Childhood Exposure to Partner Violence as a Moderator of Current Partner Violence and Negative Parenting

Abstract

This study examined the interactive effect of mothers’ exposure to caregiver intimate partner violence (IPV) during childhood and the amount of violence experienced with a current partner on negative parenting practices. Mothers (N = 119) were recruited from community sites serving individuals experiencing IPV. Findings indicated that the following childhood IPV exposure variables moderated the association between current IPV severity and negative parenting practices: total types of IPV witnessed (B = 0.01, t = 2.65, p < .01), witnessing sexual IPV (B = 0.02, t = 2.16, p < .05), and witnessing psychological IPV (B = 0.03, t = 2.79, p < .01). Results highlight the intergenerational effect of violence and the importance of addressing trauma across the family system.

Keywords

intergenerational violence cyclical IPV domestic violence

Nearly 60% of women in the United States experience intimate partner violence (IPV) in their lifetime, defined as psychological, physical, and/or sexual abuse between romantic partners (Black, Sussman, & Unger, 2010). IPV has been linked to poor physical health outcomes and high rates of psychological distress (Lagdon, Armour, & Stringer, 2014). Such negative effects are pronounced among women who are also parenting children amid this violence (Ahlfs-Dunn & Huth-Bocks, 2016). High rates of distress, coupled with a potentially chaotic home environment, may affect the parenting practices of women experiencing IPV (Greeson et al., 2014); however, previous research has demonstrated heterogeneous parenting practices in the context of IPV (Sturge-Apple, Davies, Cicchetti, & Manning, 2010; Tailor, Stewart-Tufescu, & Piotrowski, 2015). One factor that may influence the relationship between IPV and parenting is mothers’ own exposure to IPV during their childhood. Thus, the present study examined the interaction between mothers’ exposure to caregiver IPV during their childhood and the amount of violence experienced with a current partner on negative parenting practices (NPP).

NPP

Parenting may be the most important mechanism implicated in adjustment among children exposed to IPV (Mullender et al., 2002). Although parenting has been conceptualized in various ways (e.g., attitudes, styles, and practices; Darling & Steinberg, 1993), overt parental behaviors (i.e., practices) consistently predict a myriad of child outcomes (Prevatt, 2003). NPP (e.g., inconsistent discipline, poor child monitoring/supervision, and use of corporal punishment) have been predominantly associated with maladaptive child outcomes, such as disruptive and externalizing child behavior (Prevatt, 2003; Shelton, Frick, & Wootton, 1996). IPV may have a strong effect on physical, harsh, and aggressive parenting practices, and less of an effect on other benign or more positive parenting behaviors (e.g., Straus & Gelles, 1990). Thus, examining NPP among women experiencing IPV is particularly pertinent (Murray, Bair-Merritt, Roche, & Cheng, 2012), as their children may already be at-risk for a range of concerning outcomes (e.g., social difficulties and aggression; Ehrensaft, Knous-Westfall, & Cohen, 2016; Grip, Almqvist, Axberg, & Broberg, 2014; Holmes, Voith, & Gromoske, 2015).

IPV and Parenting

The predominant theoretical model implicated in interparental conflict and parenting is the spillover hypothesis, which purports that emotions and moods experienced within the parental relationship can transfer to the parent–child relationship (Sturge-Apple et al., 2010). In the context of IPV and NPP, “spillover” is evident when hostility, conflict, and contention between adult partners increase a parent’s propensity for harsh, controlling parenting behaviors, aggression, and corporal punishment (Cummings & Davies, 2002; Shep & O’Leary, 2005). In addition to hostility, IPV can lead a woman to feel detached, withdrawn, and apathetic toward her partner, feelings that can manifest in insensitive and disengaged parenting practices (Casanueva, Martin, Runyan, Barth, & Bradley, 2008; Gustafsson, Coffman, & Cox, 2015). Simultaneously, IPV can undermine a mother’s ability to parent responsively and consistently (Levendosky, Leahy, Bogat, Davidson, & von Eye, 2006; Sturge-Apple et al., 2010).

Consistent with this “spillover” theory, research investigating the relationship between IPV and parenting practices highlights the damaging effects of IPV on caregiving. Increasing severity of IPV is associated with increased hostility, disengagement, and harsh-intrusive parenting (Gustafsson, Cox, & Blair, 2012; Sturge-Apple et al., 2010). In addition, experiencing IPV is associated with engagement in physical punishment strategies, psychological and physical aggression, and neglectful disciplinary behaviors (Miranda, de la Osa, Granero, & Ezpeleta, 2013; Murray et al., 2012). These findings emphasize the direct, negative impact that experiencing IPV can have on mothers’ parenting practices and the importance of focusing on negative parenting in the context of this form of violence.

A small body of literature suggests that prior (Levendosky et al., 2006) and current (Dayton, Levendosky, Davidson, & Bogat, 2010) IPV exposure do not affect maternal parenting, even when mothers who experience IPV endorse higher stress than their counterparts from non-violent relationships (Tailor et al., 2015). These studies each recruited women from the community and divided them into groups based on IPV exposure. Because community samples typically endorse lower levels of IPV relative to service-seeking samples, it is possible that comparing women experiencing low and high levels of IPV would yield varying findings. One longitudinal study found that IPV severity predicted both authoritarian and authoritative parenting, and that authoritative parenting predicted fewer child behavior problems (Greeson et al., 2014). However, this study focused solely on physical IPV. Employing cluster analysis, Rossman and Rea (2005) provided supporting evidence for the great variability in parenting among IPV-exposed women, demonstrating that women sometimes employ a combination of parenting approaches as they strive to parent effectively amid challenges. Given the heterogeneity of parenting outcomes in the context of IPV, it is important to understand factors that lead some women to be more vulnerable to engaging in NPP in the midst of IPV.

