Journal of Family Psychology Copyright 2007 by the American Psychological Association

2007, Vol. 21, No. 2, 176 –184 0893-3200/07/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0893-3200.21.2.176

Violence Toward a Family Member, Angry Adult Conflict,

and Child Adjustment Difficulties: Relations in Families
With 1- to 3-Year-Old Children
Renee McDonald and Ernest N. Jouriles Margaret J. Briggs-Gowan
Southern Methodist University University of Connecticut Health Center

David Rosenfield Alice S. Carter

Southern Methodist University University of Massachusetts, Boston

In this study, the authors examined whether witnessing violence toward a family member
increases the risk for adjustment difficulties among children in the 1- to 3-year age range,
beyond the risk attributable to witnessing nonviolent, angry adult conflict. Participants were
1,152 caregivers of 1- to 3-year-old children, randomly selected from birth records and
recruited from the community. Caregivers indicated whether their children had witnessed
violence toward a family member and/or angry adult conflict. They also completed a
comprehensive measure of child adjustment difficulties. Exposure to violence toward a family
member and exposure to angry adult conflict were each uniquely associated with increased
risk for adjustment problems. These results emerged after accounting for pertinent demo-
graphic variables and for caregiver distress variables.

Keywords: family violence, child adjustment, Infant–Toddler Social and Emotional

Assessment (ITSEA)

For children, witnessing violence toward a family mem-
ber is associated with a variety of adjustment difficulties
(see Jouriles, Norwood, McDonald, & Peters, 2001; Mar-
golin & Gordis, 2000, for reviews).1 Knowledge pertaining
to correlates of children’s exposure to such violence, how-
ever, is restricted primarily to samples of school-aged chil-
dren and adolescents. In fact, relatively little is known about
relations between younger children’s (i.e., children under 6
years of age) exposure to violence and their adjustment, and
virtually nothing is known about how witnessing violence
toward a family member might affect children in the 1- to
3-year age range (Jouriles, McDonald, & Skopp, 2005).
This is particularly unfortunate given epidemiological data
suggesting those under age 6 may be at a much higher risk
than older children for exposure to violence toward a family
member (Fantuzzo, Boruch, Beriama, & Atkins, 1997).
Renee McDonald, Ernest N. Jouriles, and David Rosenfield,
Department of Psychology, Southern Methodist University; Mar-
garet J. Briggs-Gowan, Department of Psychiatry, University of
Connecticut Health Center; Alice S. Carter, Department of Psy-
chology, University of Massachusetts, Boston.
This research was supported by National Institutes of Health
Grants R01MH55278 and R01MH62064 and by a grant from The
David and Lucille Packard Foundation.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
Renee McDonald, Department of Psychology, Southern Methodist
University, PO Box 750442, Dallas, TX 75275-0442. E-mail:
rmcdonal@smu.edu
Developmental models suggest that witnessing violence
during early childhood might be especially harmful, both in
the short term as well as later in life. For example, organi-
zational models of development (e.g., Sroufe & Rutter,
1984) emphasize the potential importance of early experi-
ences in shaping later development. From this perspective,
development is conceived as a hierarchically integrative
process in which early experiences lay the foundation for
later development. If early experiences disrupt the develop-
ment of important regulatory systems (e.g., systems impli-
cated in the development of adjustment difficulties, such as
the ability to regulate emotions), then problems may emerge
during the toddler and preschool years, setting the stage for
continued or additional problems later in life (Yates, Dodds,
Sroufe, & Egeland, 2003).
Evidence is accumulating to indicate that preschool-aged
children (i.e., those 4 to 5 years old) exposed to violence are
at elevated risk for adjustment problems. For example,
preschool-aged children in families characterized by inter-
parent physical violence exhibit more behavioral and affec-
tive problems than preschool-aged children in nonviolent
families (e.g., Graham-Bermann & Levendosky, 1998). In
1
The phrase violence toward a family member specifies the
victim of the violence as a family member of the child, but it is not
synonymous with the term family violence because it does not
specify whether the perpetrator is also a family member. However,
much of the violence directed at family members is perpetrated by
family members (U. S. Department of Justice, 2005).

