Journal of Family Psychology 2014, Vol. 28, No. 6, 915-924

© 2014 American Psychological Association 0893-3200/14/$ 12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0037921

Children’s Appraisals of Conflict, Beliefs About Aggression, and Externalizing Problems in Families Characterized by Severe Intimate Partner Violence Ernest N. Jouriles, Nicole L. Vu, Renee McDonald, and David Rosenfield Southern Methodist University

This research examined whether children’s threat and self-blame appraisals regarding interparental conflict and their beliefs about the justifiability of aggression predicted children’s externalizing problems in families in which there had been recent severe intimate partner violence (IPV). Participants were 106 children (62 boys, 44 girls) aged 7 to 10 and their mothers. Families in which there had been recent severe IPV were recruited during their stay at a domestic violence shelter. Children completed measures of threat, self-blame, beliefs about the justifiability of aggression, and externalizing problems. Mothers completed a measure of children’s externalizing problems. Measures were completed at 3 time points, spaced 6 months apart. In multilevel modeling analyses, threat appraisals and beliefs about the justifi­ ability of aggression were positively associated with children’s reports of externalizing problems concurrently, and self-blame appraisals were positively associated with mothers’ reports of externalizing problems concurrently. In prospective analyses, beliefs about the justifiability of aggression at 1 time point were positively associated with children’s reports of externalizing problems 6 months later. The results provide partial support for the modified cognitive-contextual framework. Keywords: cognitive-contextual framework, threat, self-blame, justifiability of aggression, intimate partner violence

Millions of children in the United States live in households in which physical intimate partner violence (IPV) has occurred in the previous year (Finkelhor, Turner, Ormrod, & Hamby, 2009; Mc­ Donald, Jouriles, Ramisetty-Mikler, Caetano, & Green, 2006), and close to half of these children are exposed to acts of severe IPV, such as hits with a fist, kicks, beatings, or a parent being attacked with a knife or gun (McDonald et al., 2006). Children in violent families are more likely than children in nonviolent families to have externalizing problems, such as aggression and oppositional behavior (Kitzmann, Gaylord, Holt, & Kenny, 2003; Wolfe, Crooks, Lee, Mclntyre-Smith, & Jaffe, 2003), and this risk for externalizing problems is greater if severe violence has occurred (Jouriles et al., 1998). Externalizing problems during the childhood years are significant because early onset conduct problems predict a number of difficulties later in life, including criminal behavior, mental health problems, dating conflict and violence, parenting difficulties, school dropout, and substance abuse (Bradshaw, Schaeffer, Petras, & Ialongo, 2010; Fergusson, Horwood, & Ridder, 2005; Raudino, Woodward, Fergusson, & Horwood, 2012). Although the link between IPV and children’s externalizing prob-

lems is robust, some children exposed to IPV develop different types of adjustment difficulties or experience few or no problems (Grych, Jouriles, Swank, McDonald, & Norwood, 2000; Hungerford, Wait, Fritz, & Clements, 2012). Identifying the processes by which children’s externalizing problems emerge within violent families not only furthers our understanding of the development of such problems, but can help guide clinical practice with families characterized by IPV. Grych and Fincham’s (1990) original formulation of the cognitive-contextual framework describes how children’s apprais­ als of their parents’ conflict might predict children’s adjustment, with a focus on children’s internalizing problems. Specifically, those children who perceive interparental conflict as threatening (either to themselves or to the stability of their family) or who blame themselves for causing their parents’ conflict are posited to be at elevated risk for internalizing problems. Fosco, DeBoard, and Grych (2007) modified the original cognitive-contextual frame­ work to be more applicable to families in which there was IPV, and to apply more directly to children’s externalizing problems. For example, the sense of threat induced by IPV is theorized to lead to hypervigilance and heightened sensitivity to signs of anger and conflict (both inside and outside of the home), priming children to react aggressively to social provocation. In addition, self-blame for interparental conflict and violence is theorized to increase the likelihood that children will involve themselves in their parents’ conflicts. Such involvement can result in children’s externalizing problems through a variety of processes (Davis, Hops, Alpert, & Sheeber, 1998; Jouriles, Rosenfield, McDonald, & Mueller, 2014). The modified cognitive-contextual framework also considers an additional type of cognition— children’s beliefs about the justifl-

This article was published Online First September 15, 2014. Ernest N. Jouriles, Nicole L. Vu, Renee McDonald, and David Rosenfield, Department of Psychology, Southern Methodist University. This research was supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health R01 MH062064. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Ernest N. Jouriles, Department of Psychology, Southern Methodist University, P. O. Box 750442, Dallas, TX 75275-0442. E-mail: [email protected] 915

916

JOURILES, VU, MCDONALD, AND ROSENHELD

ability of aggression (Fosco et al., 2007). This addition is consis­ tent with social-cognitive theory on aggression (Bandura, 1986; Crick & Dodge, 1994; Huesmann, 1988), which suggests that the belief that aggression is justified increases the likelihood of ag­ gressive behavior. A number of investigators have found children’s threat and self-blame appraisals to be positively associated with children’s adjustment problems, albeit more consistently for internalizing problems than externalizing problems (Rhoades, 2008). It is note­ worthy that threat and self-blame appraisals have both predicted future externalizing problems (12 months later) in samples of adolescents recruited from the community (Buehler, Lange, & Franck, 2007; Grych, Harold, & Miles, 2003; Shelton & Harold, 2008). However, in longitudinal analyses examining change in externalizing problems over time, only self-blame appears to pre­ dict externalizing problems at future time points after controlling for externalizing problems at previous time points. Findings for threat appraisals are mixed, and indeed there is even some evi­ dence that elevated threat appraisals predict decreases in external­ izing problems at a future time point after controlling for exter­ nalizing problems at initial time points (Buehler et al., 2007).1 On the other hand, beliefs about the justifiability of aggression are consistently positively associated with children’s externalizing problems, both concurrently and prospectively, and predict in­ creases in children’s externalizing problems in prospective analy­ ses after controlling for externalizing problems at earlier time points (Farrell, Henry, Schoeny, Bettencourt, & Tolan, 2010; Orue et al., 2011). Notably, very little research on children’s appraisals of interparental conflict or beliefs about the justifiability of aggression has been conducted with families in which there has been severe IPV, and the research that exists is all cross-sectional (e.g., Grych, Fincham, Jouriles, & McDonald, 2000; Grych, Jouriles, Swank, McDonald, & Norwood, 2000; Jouriles, Spiller, Stephens, Mc­ Donald, & Swank, 2000; Marcus, Lindahl, & Malik, 2001). In addition, the revised formulation of the cognitive-contextual framework (Fosco et al., 2007) articulates the joint roles of these appraisals and beliefs in explaining how IPV may result in chil­ dren’s externalizing problems, but there have been no empirical tests of how they may operate together. It seems plausible that certain appraisals and beliefs may be more important than others in predicting children’s externalizing problems within severely vio­ lent families. For example, when considered together with beliefs about the justifiability of aggression, it is not clear whether threat and self-blame appraisals of interparental conflict exert additive effects (each contributing over and above beliefs about the justi­ fiability of aggression) or redundant effects (threat and self-blame not contributing over and above beliefs about the justifiability of aggression) on children’s externalizing problems. Based on the modified cognitive-contextual framework (Fosco et al., 2007), this research tests the hypothesis that children’s threat appraisals, self-blame appraisals, and beliefs about the justifiabil­ ity of aggression will each contribute independently in predicting their externalizing problems. We examined this hypothesis con­ currently as well as prospectively (over a 6-month and a 12-month period) in a sample of families who were recruited from domestic violence shelters and who had reported recent severe IPV. This is the first study to test these appraisals and beliefs simultaneously as predictors of children’s externalizing problems in severely violent