Childhood IPV Exposure

Over 15 million U.S. children live in homes characterized by at least one incident of IPV in the past year (McDonald, Jouriles, Ramisetty-Mikler, Caetano, & Green, 2006). Thus, many women experiencing adulthood IPV also witnessed IPV in the household during their own childhood (La Flair, Bradshaw, Mendelson, & Campbell, 2015). Childhood IPV exposure likely affects these women via multiple pathways including direct consequences of witnessing IPV, harsh parenting styles characteristic of violent households, and maladaptive familial relationships observed within violent homes. Witnessing violence in the home places individuals at increased risk for a range of physical and mental health problems (Ehrensaft et al., 2016; Grip et al., 2014). Indeed, individuals exposed to IPV have challenges that predict subsequent difficulties within and across domains of functioning (Bull, Espy, & Wiebe, 2008; Holmes et al., 2015).

The adverse outcomes observed among some children exposed to IPV may reflect not only direct consequences of witnessing IPV but also the complex parenting and family environments often evident in homes where violence occurs. Caregivers experiencing IPV can sometimes be emotionally and physically distant from their children (Davies, Winter, & Cicchetti, 2006). According to emotional security theory (EST), lack of parental availability can threaten the child’s belief in their parents’ relationship stability and disrupt their sense of safety and agency (Davies et al., 2006; Grip et al., 2014). Enduring emotional security concerns can then interfere with children’s adaptive development across various domains (e.g., executive functioning, Gustafsson et al., 2015; quality of life, Grip et al., 2014). In addition, families affected by violence are often characterized by low support and a paucity of opportunities for adaptive conflict resolution (Lepisto, Luukkaala, & Paavilainen, 2011). Accordingly, these family-level factors amplify the risks for children who witness IPV, and thus may be important in the conceptualization of these children’s eventual parenting practices. To date, little research has explored the impact of childhood IPV exposure on future parenting. Thus, the current study conceptualizes childhood IPV exposure as a potent risk factor for future engagement in NPP.

Childhood IPV Exposure Subtypes

Researchers examining the impact of witnessing IPV during childhood have typically compared witnessers to non-witnessers, but the quality and quantity of the types of violence witnessed may uniquely affect child outcomes. Indeed, current research demonstrates a dose–response relationship between adversity exposure and worsening outcomes, such that the number of different types of childhood victimization one endures is positively correlated with long-term psychopathology (Finkelhor, Turner, Hamby, & Ormrod, 2011; Lang, Stein, Kennedy, & Foy, 2004). While understanding the additive effect of IPV exposure is valuable, the impact of witnessing discrete forms of IPV (i.e., physical vs. sexual vs. psychological) is equally important.

Children and adults are differentially affected by various types of violence (Lang et al., 2004). For example, some studies have indicated that witnessing physical IPV negatively affects children more than witnessing verbal IPV (Kitzmann, Gaylord, Holt, & Kenny, 2003). However, more recent research has demonstrated that psychological IPV negatively affects victims’ health, sometimes even more strongly than physical IPV (Dichter, Marcus, Wagner, & Bonomi, 2014). The effect of witnessing sexual IPV has been understudied, relative to other forms of violence, though existing literature suggests that sexual IPV is associated with negative child outcomes (e.g., disruptive behavior) in ways that are comparable to other forms of IPV (Spiller, Jouriles, McDonald, & Skopp, 2012). Finally, young adults who witnessed physical or psychological parental IPV showed higher levels of the same-type violence they witnessed in their own relationships (Black et al., 2010). The simultaneous examination of the ways in which witnessing different types of IPV affects parenting remains unknown.

Compounding Effects of Childhood IPV Exposure and Adulthood IPV

While witnessing IPV during childhood and experiencing IPV during adulthood can be uniquely and independently traumatic, they may have a synthesizing effect that affects women more severely than either event alone. This compounding effect warrants examination, given (a) findings that childhood IPV exposure increases risk for adulthood IPV (La Flair et al., 2015), (b) the importance of examining intergenerational violence exposure (Kennedy, Bybee, Kulkarni, & Archer, 2012), and (c) theoretical support for lifespan stress models that recognize how childhood violence can initiate trauma reactions into adulthood (Banyard, Williams, & Siegel, 2001). According to proponents of a life-course approach, examining childhood violence exposure in conjunction with adulthood violence exposure may facilitate a better understanding of the consequences of violence (Becker, Stuewig, & McCloskey, 2010). Despite the need for such research, few studies have examined the joint impact of childhood IPV exposure and adulthood IPV experiences.

Such research is critical in the context of parenting, given that women who witness IPV during childhood, experience IPV during adulthood, and their parenting may be inundated with maladaptive cognitions, emotions, and behavioral reactions originating from their childhood IPV exposure. Indeed, for many women with a childhood trauma history, subsequent life stressors can trigger maladaptive emotional and behavioral patterns (De Bellis, 2001). Therefore, among women who witnessed IPV early in life, current IPV may reactivate the insecurities, mistrust, and negative emotionality they may experience during childhood. According to spillover theory, such harsh emotions may then be transferred into interactions with and representations of their children, potentially negatively affecting the mother–child relationship (Lepisto et al., 2011; Shep & O’Leary, 2005) and perpetuating a cycle of violence. In sum, research suggests that adulthood IPV exposure may have stronger associations with NPP among women who witnessed IPV during childhood relative to women without such a history. Examining childhood IPV exposure as a moderator of the association between adulthood IPV and NPP will allow for exploration of this premise.

Current Study

Existing research suggests that parenting practices may be independently affected by current levels of adulthood IPV severity and prior childhood IPV exposure. However, researchers have not yet examined how these experiences interact to influence engagement in NPP (i.e., corporal punishment, inconsistent discipline, and poor monitoring). It is hypothesized, therefore, that (a) current adulthood IPV severity will be positively associated with NPP, given that the majority of studies highlight the negative impact of IPV on parenting, and (b) the relationship between adulthood IPV severity and NPP will be stronger among women who endorse witnessing more types of IPV during childhood. Given limited existing research on the unique impact of each type of childhood IPV exposure, a priori hypotheses regarding the moderating effect of physical versus sexual versus psychological IPV are not warranted.