176
 FAMILY VIOLENCE
addition, preschool-aged children exposed to interparent
physical violence experience higher levels of adjustment
problems in middle childhood and adolescence than do
preschool-aged children not exposed to such violence
(Yates et al., 2003). Although it is not clear whether these
findings generalize to very young children (1- to 3-year-old
children), there are some indications that they may. For
example, findings from studies of very young children ex-
periencing trauma symptoms (e.g., Scheeringa & Zeanah,
1995) and attachment problems (e.g., Huth-Bocks, Leven-
dosky, Bogat, & von Eye, 2004; Zeanah et al., 1999) con-
verge to suggest that 1- to 3-year-olds are adversely affected
by exposure to violence, possibly across a variety of do-
mains (e.g., externalizing problems, internalizing problems,
dysregulation). However, systematic, controlled research on
very young children’s exposure to violence toward a family
member is practically nonexistent.
It is also not clear whether very young children’s expo-
sure to violence is more harmful than exposure to nonvio-
lent, angry conflict. It seems plausible that witnessing vio-
lence toward a family member would be more traumatic and
therefore have greater disorganizing effects on very young
children than would angry but nonviolent conflict (Graham-
Bermann & Seng, 2005; Rossman, 1999). In addition, very
young children are especially vulnerable to disruptions in
their relationships with caregivers (Garbarino, 1995;
Streeck-Fischer & van der Kolk, 2000), and violence toward
a family member may be more disruptive to caregiver– child
relationships than angry adult conflict that is nonviolent. In
short, there are reasons to believe that even among very
young children, those exposed to violence toward a family
member will experience more adjustment problems than
those exposed only to angry adult conflict.
On the other hand, it might be argued that witnessing
violence toward a family member does not increase risk for
adjustment difficulties in very young children, beyond the
risk associated with exposure to angry adult conflict. Chil-
dren 1 to 3 years old perceive and react to expressions of
negative affect (Crockenberg, 1985), and they respond to
angry conflict between adults with emotional distress and
aggression (Cummings, Zahn-Waxler, & Radke-Yarrow,
1981). In addition, children’s sensitivity to differences in
conflict expression increases with age (e.g., Cummings,
Ballard, & El-Sheikh, 1991; El-Sheikh & Cummings,
1995), and it is not clear whether differences in the expres-
sion of angry conflict (such as whether it includes physical
violence) are important for very young children. In other
words, very young children may simply be distressed by all
angry conflict, regardless of its form.
Research on school-aged children that has examined
whether family violence increases risk for adjustment dif-
ficulties beyond the risk associated with nonviolent conflict
(i.e., incremental risk of exposure to violence) has yielded
equivocal results (e.g., Fantuzzo et al., 1991; Jouriles, Mur-
phy, & O’Leary, 1989; Jouriles et al., 1996; McDonald,
Jouriles, Norwood, Ware, & Ezell, 2000; Rossman &
Rosenberg, 1992). It appears that chronic and severe family
violence (e.g., the type of violence documented in shelter
samples or violent samples recruited from clinics providing
177
family counseling services) does indeed increase risk for
child adjustment problems, over and above the risk associ-
ated with nonviolent conflict. However, it must be recog-
nized that the violence in such selected samples is not
representative of that witnessed by most children exposed to
family violence (Jouriles, McDonald, Norwood, & Ezell,
2001). Also, most studies addressing violence as an incre-
mental risk factor are constrained by methodological limi-
tations such as small samples and the failure to account for
key demographic and psychological variables. Finally, none
of these studies has examined the incremental risk of vio-
lence over angry verbal conflict for very young children.
The present research evaluates whether exposure to vio-
lence toward a family member and nonviolent, angry verbal
conflict are associated with problems among children in the