families. These methodological points are noteworthy because the modified cognitive-contextual framework is specific to violent families, yet there are no longitudinal data on its validity in this population. It should also be noted that there are reasons to expect the relations between children’s externalizing problems and their threat appraisals of interparental conflict to differ in families characterized by severe IPV, as compared with families in which there is either no IPV or the IPV is less extreme. For example, experimental research indicates that children’s threat appraisals vary as a function of the intensity of the conflict (i.e., more intense conflict results in greater threat; Grych & Fincham, 1993). In addition, in families in domestic violence shelters, the mothers, by definition, have recently separated from a violent partner, which might be construed as a direct threat to the stability of the family. In short, threat appraisals are likely to be quite high among children in families in which there has been recent severe IPV, and it would not be surprising if threat appraisals are not associated with externalizing problems under such conditions because most children in these families would experience the conflict as threat­ ening.2 We also explored whether a mother’s return to her violent partner after shelter departure moderated the relations between children’s externalizing problems and their appraisals of interpa­ rental conflict or beliefs about the justifiability of aggression. Theoretically, this action might mark the presence of a number of family stressors and processes that have been linked to children’s externalizing problems. Specifically, economic factors (e.g., chronic poverty, family income) often influence a woman’s deci­ sion to remain with a violent partner (Anderson & Saunders, 2003), and these same factors are associated with children’s ex­ ternalizing problems (Dearing, McCartney, & Taylor, 2006; Deater-Deckard, Dodge, Bates, & Pettit, 1998). In addition, re­ turning to a violent partner might be associated with other factors (e.g., continued exposure to IPV, more frequent parent-child aggression) that increase the likelihood of children’s externalizing problems. In short, the return to a violent partner may be a proxy for multiple risk factors for externalizing problems that potentiate 1 We are distinguishing threat appraisals from the broader construct of emotional insecurity about the interparental relationship. The latter in­ cludes perceptions of threat, but it also typically includes other emotional and behavioral reactions to interparental conflict (e.g., hitting, kicking, slapping, or throwing things at family members), beyond subjective ap­ praisals of threat. Elevated levels of emotional insecurity about the inter­ parental relationship do appear to predict increases in externalizing prob­ lems over time (e.g., Cummings, George, McCoy, & Davies, 2012; Schacht, Cummings, & Davies, 2009). 2 It might also be argued that self-blame appraisals of interparental conflict and beliefs about the justifiability of aggression are likely to be heightened in families characterized by severe IPV, as compared with families in which IPV is less severe or absent. However, we expect more variability with children’s self-blame appraisals and beliefs about the justifiability of aggression. That is, we expect some children in severely violent families not to blame themselves for their parents’ conflict, and not to believe that aggression is justified. This is in contrast to our expectations of threat appraisals, where we expect most, if not all, children in severely violent families to perceive their parents’ conflict as threatening. In short, we expect a negatively skewed distribution for children’s threat appraisals in severely violent families, which might limit our ability to document associations with threat appraisals.

CHILDREN’S APPRAISALS associations between children’s appraisals of interparental conflict and their externalizing problems. Results of a meta-analysis suggest that child sex does not moderate the relations between children’s threat and self-blame appraisals and their externalizing problems (Rhoades, 2008). How­ ever, because boys’ and girls’ beliefs about the justifiability of aggression are sometimes differentially associated with their ex­ ternalizing problems and aggressive behavior (Allwood & Bell, 2008; Kinsfogel & Grych, 2004), we examined whether child sex moderated the hypothesized associations.

Method Participants Data for this study were obtained as part of a larger study on IPV and child adjustment. Families living temporarily in a domes­ tic violence shelter were invited to participate in a screening for the larger study, and those who met the following criteria were eligible to participate: (a) the mother had a biological child between 7 and 10 years old, (b) the child had not been diagnosed with mental retardation or developmental delay, (c) the mother and child spoke English well enough to take part in an interview conducted in English, and (d) the mother had been in a relationship with a male intimate partner for at least 5 of the 6 months before the screening. There were 119 families who met these criteria. Mothers from eligible families were told they would be compensated for their participation and were provided with a description of the study. If more than one child was eligible within a family, the oldest child was invited to participate. For the current study, the sample consists of only those families (n = 106) in which the mother reported that one or more acts on the severe physical assault scale of the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996; mea­ sure is described below) occurred during the 6 months before the baseline assessment (that took place shortly after families’ depar­ ture from the shelter). Specifically, families were recruited and screened for eligibility while they were in residence at the shelter; however, the baseline assessment took place after families’ depar­ ture from the shelter. On average, the 106 families stayed in the shelter 24.6 days (SD = 14.5), and the baseline assessments took place 30.4 days (SD = 40.3) after shelter departure. During the 6-month period before the baseline assessment, 63.2% of mothers reported they had been beaten up, 59.4% had been choked, and 8.5% had been victimized by their partner with a knife or gun. According to mothers’ reports, 75.5% of mothers perpetrated an act of physical IPV (minor or severe); however, mothers were less likely to engage in severe violence than their partners. Specifically, 12.3% of mothers indicated they had beaten up their partner, 4.7% had choked their partner, and 6.6% used a knife or gun on their partner during the 6-month period before the baseline assessment. Children (62 male, 44 female) averaged 8.5 (SD = 1.1) years of age; 20.8% of the children were White, 46.2% Black, 15.1% Hispanic, and 17.9% multiethnic or “other.” On average, mothers were 33.0 (SD = 6.2) years of age and had completed 12.1 (SD = 2.3) years of education. The median family income per month was $1,203 (89% earned < $30,000 annually; 100% earned < $50,000 annually). At baseline, 59.4% of mothers were married, 21.7% were cohabiting, 2.8% were dating but not cohabiting, and 16.0%

917

indicated their relationship status as other. Forty-seven percent of the partners were the biological father of the target child. Of the 106 families who completed the baseline assessment, 90 (84.9%) completed the 6-month assessment, and 83 (78.3%) completed the 12-month assessment. Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) and x2 tests revealed that families who completed all three assessments did not differ from those who did not on the study and demographic variables at baseline. After shelter depar­ ture, 20.6% of mothers returned to live with their violent partner before the baseline assessment. At the 6-month assessment, a total of 27.1% of the mothers were living with their violent partner (the partner they were living with before shelter entry); at the 12-month assessment, a total of 35.4% of the mothers were living with their violent partner.