The current study controls for the potential influence of demographic factors, as research indicates that older women may have more adaptive parenting practices (Fox, Platz, & Bentley, 1995) and mothers may parent children differently based on child’s age (Frick, Christian, & Wooton, 1999) and child’s sex (Leaper, 2002). Finally, socioeconomic status may influence women’s parenting practices, as having a higher income has been associated with less negative parenting (Hoff, Laursen, & Tardif, 2002). As such, these demographic factors were evaluated as potential covariates.

Method

Participants

Participants included 119 mothers (M_age = 32.78, SD = 6.78, range = 22-49) recruited from community organizations serving individuals experiencing IPV in the Midsouth, United States. The sample comprised Black (67.2%), Multiracial (14.3%), White (13.4%), Latina (4.3%), and “Other” race (1.6%) women. Most participants’ annual household income fell below the poverty line, as 56.4% of women reported earning a total of US$15,000 or less per year. Children ranged in age from 6-14 (M_age = 10.02, SD = 2.71) years and 96.6% of women were the biological parent of the child.

Procedures

Following institutional review board (IRB) approval, women were recruited from community organizations serving individuals experiencing IPV in the US Midsouth via flyers, invitations from study staff located at the partner sites, or participating agency staff referral. Participants were eligible if they were English speaking, aged 18 years or older, had a child between 6 and 14 years of age, were the primary female caretaker of said child, and endorsed experiencing IPV in the last 6 months (i.e., responded “Yes” to the question, “Have you experienced violence with a partner in the last 6 months?”). Over the course of 19 months, approximately 170 female caregivers were approached for study participation, and of these, 69% agreed to participate. Typical reasons for not participating included the following: lack of time, emotional distress, or discomfort with the study topic. Participants completed questionnaires about their oldest child within the specified age range. Eligible and interested women provided consent and completed self-report questionnaires that were read aloud by trained study staff, with responses recorded verbatim. Upon completion of the questionnaires, participants received a list of affordable mental health resources, contact information for the lead investigators, and a gift card (US$20) as compensation for their time.

Measures

Demographics

A demographics questionnaire was administered to each participant to ascertain maternal age, child age, child sex, and total household income.

Adulthood IPV severity

The Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2; Straus, 1979; Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996) is a 39-item self-report measure assessing IPV severity and frequency. The current study assessed IPV over the past 6 months using a 7-point Likert-type scale comprising the following options: 0 (never occurred), 1 (occurred once), 2 (occurred twice), 3 (occurred 3-5 times), 4 (occurred 6-10 times), 5 (occurred 11-20 times), and 6 (occurred more than 20 times). Consistent with standard procedures, items from the Physical Assault, Psychological Aggression, Injury, and Sexual Coercion subscales were summed to create a total score. The CTS2 has shown good internal consistency (α = .79-.95) and adequate construct and discriminant validity (Straus et al., 1996). Reliability for the current sample was excellent at .95.

Childhood IPV exposure

The History of Childhood Exposure to IPV measure is a 4-item scale adapted from the CTS2 (Straus et al., 1996). Participants were asked, “As a child, did you ever witness violence in the home between your parents or between one of your parents and their partner?” and responded “Yes” or “No.” Participants who endorsed witnessing IPV were asked to indicate which types of IPV they witnessed: physical (e.g., punching, hitting, throwing objects), sexual (e.g., forcing sexual acts, sexual threats), or psychological (e.g., yelling, threatening). A total witnessed violence score was created by summing the number of different types of violence that participants had witnessed during childhood, ranging from 0 (witnessed no types of IPV) to 3 (witnessed physical, sexual, and psychological IPV).

NPP

The Alabama Parenting Questionnaire (APQ; Frick, 1991) is a 42-item measure that assesses NPP. The current study examined the three subscales evaluating NPP: Poor Monitoring/Supervision, Inconsistent Discipline, and Corporal Punishment. Participants rated the frequency of each item on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always). Summing Poor Monitoring, Inconsistent Discipline, and Corporal Punishment scores yielded a total NPP score, with higher scores indicating greater frequency of NPP. The original APQ validation study was conducted in a sample of 6- to 13-year-olds (Frick, 1991), and subsequent research has found the APQ to be a useful measure of parenting for children aged 4 (Dadds, Maujean, & Fraser, 2003) to 14 (Essau, Sasagawa, & Frick, 2006). The APQ has good internal consistency (Dadds et al., 2003) and adequate criterion validity in differentiating clinical and nonclinical groups (Frick et al., 1999). Reliability for the current sample was .76.

Data Analytic Strategy

Analyses were conducted in SPSS v.24. First, correlations were used to examine the relationship between adulthood IPV severity and NPP. Second, PROCESS was used to test the moderated effect of mothers’ childhood IPV exposure on the relationship between adulthood IPV severity and NPP. PROCESS (Hayes, 2013) is an SPSS add-on that utilizes a regression-based path analytic framework and ordinary least-squares to estimate moderation models (Hayes, 2013). Before running the moderation analyses, the association between the outcome variable (NPP) and possible covariates was examined (i.e., maternal age, child age, child sex, and household income). Only annual household income (B = −0.21, p < .05) was significantly related to NPP and was therefore retained in subsequent analyses, as a covariate. Four separate models were then tested to evaluate the moderating role of each of the four moderators including the following: (a) total types of IPV witnessed as a child (continuous), (b) witnessed physical IPV (yes/no), (c) witnessed sexual IPV (yes/no), and (d) witnessed psychological IPV (yes/no). All continuous variables were mean centered.

Results

All participants endorsed IPV victimization in the past 6 months, reporting an average of 179.35 (SD = 143.37) victimization incidents during that timeframe. This high incidence of violence is consistent with existing studies of mothers experiencing recent IPV (e.g., Galano, Grogan-Kaylor, Clark, Liendo, & Graham-Bermann, 2016). Furthermore, this study was conducted with a help-seeking sample, and because many individuals seek help during a time of crisis, violence exposure may be heightened at this juncture. About half of the sample (48.5%) reported witnessing IPV during childhood, with 41.7% witnessing physical IPV, 42.4% witnessing psychological IPV, and 9.8% witnessing sexual IPV. See Table 1 for descriptive statistics and correlations among study variables.