1- to 3-year age range. On the basis of theory and previous
research, we hypothesized that exposure to either violence
toward a family member or nonviolent angry verbal conflict
would increase young children’s risk for adjustment diffi-
culties. Moreover, we expected that witnessing violence
toward a family member increases the risk for adjustment
problems among young children, beyond the risk attribut-
able to nonviolent, angry adult conflict. We expected these
effects even after accounting for key demographic and
psychological variables.
Method
Participants
This research is a secondary analysis of data collected
from an age- and sex-stratified community sample (see
Briggs-Gowan, Carter, Skuban, & Horwitz, 2001, for addi-
tional details). The sample was randomly selected from
birth records for children born at Yale–New Haven Hospital
between July 1995 and September 1997 and who lived in
the New Haven–Meriden Standard Metropolitan Statistical
Area of the 1990 Census (n ⫽ 8,404). The research for
which the sample was originally collected focused on
social– emotional adjustment in a developmentally healthy
sample of children (Briggs-Gowan et al., 2001). For this
reason, 675 children were excluded because they were born
prematurely (⬍ 36 weeks) or were likely to have significant
developmental delays on the basis of birth record data (e.g.,
birth weight ⬍ 2,200 g, 1- and 5-min Apgar scores ⬍ 5,
chromosomal anomalies, need for resuscitation at birth).
One child per family was selected, resulting in 277 sibling
exclusions. In addition, deceased children (n ⫽ 14), adopted
children (n ⫽ 4), and an investigator’s child were excluded.
Thus, the original sample was drawn from a total of 7,433
families who met inclusion criteria.
From these 7,433 families, 1,788 were randomly selected
for recruitment. Selected families did not differ from the
original pool of subjects (N ⫽ 8,404) on caregiver education
or child race, but participating families had infants with
higher birth weight (t(10,190) ⫽ 6.60, p ⬍ .01), gestational
age (t(10,190) ⫽ 6.49, p ⬍ .01), and older caregivers
(t(10,190) ⫽ 5.02, p ⬍ .01). Of the 1,788 families contacted
about the research, 50 were excluded because neither parent
178 MCDONALD ET AL.
spoke English sufficiently well to complete the assessment,
17 because the child no longer lived in the household, and
116 because the family had moved out of state and limited
funding prevented recruiting them. These 183 excluded
families did not differ from the 1,605 remaining families on
caregiver education, child race, 1-min Apgar score, gesta-
tional age, birth weight, or years at the birth address. Pa-
rental age and 5-min Apgar scores were higher in the
eligible sample (ts(1,786) ⫽ 2.04 and 4.03, respectively,
ps ⬍ .05).
Between June and September 1998, the 1,605 eligible
participants were mailed a letter describing the study, fol-
lowed 1 week later by the study questionnaire and a gift of
a children’s book. Staff members subsequently telephoned
caregivers to address questions and concerns and to encour-
age participation. Those who had not participated after 1
month received a second mailing followed by in-person
contact to offer assistance needed to facilitate participation
(e.g., interviews or babysitting). Caregivers who declined
participation were not contacted further. Caregivers pro-
vided informed consent and received $25 for their partici-
pation. All procedures were approved by an institutional
review board.
Of the 1,605 eligible participants, 1,277 completed the
study questionnaire, for a response rate of 79%. Nonpartic-
ipants tended to be younger and less educated and to have
lower birth weight infants than participants. There was also
a lower response among minority families (69.9%) than
among White families (83.8%), ␹2(1, N ⫽ 1,603) ⫽ 38.6,
p ⬍ .01. However, minority participants did not differ from
minority nonparticipants on birth variables and sociodemo-
graphic variables. Furthermore, birth weight and caregiver
age were not significantly associated with probability of
participation once minority status and education level had
been taken into account. Seventeen families were excluded
on the basis of information gathered after their initial con-