Assessment Procedures The larger study from which this study was derived was ap­ proved by the governing Institutional Review Board. Mothers and children completed assessments in separate rooms at our research offices, where trained staff members read measures aloud to moth­ ers and to children. Before administering assessment materials to children, staff members played games with the children to develop rapport and engage them in the study. Demographic information used in this study was obtained during the baseline assessment.

Measures Children’s appraisals of threat and self-blame. Children completed the threat and self-blame subscales of the Young Chib dren’s Perception of Interparental Conflict Scales (CPIC-Y; Grych, 2000) at each assessment. The threat subscale includes six items that measure children’s fears and worries in response to adult conflict, such as “w hen_______ (what the child calls the mother’s partner) and your mom argue you are afraid something bad will happen” and “w h e n _______ and your mom argue you worry about what will happen to you.” The self-blame subscale consists of four items that assess children’s perceptions that the conflict was about or was caused by the child. Sample items include “when _______ and your mom argue it is usually because you did something wrong” and “it is usually your fault w hen_______ and your mom argue.” Responses to both subscales are dichotomous (0 = no, 1 = yes). Coefficient a was .68, .80, and .81 for threat and .73, .68, and .64 for self-blame at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months, respectively. These scales from the CPIC-Y have been found to correlate with concurrent child reports of externalizing problems (McDonald & Grych, 2006). Children’s beliefs about the justifiability of aggression. Children completed the 20-item Normative Beliefs About Aggres­ sion Scale (Huesmann & Guerra, 1997) at each assessment. The measure includes items that assess general approval of aggression (e.g., “It is usually okay to push or shove other people around if you are mad”) and approval of retaliation (e.g., “Suppose a boy says something bad to a girl. Do you think it is wrong for the girl to scream at him?”). Responses are made on a 4-point scale (1 = it is really wrong, 2 = it is sort o f wrong, 3 = it is sort o f ok, and 4 = it is really ok). Higher scores indicate greater acceptance of aggression. Coefficient a was .89, .87, and .88 at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months, respectively. This scale correlates with

918

JOURILES, VU, MCDONALD, AND ROSENFffiLD

concurrent peer nominations of aggression and predicts aggression 1 year later (Huesmann & Guerra, 1997). Children’s externalizing problems. Mothers completed the externalizing problems scale of the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL; Achenbach, 1991), a widely used measure of child be­ havior problems, at each assessment. Responses are made on a 3-point scale (0 = not true, 1 = somewhat or sometimes true, and 2 = very true or often true), and mothers were asked to report on behaviors within the past 6 months. Sample items include “gets in many fights” and “temper tantrums or hot temper.” Coefficient a was .93, .93, and .92 at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months, respectively. CBCL t scores were used in analyses. The CBCL externalizing scale has been well validated as a measure of exter­ nalizing problems (Achenbach, 1991). At baseline, 6 months, and 12 months children completed the 9-item Children’s Disruptive Behavior Scale (CDBS; McDonald & Jouriles, 1999). Responses are made on a 3-point scale (1 = none o f the time, 2 = some o f the time, and 3 = all o f the time), with higher scores reflecting more externalizing problems. Sample items include “do other people think that you do not do what you are told to do at home or do not follow the rules?” and “do other people think you break other people’s things on purpose?” Coef­ ficient a was .78, .78, and .84 at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months, respectively. In prior research, the CDBS has been found to correlate with mothers’ reports of externalizing problems on the CBCL (McDonald & Grych, 2006). Physical intimate partner violence. In this study, IPV was used for sample-selection purposes, as described above (i.e., only mothers who reported that an act of severe IPV occurred in the previous 6 months were included in the study) and as a control variable, as described in the next paragraph. At each assessment, mothers indicated how frequently she and her partner had engaged in each of the 12 acts on the physical assault subscale of the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2; Straus et al., 1996) during the past 6 months. Responses were made on a 10-point scale (0 = not in the past 6 months to 9 = every day), with higher scores reflecting more physical IPV perpetration. Seven of these acts were classified as severe violence (Straus et al., 1996). Sample items include “how often did a partner beat you up?” and “how often did a partner choke you?” Because longitudinal research with women departing from do­ mestic violence shelters suggests that levels of IPV can change dramatically for these families (e.g., Bybee & Sullivan, 2005; McDonald, Jouriles, Rosenfield, & Corbitt-Shindler, 2011), we followed our hypothesis testing analyses with exploratory analyses that controlled for IPV. Specifically, in our exploratory analyses, we controlled for levels of IPV at each assessment (total IPV— both minor and severe violence perpetrated by the partner as well as the mother) to evaluate whether changes in IPV affected the pattern of results. Coefficient a for the total physical assault subscale was .90, .92, and .91 at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months, respectively.

Approach to Data Analysis The data were analyzed using multilevel modeling (MLM). MLM includes all participants with at least one data point, regard­ less of missing data (thereby increasing power and generalizability) and allows nesting of assessments within participants. Data are

assumed to be “missing at random,” a less stringent assumption than “missing completely at random,” required by most other typical data analyses (e.g., multiple regression, repeated measures ANOVA, etc.). We chose MLM over structural equations model­ ing because MLM allows us to calculate the relation between the predictors and outcome within subjects over time, rather than between subjects at each time point. In our MLM analyses we used maximum likelihood estimation, and used the Satterthwaite approximation to calculate degrees of freedom for testing the statistical significance of the regression coefficients. Finally, because the distribution of self-blame scores was skewed, we tested the statistical significance of the regression coefficients using robust SEs, which are robust to violations of multivariate normality. A power analysis conducted with the MLM power analysis program PinT (Power in Two-Level Models, Snijders & Bosker, 1993) indicated that the sample size was sufficient to detect a medium effect (Cohen’s d = .50) in our primary analyses, which used up to 10 predictors including covariates (power > .95). Power was similarly sufficient to detect a medium effect in the exploratory analyses investigating moderators and additional con­ trol variables (using up to 14 predictors; power > .95). However, there was insufficient power to detect a small effect (d = .20) in either the main or the exploratory analyses (power < .40).