Table 1.

Ms, SDs, and Correlations of Proposed Model Variables.

	APQ neg.	Mom age	Child age	Child sex	Income	CTS2	IPV types	Witness physical	Witness sexual	Witness psychological
1	32.98 (7.33)	.05	.13	−.06	−.21*	.08	.14	.08	.08	.18
2		32.57 (6.65)	.43**	.04	.14	−.10	.07	.00	.12	.07
3			10.10 (2.75)	−.04	−.10	−.01	.15	.09	.14	.16
4				1.52 (0.50)	.02	−.20*	.06	.06	−.01	.09
5					3.40 (2.04)	−.10	−.15	−.18*	−.14	−.06
6						179.35 (143.37)	−.02	−.07	.08	−.04
7							0.95 (1.08)	.90**	.63**	.90**
8									.39**	.73**
9									0.10 (0.30)	.38**
10										0.43 (0.50)

Note. Diagonal of table provides means (standard deviations). APQ Neg. = Alabama Parenting Questionnaire–Negative Parenting Practices Total Score; CTS2 = Revised Conflict Tactics Scale; IPV types = history of childhood exposure to intimate partner violence measure summed total score.

*p < .05. **p < .001.

The first hypothesis, that higher levels of adulthood IPV would be associated with higher levels of NPP, was not supported based on a nonsignificant correlation (p > .05). Despite the absence of significant main effects, however, moderation analyses can still be used to investigate interaction effects (Hayes, 2013). Thus, we continued to test the second hypothesis.

The second hypothesis stated that the relationship between adulthood IPV severity and NPP will be stronger among women who endorse witnessing more types of IPV during childhood. In these analyses, adulthood IPV severity was the independent variable, NPP was the dependent variable, and a sum score of childhood exposure to physical, sexual, and/or psychological IPV was the moderator. Household income was included as a covariate. In these analyses, both the overall model, F(4, 114) = 3.41, p < .05, R² = .10, and the interaction between adulthood IPV severity and childhood IPV exposure, B = 0.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) = [0.003, 0.016], t = 2.65, p < .01, were significant (see Table 2). The conditional effect of adulthood IPV on NPP at differing levels of childhood IPV exposure revealed a significant relationship only among women who had witnessed the most types of IPV as a child, B = 0.01, 95% CI = [0.001, 0.026], t = 2.13, p < .05 (see Table 2 and Figure 1a).

Table 2.

Models With IPV Witnessed During Childhood as Moderators of the Relationship Between Adulthood IPV Severity and Negative Parenting Practices, With Household Income as a Covariate.

Variable	B	SE	t-value	p-value	LLCI	ULCI
Cumulative types of IPV witnessed during childhood
Adulthood IPV severity	0.00	0.01	0.55	.58	−0.008	0.014
IPV witnessed as a child	0.57	0.56	1.02	.31	−0.539	1.682
Recent IPV × childhood IPV	0.01	<0.07	2.78	<.01	0.003	0.016
Household income	−0.76	0.33	−2.32	<.05	−1.406	−0.111
Level of IPV witnessed
Low (Z = −0.94)	−0.01	0.01	−0.83	.41	−0.019	0.008
Average (Z = 0.00)	0.00	0.01	0.55	.58	−0.008	0.014
High (Z = 1.09)	0.01	0.01	2.13	<.05	0.001	0.026
Witnessing sexual IPV during childhood
Adulthood IPV severity	0.00	0.01	0.22	.82	−0.011	0.014
Sexual IPV witnessed as a child	0.34	2.18	0.16	.88	−3.969	4.652
Recent IPV × witnessed sexual IPV	0.02	0.01	2.16	<.05	0.002	0.046
Household income	−0.81	0.33	−2.46	<.05	−1.458	−0.157
Witnessed sexual IPV
No (Z = −0.10)	0.00	0.01	−0.15	.88	−0.015	0.013
Yes (Z = 0.90)	0.02	0.01	2.66	<.01	0.006	0.040
Witnessing psychological IPV during childhood
Adulthood IPV severity	0.00	0.01	0.84	.41	−0.006	0.015
Psychological IPV witnessed as a child	2.25	1.32	1.71	.09	−0.358	4.854
Recent IPV × witnessed psychological IPV	0.03	0.01	2.79	<.01	0.009	0.055
Household income	−0.73	0.31	−2.33	<.05	−1.343	−0.108
Witnessed psychological IPV
No (Z = −0.43)	−0.01	0.01	−1.54	.13	−0.021	0.003
Yes (Z = 0.57)	0.02	0.01	2.35	<.05	0.004	0.042
Witnessing physical IPV during childhood
Adulthood IPV severity	0.00	0.01	0.22	.82	−0.010	0.016
Physical IPV witnessed as a child	0.34	2.18	0.16	.88	−1.951	3.654
Recent IPV × witnessed physical IPV	0.02	0.01	2.16	<.05	−0.017	0.036
Household income	−0.81	0.33	−2.46	<.05	−1.454	−0.078

Note. LLCI = lower level confidence interval; ULCI = upper level confidence interval; IPV = intimate partner violence.

Figure 1.

Graphs illustrating the interaction between childhood IPV exposure and adulthood IPV severity on negative parenting practices.

Finally, we explored the moderating effect of each type of childhood IPV exposure on the relationship between adulthood IPV severity and NPP using three moderation analyses (one for each type of witnessed IPV). Adulthood IPV severity was the independent variable, NPP was the dependent variable, and witnessing psychological versus physical versus sexual IPV were the moderators in three separate analyses with household income as a covariate in all models.

In the sexual IPV moderation, the relationship between adulthood IPV severity and NPP was moderated by childhood exposure to sexual IPV. Both the overall model, F(4, 114) = 3.12, p < .05, R² = .08, and the interaction term, B = 0.02, 95% CI = [0.002, 0.046], t = 2.16, p < .05, were significant (see Table 2). The conditional effect of adulthood IPV on NPP revealed a significant relationship between recent IPV and NPP only among mothers who were exposed to childhood sexual IPV, B = 0.02, 95% CI = [0.006, 0.040], t = 2.66, p < .01 (see Table 2 and Figure 1b).