tact had indicated the presence of a significant developmen-
tal delay (e.g., Down syndrome or autism), resulting in a
sample of 1,260 families that completed the study measures
(exclusion of additional families with missing data on study
variables is described at the end of the Method section).
Sampling weights, which are defined as the inverse of the
probability of selection, were computed for each stratum
(the sample was stratified by age and gender). Information
from birth records concerning sociodemographic back-
ground (e.g., parental age, education, and race) and infant
birth status (e.g., birth weight and gestational age) was used
to adjust for differential nonresponse in calculating final
sampling weights, which were used in all analyses.
Measures
Infant–Toddler Social and Emotional Assessment
(ITSEA). The ITSEA (Carter, Briggs-Gowan, Jones, &
Little, 2003; see also Carter & Briggs-Gowan, 2006) is a
166-item questionnaire on which caregivers indicate the
frequency of specific child behaviors on a 3-point scale (0 ⫽
not true/rarely, 1 ⫽ somewhat true/sometimes, or 2 ⫽ very
true/often). A “No opportunity” response allows caregivers
to indicate that they have not had the opportunity to observe
certain behaviors, such as behavior with peers in a child-
care setting. The ITSEA yields subscale scores (e.g., De-
pression, Anxiety) that are aggregated to yield domain
scores reflective of broader areas of functioning. The ITSEA
domains of Internalizing Problems, Externalizing Problems,
and Dysregulation were used in the present research.
In previous research with this sample (Carter et al., 2003),
the ITSEA was found to have good reliability (coefficient
alpha values across the domains ranged from .80 to .87;
test–retest reliability coefficients ranged from .82 to .90).
The validity of the ITSEA is evidenced by moderate-to-
strong correlations with other parent-report measures of
emotional and behavioral problems (Briggs-Gowan &
Carter, 1998; Carter et al., 2003) and by moderate associa-
tions with independent observational ratings following de-
velopmental assessments of children (Carter et al., 2003).
Parent reports on the ITSEA also relate to observations of
indicators of social– emotional functioning, such as attach-
ment security, mastery motivation, and emotion regulation
(Carter, Little, Briggs-Gowan, & Kogan, 1999).
To extend our assessment of clinical problems, we
formed an index of additional clinical problems from the
ITSEA-item clusters of Maladaptive Behavior (e.g., “Acts
out the same pretend theme over and over. Makes sounds
s/he seems unable to control”) and Atypical Behavior (e.g.,
“Puts things in a special order over and over again. Repeats
a particular movement over and over”). These two-item
clusters emerged in the factor analyses of the ITSEA in the
larger, original sample from which the present sample was
drawn (Carter & Briggs-Gowan, 2006). Coefficient alpha
values for the Atypical and Maladaptive item clusters in the
present sample were .57 and .52, respectively.2
Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression (CES–D)
inventory. The CES–D (Radloff, 1977) is a widely used
20-item self-report scale that assesses adult depressive
symptoms. It has high internal consistency (coefficient al-
pha values from .84 to .90) and good test⫺retest reliability
for 2- and 4-week intervals (rs ranging from .51 to .67;
Radloff, 1977).
Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI). The BAI (Beck & Steer,
1993) is a 21-item self-report measure of anxiety symptoms.
The BAI has high 1-week test⫺retest reliability (r ⫽ .75)
2
The Atypical and Maladaptive item clusters were not designed
to collectively reflect one domain of problems or explicitly to be
combined; however, for the purpose of this research it appeared
acceptable to combine them. First, we were interested in other
clinical problems (broadly conceived) and our conceptualization of
this combined scale, which we labeled Atypical/Maladaptive, is
that it simply reflects the breadth of other clinical symptoms
reliably assessed by the ITSEA. Second, aggregating the two item
clusters increases parsimony in the analyses. Third, the correlation
