.

Taylor

C. A.

Hamvas

Rice

Newman

D. L.

DeJong

(2011). Perceived social norms, expectations, and attitudes toward corporal punishment among an urban community sample of parents. Journal of Urban Health, 88, 254–269.

48.

Taylor

C. A.

Lee

S. J.

Guterman

N. B.

Rice

J. C.

(2010). Use of spanking for 3-year-old children and associated intimate partner aggression or violence. Pediatrics, 126, 415–424.

49.

Taylor

C. A.

Manganello

J. A.

Lee

S. J.

Rice

J. C.

(2010). Mothers’ spanking of 3-year-old children and subsequent risk of children’s aggressive behavior. Pediatrics, 125, e1057–e1065.

50.

Wolfe

D. A.

Crooks

C. V.

Lee

McIntyre-Smith

Jaffe

P. G.

(2003). The effects of children’s exposure to domestic violence: A meta-analysis and critique. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 6, 171–187.

51.

Wooldredge

Thistlethwaite

(2002). Reconsidering domestic violence recidivism: Conditioned effects of legal controls by individual and aggregate levels of stake in conformity. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 18, 45–70.

	Program Participants (N = 111)
Characteristic	Completers	Dropouts	Total
Characteristic	% (n)	% (n)	% (N)
			100 (111)
Client Status	75.7 (84)	24.3 (27)
Race
Caucasian	53.9 (45)	44.4 (12)	51.3 (57)
African American	41.7 (35)	48.1 (13)	43.2 (48)
Other	4.8 (4)	7.4 (2)	5.4 (6)
Age	37.25 (84)	31.33 (27)	35.81 (111)
SD	11.44	7.71	10.93
Relationship status
Single	32.1 (27)	44.4 (12)	35.1 (39)
Married	38.1 (32)	29.6 (8)	36 (40)
Unmarried partners	8.8 (5)	14.8 (4)	10.8 (12)
Divorced	7.1 (6)	3.7 (1)	6.3 (7)
Separated	13.1 (11)	7.4 (2)	11.7 (13)
Children
0	20.2 (17)	22.2 (6)	20.7 (23)
1	29.8 (25)	22.2 (6)	27.9 (31)
2	17.9 (15)	18.5 (5)	18 (20)
3	17.9 (15)	18.5 (5)	18 (20)
4	9.5 (8)	14.8 (4)	10.8 (12)
5	3.6 (3)	3.7 (1)	3.6 (4)
11	1.2 (1)	—	.9 (1)
Education level
<High school	26.2 (22)	48.1 (13)	31.5 (35)
High school graduate	32.1 (27)	40.7 (11)	34.2 (38)
Some college	25.0 (21)	7.4 (2)	20.7 (23)
Grad college	16.7 (14)	3.7 (1)	13.5 (15)
Employed
Yes	76.2 (64)	66.7 (18)	73.9 (82)
No	23.8 (20)	33.3 (9)	26.1 (29)
Military
Yes	17.9 (15)	7.4 (2)	15.3 (17)
No	82.1 (69)	92.6 (25)	84.7 (94)
Referral status
CDV CT	17.9 (15)	25.9 (7)	19.8 (22)
Regular court	36.9 (31)	51.9 (14)	40.5 (45)
PTI	29.8 (25)	11.1 (3)	25.2 (28)
PPP	3.6 (3)	3.7 (1)	3.6 (4)
DSS	—	7.4 (2)	1.8 (2)
Other	11.9 (10)	—	9 (10)
AAPI-2 risk category
Low	3.6 (3)	—	2.7 (3)
Medium	56.0 (47)	51.9 (14)	55 (61)
High	40.4 (34)	48.1 (13)	42.3 (47)
CTS scores
Negotiation	22.28 (6.40)	21.7 (6.73)	22.13 (6.46)
Psychological	15.25 (9.76)	13.96 (10.0)	14.93 (9.79)
Aggression	3.56 (4.84)	5.40 (7.73)	4.02 (5.78)
Physical assault	2.06 (4.32)	2.88 (5.40)	2.26 (4.60)
Injury sexual coercion	.67 (2.99)	1.92 (6.65)	.99 (4.21)
CTS2 Total Score^a	21.56 (13.45)	24.18 (20.14)	22.22 (15.33)