In the psychological IPV moderation, the relationship between adulthood IPV severity and NPP was moderated by childhood exposure to psychological IPV. Both the overall model, F(4, 114) = 3.12, p < .05, R² = .16, and the interaction term, B = 0.03, 95% CI = [0.009, 0.055], t = 2.79, p < .01, were significant (see Table 2). The conditional effect of adulthood IPV on NPP revealed a significant relationship between recent IPV and NPP only among mothers who were exposed to childhood psychological IPV, B = 0.02. 95% CI = [0.004, 0.042], t = 2.35, p < .05 (see Table 2 and Figure 1c). In the physical IPV moderation, the relationship between adulthood IPV severity and NPP was not significantly moderated by childhood exposure to physical IPV (see Table 2).

Discussion

The current study examined the relationship between adulthood IPV severity and NPP among mothers of school-aged children. We explored whether childhood IPV exposure in these mothers moderated the association between adulthood IPV and NPP. Existing literature has yielded inconclusive findings regarding the relationship between adulthood IPV severity and maternal parenting practices. The current study elucidated previous mixed results by highlighting the impact of an understudied factor—childhood IPV exposure. The study adds unique value to the literature by examining the cumulative effect of types of witnessed childhood IPV, as well as the discrete effect of each type of IPV witnessed, on the relationship between adulthood IPV and NPP.

Contrary to the first hypothesis, the relationship between recent IPV and NPP was not significant. However, this unexpected finding does align with a body of recent literature suggesting that IPV does not, in and of itself, negatively affect parenting (Dayton et al., 2010; Greeson et al., 2014; Tailor et al., 2015). Findings from these studies indicated that rather than allowing negative emotions to spillover to the mother–child relationship, some women may actively employ techniques to prevent current distress from influencing their parenting practices. Another plausible explanation is that women may work to compensate for a violent home setting and attempt to provide a more stable environment for their children by engaging in healthy parenting techniques (Casanueva et al., 2008; Tailor et al., 2015). These possible explanations suggest that mothers may have very different responses to experiencing IPV (i.e., coping vs. compensating), which can have important effects on parenting behaviors. These findings, while unexpected, are not inconceivable given that individuals exposed to adversity may also exhibit strengths (Howell, Thurston, Schwartz, Jamison, & Hasselle, 2018), which could then counterbalance the negative effects of their individual experiences with violence on future generations.

With regard to the role of childhood IPV exposure, a number of significant moderation results emerged. These moderations highlighted the interactive effect of witnessing IPV during childhood and experiencing IPV during adulthood. Specifically, among women who endorsed witnessing all types of IPV during their childhood, witnessing psychological IPV, and witnessing sexual IPV, there was a significant, positive relationship between adulthood IPV severity and engagement in NPP. These findings support the second hypothesis and suggest that the compounding effect of exposure to multiple interpersonal traumas, across multiple relationships over the lifespan, compromises women’s parenting. These results align with previous literature demonstrating the compounding, detrimental, impact of violence exposure during childhood and IPV experiences in adulthood (Levendosky, Huth-Bocks, Shapiro, & Semel, 2003; Miranda et al., 2013). Results also break new ground on a previously under-researched area by examining the effect of the quality of childhood IPV exposure. Exposure to different types of IPV at various times in one’s life appears to have a unique effect on parenting styles and the parent–child relationship. Although these findings were significant and in the expected direction, the effect sizes were small. Thus, results should be viewed as preliminary and exploratory, requiring replication in a larger sample.

Findings from the current study align with theories suggesting that childhood IPV exposure places women at elevated risk for maladaptive relationship patterns (e.g., Grip et al., 2014; Gustafsson et al., 2015). Among women exposed to IPV during childhood, experiencing adulthood IPV likely reactivates negative self- and interpersonal-schemas, or triggers maladaptive emotional and behavioral patterns (De Bellis, 2001; Pynoos, Steinberg, & Piacentini, 1999). As a result, amid adulthood IPV experiences, women who were exposed to childhood IPV may display higher levels of negative emotionality and behavior toward their children, compared to women without a history of childhood IPV exposure. In other words, the results provide preliminary support for the theory that mothers exposed to childhood and adulthood IPV are likely to exhibit more negative effects of spillover into their parenting interactions. However, given that the current study did not examine the contributions of protective factors, it would be important to take strengths into account in future research to determine the different ways positive and negative factors synergistically interact to affect parenting. Such an approach could provide a more balanced perspective on both risk and resilience among women exposed to intergenerational violence (Thurston & Howell, 2018).

The finding that the relationship between adulthood IPV and NPP was significant among individuals endorsing cumulative IPV exposure during childhood aligns with research demonstrating that multiple forms of childhood adversity predict more negative outcomes (Finkelhor et al., 2011; Lang et al., 2004). Similarly, findings that the association between adulthood IPV severity and NPP was significant among women who endorsed childhood psychological and sexual IPV exposure are consistent with literature highlighting the damaging effect of psychological (Dichter et al., 2014) and sexual (Spiller et al., 2012) trauma. However, given prior literature demonstrating the detrimental effect of witnessing physical IPV (Kitzmann et al., 2003), the lack of a relationship in our study was unexpected. These null findings are worthy of exploration in future research, possibly by including a more detailed assessment of the unique characteristics of the different forms of violence that lead some to be more impactful than others.

Clinical Implications

The present study highlights the utility of tailoring interventions for women and children exposed to IPV, as cumulative exposure to IPV at different points across the lifespan may have differential effects on parenting. The finding that adulthood IPV is not singularly associated with NPP suggests that some women may employ coping strategies or compensating techniques to minimize their use of NPP, even in the midst of adversity. Thus, strategies that target self-awareness, parent–child communication, and positive child engagement could be emphasized in family-based interventions. Given that negative parenting was activated in the context of adulthood IPV and childhood IPV exposure, interventions for mothers may be less effective when targeting negative parenting in isolation. Rather, it may be more beneficial to assess other aspects of mothers’ history of violence across the life course to utilize a family systems orientation for case conceptualization and treatment planning. Outside of these more nuanced findings, income consistently emerged as a predictor of negative parenting. Thus, there is a need to disseminate strengths-based parenting interventions to mothers with fewer economic resources.