Results Preliminary Analyses Means, SDs, and correlations for the primary study variables are displayed in Table 1. t tests showed that self-blame and beliefs about the justifiability of aggression did not change significantly over the three assessments (ps > .49). However, threat and child and mother reports of externalizing problems all changed over time (ps < .02). In each case, the mean was higher at baseline than at 6 or 12 months (ps < .05), but the means at 6 and 12 months did not differ from one another (ps > .63). The mean externalizing problems score at baseline (M = 60.89, SD = 11.98) was in the borderline clinical range (f-score S 60), with 43.1% of the children scoring in the clinical range (t-score > 64) (Achenbach, 1991). As expected, levels of threat were higher in the present sample (baseline M = 4.30, SD = 1.59; 6- and 12-month assessments M = 3.24-3.47, SD = 2.03-2.13) than in samples of young children recruited from the community (e.g., M = 2.68, SD = 2.16; Koss et al., 2013). Mean scores for self-blame, however, appeared to be comparable to those found in community samples (e.g., McDonald & Grych, 2006) as were beliefs about the justifiability of aggression (e.g., Jones, Brown, Hoglund, & Aber, 2010). Among the concurrent (i.e., within-assessment) correlations, threat was positively associated with children’s reports of exter­ nalizing problems at the 12-month assessment, but not at the baseline or 6-month assessments; it was not associated with moth­ ers’ reports of externalizing problems at any assessment. Self­ blame was positively associated with concurrent mothers’ reports of externalizing problems at baseline and with children’s reports of externalizing problems at 6 months, but it was not associated with mothers’ or children’s reports of externalizing problems at any other assessment. Beliefs about the justifiability of aggression

CHILDREN’S APPRAISALS

8

919

were positively associated with children’s reports of externalizing problems at baseline and 6 months, but it was not associated with mothers’ reports of externalizing problems at any assessment. Among the prospective correlations, baseline threat was posi­ tively associated with children’s reports of externalizing problems at 12 months. Baseline beliefs about the justifiability of aggression were positively associated with children’s reports of externalizing problems at 6 months. There were no prospective relations of self-blame with either measure of children’s externalizing prob­ lems.

a\ — a\ u— c >o Ov rn -j

S H

Hypothesis Tests of Independent Relations Between Appraisals and Beliefs and Externalizing Problems Concurrent relations. We examined the concurrent relations between children’s appraisals and beliefs and their externalizing problems using the following MLM model: ExtemalizingProblemsy = boi + b„ * Threaty + b2i * Self-Blarney + b3i * Justifiabilityy + £y

■C5 o B

I I

where the ij subscripts refers to individual i at time point j. This main effect model examines the concurrent relation between ex­ ternalizing problems and the appraisals and beliefs over time. Further, it assesses the additive effect of each (threat, self-blame, and justifiability of aggression) over and above the others. Child sex, age, ethnicity, and mother’s education were also included in the model as control variables. Ethnicity was coded into three dummy variables, each comparing one group (Black, Hispanic, or Other/Biracial) to Whites. The analysis was performed once for children’s reports and once for mothers’ reports of children’s externalizing problems. As indicated in Table 2 (Columns 1 and 2), threat, b = .27, t(238) = 2.65, p = .009, and beliefs about the justifiability of aggression, b = 1.89, t(249) = 3.18, p = .002, were associated with children’s report of externalizing problems, but self-blame was not, b = .37, f(234) = 1.58, p = .115. For mothers’ reports of externalizing problems, self-blame was associated, b = 1.33, t(217) = 1.98, p = .049, but threat and beliefs about the justifi­ ability of aggression were not (ps > .29). In addition, child age was negatively associated with mothers’ reports of children’ ex­ ternalizing problems, b = -1 .5 5 , t(241) = 2.40, p = .013. Six-month prospective relations. We conducted cross-lag MLM analyses to examine relations between children’s appraisals and beliefs and their externalizing problems over the two 6-month intervals of the study. These analyses modeled externalizing prob­ lems at assessment j as a function of the level of children’s appraisals and beliefs at the prior assessment, j-1, controlling for the level of externalizing problems at j-1. The MLM model used was:

I I

Table 1 Means, SDs, and Correlations Among the Study Variables

I I

I |

cn

O

—;(N

O N < N T t3 -( N

o —jiooco

\0't

^ -i

o o ' t - 'o

I I

OCNO

in b ' O —; O 00 —00 O

I I

m o £•C 8 rC O

’S >

tot) •£ •-* G O W . OJO C

f1 .

(1)

o ^ « N — ■ — < .0 0 1 .

Thus, this model examines the within-subject, cross-lag relation between the variables over time. Child age, sex, ethnicity, and m other’s education were again included as control variables, and the analyses were conducted once for children’s reports and once for m others’ reports o f children’s externalizing problems. Results (see Table 2, Columns 3 and 4) indicated that, after controlling for externalizing problems at the current assessment, beliefs about the justifiability o f aggression were related to chil­ dren’s reports of their externalizing problems at the subsequent assessment, b = 1.90, f(102) = 2.38, p = .019, but neither threat nor self-blame were related (ps > .73). In addition, children’s reports of externalizing problems at a given assessment were positively associated with their reports at the subsequent assess­ ment, b = .35, r(102) = 4.39, p < .001. Neither threat, self-blame, nor beliefs about the justifiability o f aggression were related to m others’ reports o f children’s external­ izing problems at the next assessment, controlling for externalizing problems at the previous assessment (ps > .10). Among the control variables, prior levels o f externalizing problems were pos­ itively related to externalizing problems at the next assessment, b = .76, t( 106) = 12.72, p < .001, and Hispanic children were reported to have fewer externalizing problems than W hites, b = -5 .3 8 , z( 106) = -2 .1 7 , p = .032. Twelve-month prospective relations. Because we only had tw o time points (baseline and 12-month) for these analyses, we conducted multiple regression analyses (using the same predictor, outcome, and control variables as in the MLM analyses) to test for 12-month prospective relations. Results indicated no association of threat, self-blame, or beliefs about the justifiability o f aggression at baseline with either children’s (ps > .21) or m others’ (ps > .59) reports of children’s externalizing problems 1 year later. However, baseline externalizing problems predicted 12-month externalizing problems both for children’s reports, b = .47, till) = 4.23, p < .001, and m others’ reports, b = .72, t(80) = 10.34, p < .001, of externalizing problems.