Limitations

Our cross-sectional design prevents exploration of the effect of IPV experiences on parenting practices over time. In addition, participants’ retrospective report of childhood violence may be inaccurate due to recall bias. However, retrospective recall is not an uncommon technique in studies examining childhood adversity (Fergusson, Horwood, & Boden, 2011; Scott et al., 2011). Another potential limitation is the reliance on self-report to evaluate NPP. Mothers’ perceptions of their parenting may differ from observational or multi-informant assessments, such that self-report may not fully capture the extent of engagement in these practices. Finally, the focus on women precludes generalizability to fathers’ parenting practices. While women are neither the sole victims of abuse nor the sole providers for children, the present study focused on women because they are more likely to experience IPV (Heron, 2009), to suffer psychological consequences of IPV (Ehrensaft et al., 2016), and to be the primary caregivers of their children (Hazen, Connelly, Kelleher, Landsverk, & Barth, 2004).

Future Directions

Future research should examine the long-term impact of IPV experiences on parenting practices. Given inconsistencies in this relationship, future studies should also evaluate explanatory variables that further elucidate this relationship, beyond childhood IPV exposure. Given that childhood IPV exposure often co-occurs with child maltreatment, which can also negatively affect future parenting practices, future studies should assess child maltreatment to better understand how adverse familial childhood experiences interact with adulthood IPV to affect parenting behaviors. A longitudinal research design would facilitate identification of mechanisms (e.g., coping techniques) that mediate the relation between IPV and parenting practices, providing greater insight into specific targets for family systems interventions. Future longitudinal research could also explore prospective adult outcomes among children who have recently been exposed to parental IPV.

Conclusion

The present study contributes meaningfully to the existing literature on the relationship between IPV and parenting across the life course. This study explored nuances in violence and its impact on NPP among mothers experiencing IPV. That the interaction of recent adulthood IPV and childhood IPV exposure was significantly associated with NPP suggests that women who have faced such adversities are at higher risk for engaging in problematic parenting behaviors. Clinically, both assessment and intervention efforts should attempt to disentangle these distinctions, particularly when working with underserved women who have experienced adversity.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by institutional grants including the University of Memphis Faculty Research Grant Fund (PI: Howell) and the University of Memphis Diversity Research Grant (PI: Thurston). This support does not necessarily imply endorsement by the University of Memphis of the study’s research conclusions. Authors’ effort on this study was also funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development R15HD089410 (PI: Howell).

Author Biographies

Amanda J. Hasselle, MS, is a Clinical Psychology doctoral student at the University of Memphis. Through her research, Ms. Hasselle strives to understand modifiable risk and protective factors among families exposed to adversity. She is particularly interested in examining coping strategies that promote resilience and reduce psychopathology in the midst of trauma. Through her research program, Ms. Hasselle hopes to promote equity by reaching traditionally underserved populations through meaningful community partnerships. She currently serves as Diversity Officer for the APA Division 37 Section on Child Maltreatment, and the Promotion and Social Media Deputy for the ISTSS Annual Meeting Organizing Committee.

Kathryn H. Howell, PhD, is an associate professor in the Department of Psychology at the University of Memphis. She received her doctoral degree from the University of Michigan Clinical Psychology program and completed a postdoctoral fellowship at the University of Michigan Medical School. Dr. Howell has extensively studied interventions for women and children who have experienced violence and other adversities, including the examination of risk and resilience pathways. Her research on resilience examines individual, relational, and community factors contributing to adaptive functioning. Dr. Howell is a licensed psychologist with health service provider designation in the state of Tennessee.

Idia B. Thurston, PhD, is an assistant professor of psychology at the University of Memphis. She directs the CHANGE (Challenging Health disparities in Adolescents and Nurturing Global Empowerment) lab, where she leads undergraduate and graduate scholars in conducting health equity research, promoting social justice, and practicing cultural humility. Her research program is framed by an academic feminist lens and explores how intersectional identities of race/ethnicity, social class, gender, and sexuality influence health and well-being. Dr. Thurston is driven to develop culturally responsive assessments and interventions that reduce stigma and promote resilience in children, adolescents, and families via reciprocal community academic partnerships.

Rebecca C. Kamody, PhD, is a clinical psychology postdoctoral fellow at the Yale Child Study Center. Her research focuses on addressing health disparities in co-occurring mental and physical health disorders that disproportionately affect marginalized populations. A great deal of Dr. Kamody’s research involves understanding the impact of parent and family functioning on these outcomes in youth. She has presented her work at national and international conferences and published extensively on these topics. The overall goal of Dr. Kamody’s work is to identify the mechanisms affecting these complex presentations, including individual, familial/parenting, and systemic factors, to identify salient targets for intervention.

Candice B. Crossnine, BA, earned her Bachelor of Arts degree in psychology at the University of Memphis in 2018. She has worked as a research assistant in the Resilience Emerging Amidst Childhood Hardship (REACH) lab since 2015 under the supervision of Dr. Kathryn Howell. Ms. Crossnine aims to pursue graduate-level training to expand her understanding of the effects of trauma during childhood, as well as interventions for individuals exposed to trauma.

References

Ahlfs-Dunn

S. M.

Huth-Bocks

A. C.

(2016). Intimate partner violence involving children and the parenting role: Associations with maternal outcomes. Journal of Family Violence, 31, 387-399. doi:10.1007/s10896-015-9791-x

Banyard

V. L.

Williams

L. M.

Siegel

J. A.

(2001). The long-term mental health consequences of child sexual abuse: An exploratory study of the impact of multiple traumas in a sample of women. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 14, 697-715. doi:10.1023/A:1013085904337

Becker

K. D.

Stuewig

McCloskey

L. A.

(2010). Traumatic stress symptoms of women exposed to different forms of childhood victimization and intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 1699-1715.

Black

D. S.

Sussman

Unger

J. B.

(2010). A further look at the intergenerational transmission of violence: Witnessing interparental violence in emerging adulthood. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 1022-1042. doi:10.1177/0886260509340539

Bull

Espy

K. A.

Wiebe

S. A.

(2008). Short-term memory, working memory, and executive functioning in preschoolers: Longitudinal predictors of mathematical achievement at age 7 years. Developmental Neuropsychology, 33, 205-228. doi:10.1080/87565640801982312

Casanueva

C. E.

Martin

Runyan

Barth

Bradley

(2008). Quality of maternal parenting among intimate-partner violence victims involved with the child welfare system. Journal of Family Violence, 23, 413-427. doi:10.1007/s10896-008-9167-6

Cummings

E. M.

Davies

(2002). Effects of marital conflict on children: Recent advances and emerging themes in process-oriented research. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 43, 31-63. doi:10.1111/1469-7610.00003

Dadds

M. R.

Maujean

Fraser

J. A.

(2003). Parenting and conduct problems in children: Australian data and psychometric properties of the Alabama Parenting Questionnaire. Australian Psychologist, 38, 238-241. doi:10.1080/00050060310001707267

Darling

Steinberg

(1993). Parenting style as context: An integrative model. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 487-496. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.113.3.487

10.

Davies

P. T.

Winter

M. A.

Cicchetti

(2006). The implications of emotional security theory for understanding and treating childhood psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 18, 707-735. doi:10.1017/S0954579406060354

11.

Dayton

C. J.

Levendosky

A. A.

Davidson

W. S.

Bogat

G. A.

(2010). The child as held in the mind of the mother: The influence of prenatal maternal representations on parenting behaviors. Infant Mental Health Journal, 31, 220-241. doi:10.1002/imhj.20253

12.

De Bellis

M. D

. (2001). Developmental traumatology: The psychobiological development of maltreated children and its implications for research, treatment, and policy. Development and Psychopathology, 13, 539-564. doi:10.1017/S0954579401003078

13.

Dichter

M. E.

Marcus

S. C.

Wagner

Bonomi

A. E.

(2014). Associations between psychological, physical, and sexual intimate partner violence and health outcomes among women veteran VA patients. Social Work in Mental Health, 12, 411-428. doi:10.1080/15332985.2013.870104

14.

Ehrensaft

M. K.

Knous-Westfall

Cohen

(2016). Long-term influence of intimate partner violence and parenting practices on offspring trauma symptoms. Psychology of Violence, 7, 296-305. doi:10.1037/a0040168

15.

Essau

C. A.

Sasagawa

Frick

P. J.

(2006). Psychometric properties of the Alabama Parenting Questionnaire. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 15, 595-614. doi:10.1007/s10826-006-9036-y

16.

Fergusson

D. M.

Horwood

L. J.

Boden

J. M.

(2011). Structural equation modeling of repeated retrospective reports of childhood maltreatment. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 20, 93-104. doi:10.1002/mpr.337

17.

Finkelhor

Turner

Hamby

S. L.

Ormrod

(2011). Polyvictimization: Children’s exposure to multiple types of violence, crime, and abuse (National Survey of Children’s Exposure to Violence). Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/235504.pdf

18.

Fox

R. A.

Platz

D. L.

Bentley

K. S.

(1995). Maternal factors related to parenting practices, developmental expectations, and perceptions of child behavior problems. Journal of Genetic Psychology: Research and Theory on Human Development, 156, 431-441. doi:10.1080/00221325.1995.9914835

19.

Frick

P. J.

(1991). The Alabama parenting questionnaire (APQ). Unpublished rating scale, University of Alabama.

20.

Frick

P. J.

Christian

R. E.

Wooton

J. M.

(1999). Age trends in association between parenting practices and conduct problems. Behavior Modification, 23, 106-128. doi:10.1177/0145445599231005

21.

Galano

M. M.

Grogan-Kaylor

A. C.

Clark

H. M.

Liendo

N. M.

Graham-Bermann

S. A.

(2016). Conflict appraisals in a multiethnic sample of children exposed to intimate partner violence. Journal of Family Violence, 31, 655-665. doi:10.1007/s10896-016-9805-3

22.

Greeson

M. R.

Kennedy

A. C.

Bybee

D. I.

Beeble

Adams

A. E.

Sullivan

(2014). Beyond deficits: Intimate partner violence, maternal parenting, and child behavior over time. American Journal of Community Psychology, 54(1-2), 46-58. doi:10.1007/s10464-014-9658-y

23.

Grip

K. K.

Almqvist

Axberg

Broberg

A. G.

(2014). Perceived quality of life and health complaints in children exposed to intimate partner violence. Journal of Family Violence, 29, 681-692. doi:10.1007/s10896-014-9622-5

24.

Gustafsson

H. C.

Coffman

J. L.

Cox

M. J.

(2015). Intimate partner violence, maternal sensitive parenting behaviors, and children’s executive functioning. Psychology of Violence, 5, 266-274. doi:10.1037/a0037971

25.

Gustafsson

H. C.

Cox

M. J.

Blair

(2012). Maternal parenting as a mediator of the relationship between intimate partner violence and effortful control. Journal of Family Psychology, 26, 115-123. doi:10.1037/a0026283

26.

Hayes

A. F.

(2013). Methodology in the Social Sciences: Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press.

27.

Hazen

A. L.

Connelly

C. D.

Kelleher

Landsverk

Barth

(2004). Intimate partner violence among female caregivers of children reported for child maltreatment. Child Abuse & Neglect, 28, 301-319. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2003.09.016

28.

Heron

S. L.

(2009). Risk factors for victimization of intimate partner violence. In Mitchell

Anglin

(Eds.), Intimate partner violence: A health-based perspective (pp. 105-113). New York: Oxford University Press.

29.

Hoff

Laursen

Tardif

(2002). Socioeconomic status and parenting. In Bornstein

M. H.

(Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Vol. 2: Biology and ecology of parenting (2nd ed., pp. 231-252). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

30.