Exploratory Analyses Our analyses reported above were all designed to examine the effects of threat, self-blame, and justifiability of aggression on children’s externalizing problems, but not the reverse (i.e., the effects o f externalizing problems on later threat, self-blame, and justifiability of aggression). Thus, we reran our same MLM pro­ spective analyses to examine this “reverse” relationship, perform­ ing six additional MLM 6-month prospective analyses separately investigating whether prior levels o f reports o f externalizing prob­ lems (mothers’ and children’s reports) were predictive o f later levels o f threat, self-blame, or justifiability, controlling for prior levels of each o f these outcomes (2 different predictors X 3 different outcomes). No prospective relations were found (ps ranged from .25 to .91). To examine whether m others’ return to her violent partner upon shelter departure moderated the association between children’s appraisals and beliefs and their externalizing problems, we re­ peated the concurrent and prospective analyses, adding interac­ tions between m others’ return to partner (0 = no, 1 = yes) and threat, self-blame, and beliefs about the justifiability of aggression. No moderator effects emerged. W e repeated the m oderator analyses, using child sex instead as the possible m oderator. F or m others’ reports o f children’s externalizing problem s, we conducted the analyses using CBCL f-scores as w ell as raw scores. No m oderator effects em erged.

t tests show ed that frequency o f IPV was higher at baseline (M = 26.3, SD = 1.88) than at 6 m onths (M = 5.15, SD = 1.14; p < .001) and 12 m onths (M = 4.55, SD = 1.05; p < .001). This is unsurprising given that the baseline assessm ent included the tim e period im m ediately before shelter residence. B ecause o f the change in IPV from baseline, we repeated the prospective analyses, adding IPV at each assessm ent as a tim e-varying covariate. There was no change to the pattern o f results.

CHILDREN’S APPRAISALS

Finally, a possible explanation for differences in the results of the MLM 6-month prospective analysis and 12-month prospective multiple regression (MR) analysis is that we used different analytic techniques. Thus, we reevaluated the 6-month prospective rela­ tions using MR, as opposed to MLM. MR analyses, using baseline levels of threat, self-blame, and justifiability of aggression to predict reports of externalizing problems 6 months later, control­ ling for baseline externalizing problems and for all of the control variables, replicated the pattern of results obtained with the MLM analyses. Specifically, baseline beliefs about the justifiability of aggression were related to children’s reports of externalizing prob­ lems 6 months later (p < .05), but not to mothers’ reports of children’s externalizing problems. Threat and self-blame apprais­ als were not related to either children’s or mothers’ reports of children’s externalizing problems. In addition, it might be argued that the samples for the two analyses were slightly different, because the MLM analysis in­ cluded all participants who completed either the 6-month or 12month assessment, whereas the MR analysis only included partic­ ipants who completed the 12-month assessment. To examine this possible difference, we repeated the MLM analysis on the sub­ sample used in the MR analyses, and again found that beliefs about the justifiability of aggression, but not threat nor self-blame, were prospectively related to children’s reports of externalizing prob­ lems. We also repeated the MR analysis on the sample that was used in the MLM analysis, using multiple imputation to impute missing data from the 12-month assessment. We imputed 20 datasets, and pooled the results from the 20 imputed datasets (Little & Rubin, 2002). Again, we did not find 12-month prospec­ tive relations between threat appraisals, self-blame appraisals, or beliefs about the justifiability of aggression with either mothers’ or children’s report of children’s externalizing problems.

Discussion This study examined the contributions of children’s threat, self­ blame, and beliefs about the justifiability of aggression to their externalizing problems in families recruited from domestic vio­ lence shelters. The results suggest that these three variables exert independent effects on children’s externalizing problems, but the effects vary depending upon the timing of the assessment and the reporter of the children’s externalizing problems. Specifically, in the MLM analyses, threat and beliefs about the justifiability of aggression were positively related to children’s reports of exter­ nalizing problems concurrently, and children’s self-blame was positively associated with mothers’ reports of children’s external­ izing problems concurrently. The prospective results indicate that beliefs about the justifiability of aggression were positively asso­ ciated with child-reported externalizing problems 6 months later. The findings might be interpreted as lending support for the modified cognitive-contextual framework, which suggests that in violent families, appraisals of interparental conflict and beliefs about the justifiability of aggression relate to children’s external­ izing problems. However, this conclusion must be tempered given that we did not find consistent effects across reporters and over time. One of the key modifications to the cognitive-contextual frame­ work for violent families (Fosco et al., 2007) is the inclusion of beliefs about the justifiability of aggression. Our findings suggest

921

this is a valuable addition to the framework, particularly for the prediction of change in children’s externalizing problems over time. Beliefs about the justifiability of aggression predicted change in externalizing problems 6 months later, but did not predict longer-term (12-month) change in children’s externalizing prob­ lems. The present study was not designed to explain this waning of effects over time, but it is not that surprising. Children in families departing from domestic violence shelters often have lives char­ acterized by dramatic changes in multiple areas (e.g., changes in residence and schools, changes in family structure, changes in peer social groups, etc.) (Baker, Billhardt, Warren, Rollins, & Glass, 2010; Pavao, Alvarez, Baumrind, Induni, & Kimerling, 2007). Indeed, our exploratory analyses indicated significant change in children’s exposure to IPV over the course of the study. With so much change in these children’s environments, it is not surprising that cognitive variables, such as beliefs about the justifiability of aggression, simply lose predictive power over time. This might be especially true for young children, when such beliefs are only moderately stable, as suggested by the correlations presented in Table 1. We found concurrent associations between threat and children’s externalizing problems, as well as a longitudinal correlation be­ tween threat and children’s externalizing problems 12 months later. These findings are noteworthy, in part, because of the unique nature of our sample. Specifically, according to the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, —2.7% of women in the United States reported experiencing an act of severe IPV in the previous year (Black et al., 2011). Our sample is an even narrower subset of this population, restricted to women who were mothers of school-age children, who had experienced severe IPV in the past 6 months, and who had sought refuge at a domestic violence shelter. We believe unique features of our sample (severe IPV, seeking refuge at a shelter) contributed to elevated levels of threat apprais­ als among the children. The observed associations between threat and externalizing problems suggest that the relation between these two variables remains intact even at high levels of threat. The null results for children’s threat appraisals predicting changes in their externalizing problems were not surprising, given that other stud­ ies that have examined threat as a predictor of changes in exter­ nalizing problems have yielded mixed results (Buehler et al., 2007; Grych et al., 2003). It may be that beyond a certain threshold of threat, threat appraisals are simply less predictive of changes in children’s externalizing problems over time. An incidental but important finding of this study was the sta­ bility of children’s externalizing problems. In prospective analy­ ses, baseline levels of children’s externalizing problems were a strong predictor of later externalizing problems, especially for mothers’ reports of these problems. An inspection of Table 1 indicates that the mean for mothers’ reports and children’s reports of externalizing problems decreased slightly over the follow-up period, but mothers’ reports remained close to borderline clinical levels. This pattern is consistent with findings of several other studies of the stability of children’s externalizing problems in domestic violence shelter samples (Jouriles et al., 2001), and suggests that these problems are not simply transient reactions to the extreme circumstances that characterize many shelter families (e.g., severe IPV, transition to and from a shelter), but rather they are a stable problem that warrants clinical attention (Graham-