Holmes

M. R.

Voith

L. A.

Gromoske

A. N.

(2015). Lasting effect of intimate partner violence exposure during preschool on aggressive behavior and prosocial skills. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30, 1651-1670. doi:10.1177/0886260514552441

31.

Howell

K. H.

Thurston

I. B.

Schwartz

L. E.

Jamison

L. E.

Hasselle

A. J.

(2018). Protective factors associated with resilience in women exposed to intimate partner violence. Psychology of Violence, 8, 438-447.

32.

Kennedy

A. C.

Bybee

Kulkarni

S. J.

Archer

(2012). Sexual victimization and family violence among urban African American adolescent women: Do violence cluster profiles predict partner violence victimization and sex trade exposure? Violence Against Women, 18, 1319-1338. doi:10.1177/1077801212470544

33.

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. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.71.2.339

34.

La Flair

L. N.

Bradshaw

C. P.

Mendelson

Campbell

. (2015). Intimate partner violence and risk of psychiatric symptoms: The moderating role of attachment. Journal of Family Violence, 30, 567-577. doi:10.1007/s10896-015-9681-2

35.

Lagdon

Armour

Stringer

(2014). Adult experience of mental health outcomes as a result of intimate partner violence victimisation: A systematic review. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 5(1), 24794. doi:10.3402/ejpt.v5.24794

36.

Lang

A. J.

Stein

M. B.

Kennedy

C. M.

Foy

D. W.

(2004). Adult psychopathology and intimate partner violence among survivors of childhood maltreatment. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 1102-1118. doi:10.1177/0886260504269090

37.

Leaper

(2002). Parenting girls and boys. In Bornstein

M. H.

(Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Children and parenting (2nd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 189-225). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

38.

Lepisto

Luukkaala

Paavilainen

(2011). Witnessing and experiencing domestic violence: A descriptive study of adolescents. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 25, 70-80. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6712.2010.00792.x

39.

Levendosky

A. A.

Huth-Bocks

A. C.

Shapiro

D. L.

Semel

M. A.

(2003). The impact of domestic violence on the maternal-child relationship and preschool-age children’s functioning. Journal of Family Psychology, 17, 275-287. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.17.3.275

40.

Levendosky

A. A.

Leahy

K. L.

Bogat

G. A.

Davidson

W. S.

von Eye

(2006). Domestic violence, maternal parenting, maternal mental health, and infant externalizing behavior. Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 544-552. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.20.4.544

41.

McDonald

Jouriles

E. N.

Ramisetty-Mikler

Caetano

Green

C. E.

(2006). Estimating the number of American children living in partner-violent families. Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 137-142. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.20.1.137

42.

Miranda

J. K.

de la Osa

Granero

Ezpeleta

(2013). Multiple mediators of the relationships among maternal childhood abuse, intimate partner violence, and offspring psychopathology. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28, 2941-2965. doi:10.1177/0886260513488686

43.

Mullender

Hague

Imam

Kelly

Malos

Regan

(2002). Children’s perspectives on domestic violence. London, England: Sage.

44.

Murray

K. W.

Bair-Merritt

M. H.

Roche

Cheng

T. L.

(2012). The impact of intimate partner violence on mothers’ parenting practices for urban, low-income adolescents. Journal of Family Violence, 27, 573-583. doi:10.1007/s10896-012-9449-x

45.

Prevatt

F. F.

(2003). The contribution of parenting practices in a risk and resiliency model of children’s adjustment. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 21, 469-480. doi:10.1348/026151003322535174

46.

Pynoos

R. S.

Steinberg

A. M.

Piacentini

J. C.

(1999). A developmental psychopathology model of childhood traumatic stress and intersection with anxiety disorders. Biological Psychiatry, 46, 1542-1554. doi:10.1016/S0006-3223(99)00262-0

47.

Rossman

B. B. R.

Rea

J. G.

(2005). The relation of parenting styles and inconsistencies to adaptive functioning for children in conflictual and violent families. Journal of Family Violence, 20, 261-277. doi:10.1007/s10896-005-6603-8

48.

Scott

K. M.

Von Korff

Angermeyer

M. C.

Benjet

Bruffaerts

de Girolamo

, et al. (2011). Association of childhood adversities and early-onset mental disorders with adult-onset chronic physical conditions. Archives of General Psychiatry, 68, 838-844. doi:10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2011.77

49.

Shelton

K. K.

Frick

P. J.

Wootton

(1996). Assessment of parenting practices in families of elementary school-age children. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 25, 317-329. doi:10.1207/s15374424jccp2503_8

50.

Shep

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, 435-444. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.73.3.435

51.

Spiller

L. C.

Jouriles

E. N.

McDonald

Skopp

N. A.

(2012). Physically abused women’s experiences of sexual victimization and their children’s disruptive behavior problems. Psychology of Violence, 2, 401-410. doi:10.1037/a0028912

52.

Straus

M. A.

(1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The Conflict Tactics (CT) Scales. Journal of Marriage and Family, 41, 75-88. doi:10.2307/351733

53.

Straus

M. A.

Gelles

R. J.

(1990). Physical violence in 8145 families in American families: Risk factors and adaptations to violence. Family Relations, 39, 349-353. doi:10.2307/584883

54.

Straus

M. A.

Hamby

S. L.

Boney-McCoy

Sugarman

D. B.

(1996). The Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2). Journal of Family Issues, 17, 283-316. doi:10.1177/019251396017003001

55.

Sturge-Apple

M. L.

Davies

P. T.

Cicchetti

Manning

L. G.

(2010). Mother’s parenting practices as explanatory mechanisms in associations between interparental violence and child adjustment. Partner Abuse, 1, 45-60. doi:10.1891/1946-6560.1.1.45

56.

Tailor

Stewart-Tufescu

Piotrowski

(2015). Children exposed to intimate partner violence: Influences of parenting, family distress, and siblings. Journal of Family Psychology, 29, 29-38. doi:10.1037/a0038584

57.

Thurston

I. B.

Howell

K. H.

(2018). To screen or not to screen: Overreliance on risk without protective factors in violence research. Pediatrics, 141, e20180075.