922

jouriles , vu,

McDonald, and

Bermann, Lynch, Banyard, DeVoe, & Halabu, 2007; Jouriles et al., 2009; McDonald, Jouriles, & Skopp, 2006). It is interesting to speculate about reasons for certain null results in this study. For example, unlike others (e.g., Buehler et al., 2007; Grych et al., 2003), we did not find a prospective association between children’s self-blame appraisals and their externalizing problems. These other studies, however, sampled adolescents in community samples. In cross-sectional research with violent fam­ ilies, child age has been found to moderate the relation between self-blame and externalizing problems, with a stronger relation among older children (Jouriles et al., 2000). Thus, it is possible that self-blame is a more potent predictor of externalizing prob­ lems for adolescents than for 7- to 10-year-olds. In addition, many of the children in the present sample had clinical levels of exter­ nalizing problems at baseline (many more than is typical of general community samples), and it is quite possible that these external­ izing problems were somewhat entrenched before the onset of this study. As such, the externalizing problems of the children in this sample may have been intransigent to their self-blame appraisals. Another factor may be the low levels of self-blame reported by these children. Perhaps levels of self-blame in this relatively young sample were not high enough to affect externalizing problems over time. Our results across reporters of children’s externalizing problems were inconsistent. Some appraisals were associated with mothers’ reports of children’s externalizing problems, but not with child reports, and vice versa. This could be artifactual. For example, mothers and children completed different measures of children’s externalizing problems. Although there was overlap in the types of behaviors assessed on these measures, the mother-report measure assessed externalizing problems more broadly than the child-report measure (e.g., the mother-report measure includes items about using alcohol or drugs, vandalism, etc.). In addition, mothers and children view children’s externalizing problems arguably from very different perspectives, and perhaps have different reporting biases for these problem behaviors (Achenbach, McConaughy, & Howell, 1987). In fact, there is a large literature suggesting there is little correspondence between parents’ and children’s reports of children’s externalizing problems, even when they are asked about the same problem behaviors. Consistent with this, the magnitude of the correlation between mother and child reports of externaliz­ ing problems in our study is similar to that found in this literature (e.g., Achenbach et al., 1987). Related to the point about reporting biases, the mothers who participated in this research were in the midst of a crisis; they had experienced severe IPV, sought refuge at a shelter, and most were transitioning to a new residence after their shelter departure. Sub­ stantial research indicates that maternal mental health symptoms (trauma, depression, and even transient negative moods) can bias mothers’ perceptions and reports of their children’s problem be­ havior (Briggs-Gowan, Carter, & Schwab-Stone, 1996; Gartstein, Bridgett, Dishion, & Kaufman, 2009; Jouriles & Thompson, 1993). More reasons for inconsistent results across reporters can also be offered (e.g., correlations between children’s reports of appraisals and child-reported externalizing problems might be inflated slightly because of shared method variance). The point here is that a convergence in findings across reporters would have allowed us to make more firm conclusions about specific associ­

rosenfield

ations between children’s appraisals and their externalizing prob­ lems, but the lack of convergence is not surprising.

Limitations This study had a number of strengths, including the three-wave longitudinal design, the measurement of key variables at all time points, and the use of mother and child reports of children’s externalizing problems. However, several limitations should also be noted. Although the longitudinal design addresses issues about the temporal ordering of variables, causal relations cannot be inferred. Unmeasured variables may have accounted for both con­ current and prospective associations between children’s appraisals of interparental conflict, beliefs about the justifiability of aggres­ sion, and their externalizing problems. In addition, as a result of the size of our sample, the power to detect small effects was low. It is also important to keep in mind that this study focused on a unique sample of families at a unique time point: the 12-month period after departure from a domestic violence shelter. As a result, it is not clear whether our findings are generalizable to other samples and time periods. It is likely that many, if not most, of the children in this sample had a long history of exposure to IPV (Graham-Bermann & Perkins, 2010). In addition, at the baseline assessment, many of the children were exhibiting clinical levels of externalizing problems. Among children chronically exposed to violence and with significant externalizing problems, it seems reasonable to assume that the developmental processes responsible for the emergence of such problems were already well under way. It might be necessary to begin assessing families earlier in the developmental trajectory of the IPV or the child’s externalizing problems (i.e., before the IPV is severe enough or longstanding enough to prompt the mother to seek shelter; before the child has developed clinical levels of externalizing problems) to provide a fair test of models explaining the development of psychopathology within severely violent families. Related to this point, other inves­ tigators have found a 12-month study period to be sufficient for appraisals to predict changes in externalizing problems of adoles­ cents over time (e.g., Buehler et al., 2007; Grych et al., 2003; Shelton & Harold, 2008). It is possible that a longer follow-up period is necessary to capture changes in externalizing problems for a sample of children residing in severely violent families.

Clinical Implications The accumulated research suggests that it might be valuable to evaluate children’s threat and self-blame appraisals, and their beliefs about the justifiability of aggression, in settings offering clinical services to children in violent families. In families seeking shelter for domestic violence, the threat is likely to be real, and domestic violence agencies often assist in developing safety plans for children and mothers. It might also be useful, however, for clinicians to coach mothers on how to directly address any ques­ tions and concerns their children may have about the conflict and to provide positive, supportive parenting in an attempt to buffer the negative effects of the conflict (McDonald, Jouriles, Rosenfield, & Leahy, 2012; Skopp, McDonald, Jouriles, & Rosenfield, 2007; Tajima, Herrenkohl, Moylan, & Derr, 2011). Additionally, parents may help children adopt strategies for coping with parents’ con­ flicts that are adaptive, which might help.

CHILDREN’S APPRAISALS

Conclusion In conclusion, this study attempted to substantiate an important aspect of the revised cognitive-contextual framework. It is an initial investigation o f how children’s threat appraisals, self-blame appraisals, and beliefs about the justifiability o f aggression work in tandem to contribute to children’s externalizing problems in fam­ ilies characterized by severe IPV. Our findings suggest that each of these plays a role in children’s externalizing problems in the short term, and beliefs justifying aggression may be an especially im­ portant indicator for changes in externalizing problems over rela­ tively short time periods, such as 6 months.

References Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Manual fo r the child behavior checklist/4-18 and 1991 profile. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont Department of Psychology. Achenbach, T. M„ McConaughy, S. H., & Howell, C. T. (1987). Child/ adolescent behavioral and emotional problems: Implications of cross­ informant correlations for situational specificity. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 213-232. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.101.2.213 Allwood, M. A., & Bell, D. J. (2008). A preliminary examination of emotional and cognitive mediators in the relations between violence exposure and violent behaviors in youth. Journal o f Community Psy­ chology, 36, 989-1007. doi:10.1002/jcop.20277 Anderson, D. K., & Saunders, D. G. (2003). Leaving an abusive partner: An empirical review of predictors, the process of leaving, and psycho­ logical well-being. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 4, 163-191. doi: 10.1177/1524838002250769 Baker, C. K., Billhardt, K. A., Warren, J., Rollins, C., & Glass, N. E. (2010). Domestic violence, housing instability, and homelessness: A review of housing policies and program practices for meeting the needs of survivors. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 15, 430-439. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2010.07.005 Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations o f thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Black, M. C., Basile, K. C., Breiding, M. J., Smith, S. G., Walters, M. L., Merrick, M. T., . . . Stevens, M. R. (2011). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 summary report. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Bradshaw, C. P., Schaeffer, C. M., Petras, H., & lalongo, N. (2010). Predicting negative life outcomes from early aggressive-disruptive be­ havior trajectories: Gender differences in maladaptation across life do­ mains. Journal o f Youth and Adolescence, 39, 953-966. doi: 10.1007/ S10964-009-9442-8 Briggs-Gowan, M. I., Carter, A. S., & Schwab-Stone, M. (1996). Discrep­ ancies among mother, child, and teacher reports: Examining the contri­ butions of maternal depression and anxiety. Journal o f Abnormal Child Psychology, 24, 749-765. doi:10.1007/BF01664738 Buehler, C., Lange, G., & Franck, K. L. (2007). Adolescents’ cognitive and emotional responses to marital hostility. Child Development, 78, 775789. doi:10.11 ll/j.1467-8624.2007.01032.x Bybee, D., & Sullivan, C. M. (2005). Predicting re-victimization of bat­ tered women 3 years after exiting a shelter program. American Journal o f Community Psychology, 36, 85-96. doi:10.1007/sl0464-005-6234-5 Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and reformulation of social information-processing mechanisms in children’s social adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 74-101. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.115.1.74 Cummings, E. M., George, M. R. W., McCoy, K. P., & Davies, P. T. (2012). Interparental conflict in kindergarten and adolescent adjustment: Prospective investigation of emotional security as an explanatory mech­

923

anism. Child Development, 83, 1703-1715. doi:10.1111/j. 1467-8624 ,2012.01807.x Davis, B. T., Hops, H., Alpert, A., & Sheeber, L. (1998). Child responses to parental conflict and their effect on adjustment: A study of triadic relations. Journal o f Family Psychology, 12, 163-177. doi: 10.1037/ 0893-3200.12.2.163 Dearing, E., McCartney, K., & Taylor, B. A. (2006). Within-child associ­ ations between family income and externalizing and internalizing prob­ lems. Developmental Psychology, 42, 237-252. doi:10.1037/0012-1649 .42.2.237 Deater-Deckard, K., Dodge, K. A., Bates, I. E., & Pettit, G. S. (1998). ■Multiple risk factors in the development of externalizing behavior prob­ lems: Group and individual differences. Development and Psychopa­ thology, 10, 469-493. doi: 10.1017/S0954579498001709 Farrell, A. D., Henry, D. B., Schoeny, M. E., Bettencourt, A., & Tolan, P. H. (2010). Normative beliefs and self-efficacy for nonviolence as moderators of peer, school, and parental risk factors for aggression in early adolescence. Journal o f Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 39, 800-813. doi: 10.1080/15374416.2010.517167 Fergusson, D. M., Horwood, L. J., & Ridder, E. M. (2005). Show me the child at seven: The consequences of conduct problems in childhood for psychosocial functioning in adulthood. Journal o f Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46, 837-849. doi:10.1111/j.l469-7610.2004.00387.x Finkelhor, D., Turner, H., Ormrod, R., & Hamby, S. L. (2009). Violence, abuse, and crime exposure in a national sample of children and youth. Pediatrics, 124, 1411-1423. doi:10.1542/peds.2009-0467 Fosco, G. M., DeBoard, R. L., & Grych, I. H. (2007). Making sense of family violence. European Psychologist, 12, 6-16. doi:10.1027/10169040.12.1.6 Gartstein, M. A., Bridgett, D. I., Dishion, T. I., & Kaufman, N. K. (2009). Depressed mood and maternal report of child behavior problems: An­ other look at the depression-distortion hypothesis. Journal o f Applied Developmental Psychology, 30, 149-160. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2008.12 .001

Graham-Bermann, S. A., Lynch, S., Banyard, V., DeVoe, E. R., & Halabu, H. (2007). Community-based intervention for children exposed to inti­ mate partner violence: An efficacy trial. Journal o f Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 75, 199-209. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.75.2.199 Graham-Bermann, S. A., & Perkins, S. (2010). Effects of early exposure and lifetime exposure to intimate partner violence (IPV) on child ad­ justment. Violence and Victims, 25, 427-439. doi:10.1891/0886-6708 .25.4.427 Grych, I. H. (2000). The young children’s perception o f interparental conflict scales. Unpublished manuscript. Grych, I. H., & Fincham, F. D. (1990). Marital conflict and children’s adjustment: A cognitive-contextual framework. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 267-290. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.108.2.267 Grych, I. H., & Fincham, F. D. (1993). Children’s appraisals of marital conflict: Initial investigations of the cognitive-contextual framework. Child Development, 64, 215-230. doi:10.2307/l 131447 Grych, I. H., Fincham, F. D., louriles, E. N., & McDonald, R. (2000). Interparental conflict and child adjustment: Testing the mediational role of appraisals in the cognitive-contextual framework. Child Development, 71, 1648-1661. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00255 Grych, J. H., Harold, G. T., & Miles, C. J. (2003). A prospective investi­ gation of appraisals as mediators of the link between interparental conflict and child adjustment. Child Development, 74, 1176-1193. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00600 Grych, I. H., Jouriles, E. N., Swank, P. R., McDonald, R., & Norwood, W. D. (2000). Patterns of adjustment among children of battered women. Journal o f Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, 84-94. doi: 10.1037/ 0022-006X.68.1.84

924

JOURtt.ES, VU, MCDONALD, AND ROSENFIELD

Huesmann, L. R. (1988). An information processing model for the devel­ opment of aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 14, 13-24. doi: 10.1002/ 1098-2337(1988) 14:1< 13:: AID-AB2480140104>3.0.CO;2-J Huesmann, L. R., & Guerra, N. G. (1997). Children’s normative beliefs about aggression and aggressive behavior. Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 408-419. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.72.2.408 Hungerford, A., Wait, S. K„ Fritz, A. M„ & Clements, C. M. (2012). Exposure to intimate partner violence and children’s psychological adjustment, cognitive functioning, and social competence: A review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17, 373-382. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2012 .04.002 Jones, S. M„ Brown, J. L„ Hoglund, W. L. G„ & Aber, J. L. (2010). A school-randomized clinical trial of an integrated social-emotional learn­ ing and literacy intervention: Impacts after 1 school year. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 78, 829-842. doi:10.1037/ a0021383 Jouriles, E. N., McDonald, R., Norwood, W. D., Ware, H. S., Spiller, L. C., & Swank, P. R. (1998). Knives, guns, and interparent violence: Rela­ tions with child behavior problems. Journal o f Family Psychology, 12, 178-194. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.12.2.178 Jouriles, E. N., McDonald, R., Rosenfield, D., Stephens, N., CorbittShindler, D., & Miller, P. C. (2009). Reducing conduct problems among children exposed to intimate partner violence: A randomized clinical trial examining effects of Project Support. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77, 705-717. doi:10.1037/a0015994 Jouriles, E. N., McDonald, R., Spiller, L., Norwood, W. D., Swank, P. R., Stephens, N., . . . Buzy, W. M. (2001). Reducing conduct problems among children of battered women. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 69, 774-785. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.69.5.774 Jouriles, E. N., Rosenfield, D., McDonald, R., & Mueller, V. (2014). Child involvement in interparental conflict and child adjustment problems: A longitudinal study of violent families. Journal o f Abnormal Child Psy­ chology, 42, 693-704. doi:10.1007/sl0802-013-9821-l Jouriles, E. N., Spiller, L. C., Stephens, N., McDonald, R., & Swank, P. (2000). Variability in adjustment of children of battered women: The role of child appraisals of interparent conflict. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 24, 233-249. doi:10.1023/A:1005402310180 Jouriles, E. N., & Thompson, S. M. (1993). Effects of mood on mothers’ evaluations of children’s behavior. Journal o f Family Psychology, 6, 300-307. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.6.3.300 Kinsfogel, K. M., & Grych, J. H. (2004). Interparental conflict and ado­ lescent dating relationships: Integrating cognitive, emotional, and peer influences. Journal o f Family Psychology, 18, 505-515. doi: 10.1037/ 0893-3200.18.3.505 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:10.1037/0022006X.71.2.339 Koss, K. J., George, M. R. W., Davies, P. T., Cicchetti, D., Cummings, E. M., & Sturge-Apple, M. L. (2013). Patterns of children’s adrenocor­ tical reactivity to interparental conflict and associations with child ad­ justment: A growth mixture modeling approach. Developmental Psy­ chology, 49, 317-326. doi:10.1037/a0028246 Little, R. J. A., & Rubin, D. B. (2002). Statistical analysis with missing data (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley. Marcus, N. E., Lindahl, K. M., & Malik, N. M. (2001). Interparental conflict, children’s social cognitions, and child aggression: A test of a mediational model. Journal o f Family Psychology, 15, 315-333. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.15.2.315 McDonald, R., & Grych, J. H. (2006). Young children’s appraisals of interparental conflict: Measurement and links with adjustment problems. ' Journal o f Family Psychology, 20, 88-99. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.20 . 1.88

McDonald, R., & Jouriles, E. N. (1999). The children’s disruptive behavior scale. Unpublished manuscript. McDonald, R., Jouriles, E. N., Ramisetty-Mikler, S., Caetano, R., & Green, C. E. (2006). Estimating the number of American children living in partner-violent families. Journal o f Family Psychology, 20, 137-142. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.20.1.137 McDonald, R., Jouriles, E. N., Rosenfield, D., & Corbitt-Shindler, D. (2011). Predictors of domestically violent men’s aggression toward children: A prospective study. Journal of Family Psychology, 25, 11-18. doi: 10.1037/a0022449 McDonald, R., Jouriles, E. N., Rosenfield, D., & Leahy, M. M. (2012). Children’s questions about interparent conflict and violence: What’s a mother to say? Journal o f Family Psychology, 26, 95-104. doi: 10.1037/ a0026122 McDonald, R., Jouriles, E. N., & Skopp, N. A. (2006). Reducing conduct problems among children brought to women’s shelters: Intervention effects 24 months following termination of services. Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 127-136. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.20.1.127 Orue, I., Bushman, B. J., Calvete, E„ Thomaes, S., de Castro, B. O., & Hutteman, R. (2011). Monkey see, monkey do, monkey hurt: Longitu­ dinal effects of exposure to violence on children’s aggressive behavior. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2, 432-437. doi: 10.1177/ 1948550610396586 Pavao, J., Alvarez, J., Baumrind, N., Induni, M., & Kimerling, R. (2007). Intimate partner violence and housing instability. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 32, 143-146. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2006.10.008 Raudino, A., Woodward, L. J., Fergusson, D. M., & Horwood, L. J. (2012). Childhood conduct problems are associated with increased partnership and parenting difficulties in adulthood. Journal o f Abnormal Child Psychology, 40, 251-263. doi:10.1007/sl0802-011-9565-8 Rhoades, K. A. (2008). Children’s responses to interparental conflict: A meta-analysis of their associations with child adjustment. Child Devel­ opment, 79, 1942-1956. doi:10.1111/j.l467-8624.2008.01235.x Schacht, P. M., Cummings, E. M., & Davies, P. T. (2009). Fathering in family context and child adjustment: A longitudinal analysis. Journal o f Family Psychology, 23, 790-797. doi:10.1037/a0016741 Shelton, K. H., & Harold, G. T. (2008). Pathways between interparental conflict and adolescent psychological adjustment: Bridging links through children’s cognitive appraisals and coping strategies. The Jour­ nal o f Early Adolescence, 28, 555-582. doi:10.1177/0272431608317610 Skopp, N. A., McDonald, R., Jouriles, E. N., & Rosenfield, D. (2007). Partner aggression and children’s externalizing problems: Maternal and partner warmth as protective factors. Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 459 -467. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.21.3.459 Snijders, T. A. B., & Bosker, R. J. (1993). Standard errors and sample sizes for two-level research. Journal o f Educational Statistics, 18, 237-259. doi:10.2307/l 165134 Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. B. (1996). The revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2): Development and prelim­ inary psychometric data. Journal o f Family Issues, 17, 283-316. doi: 10.1177/019251396017003001 Tajima, E. A„ Herrenkohl, T. I., Moylan, C. A., & Derr, A. S. (2011). Moderating the effects of childhood exposure to intimate partner vio­ lence: The roles of parenting characteristics and adolescent peer support. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21, 376-394. doi: 10.111 l/j.15327795.2010.00676.x Wolfe, D. A., Crooks, C. V., Lee, V., Mclntyre-Smith, A., & Jaffe, P. G. (2003). The effects of children’s exposure to domestic violence: A meta-analysis and critique. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Re­ view, 6, 171-187. doi: 10.1023/A: 1024910416164 Received October 31, 2013 Revision received June 24, 2014 Accepted July 28, 2014 ■

Copyright of Journal of Family Psychology is the property of American Psychological Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.