between the two item clusters is within the range of the within-
domain correlations among the subscales comprising the Internal-
izing, Externalizing and Dysregulation problem domains. Finally,
the distributional properties of the combined scale (kurtosis ⫽ 1.7,
skewness ⫽ 0.9) were similar in value to those of the Externalizing
and Dysregulation domains.
 FAMILY VIOLENCE
and is reported to reliably discriminate anxiety from depres-
sion (Beck & Steer, 1993).
Sociodemographic variables. Participants reported
child sex (female ⫽ 0, male ⫽ 1), child age (in months), and
ethnicity (White ⫽ 0, all other ethnicities ⫽ 1), as well as
caregiver age in years, caregiver education (1 ⫽ less than
high school, 2 ⫽ high school graduate, 3 ⫽ some college,
4 ⫽ college degree), single- versus dual-parent household
status (0 ⫽ single, 1 ⫽ dual), number of adults and children
living in the home, and annual income. Poverty status (0 ⫽
poverty level or below; 1 ⫽ above poverty level) was
calculated from information on the number of adults and
children living in the home and annual household income.
Exposure to angry adult conflict and violence. Caregiv-
ers responded to one question about exposure to angry adult
conflict, “Has the child ever seen or heard adult family
members arguing very loudly or fighting?” and two ques-
tions about exposure to violence, “Has the child ever seen
someone hit, push, or kick a family member?” and “Has the
child ever seen someone use a weapon to threaten or hurt a
family member?”
Missing Data
Fifty-two participants failed to answer the questions con-
cerning violence and conflict and were therefore dropped
from further analyses. In addition, 34 families failed to
provide information on demographic variables that were
included as covariates in tests of the study hypotheses and
were therefore deleted from analyses. A number of caregiv-
ers (n ⫽ 128) did not provide complete data on all of the
ITSEA subscales. To retain as many families as possible,
we followed the guidelines of Tabachnick and Fidell
(2001), imputing missing scores when no more than one
subscale score in a given domain was missing. Specifically,
within each domain we regressed each subscale on the other
subscales in the domain (e.g., Activity/Impulsivity,
Aggression/Defiance, and Peer Aggression are the subscales
in the Externalizing domain; for a missing value on
Activity/Impulsivity, Activity/Impulsivity would be re-
gressed on Aggression/Defiance and Peer Aggression).
Next, the regression coefficients from that model were used
to impute the missing subscale scores (e.g., in the External-
izing example, the missing Activity/Impulsivity score for a
given family would equal the regression coefficient for
Aggression/Defiance ⫻ the Aggression/Defiance subscale
score for that family, plus the regression coefficient for Peer
Aggression ⫻ the Peer Aggression subscale score for that
family). This procedure was repeated for each subscale in
each domain. This approach resulted in the retention of 106
of the 128 cases.
The final sample (weighted values are presented) for the
study therefore consisted of 1,152 participants, with 578
girls and 574 boys who ranged in age from 12 to 42 months,
the middle 50% ranging from 19 to 31 months. Caregivers
ranged in age from 16.0 to 60.6 years (child caregivers who
provided data for this research included 1,114 mothers, 32
fathers, and 6 grandmothers), with the middle 50% ranging
from 28.8 to 36.6 years. Forty-two percent of caregivers
179
reported that they had at least some college experience, and
20.5% of the families lived in poverty. The ethnic break-
down of the final sample was 65.6% Caucasian, 16.5%
African American, 5.5% Hispanic, 8.3% Asian, and 4.1%
from other ethnic groups. Of the children, 20.7% lived in
single-parent homes.
Composition of Violence and Angry Verbal Conflict
Groups
Violence toward a family member was coded as present
for families in which caregivers responded “yes” to one or
both of the questions about violence (n ⫽ 91) and coded as
absent for those who responded “no” to both questions (n ⫽
1,062). Angry verbal conflict was coded as present for
families reporting that their child had observed family mem-
bers arguing very loudly or fighting (n ⫽ 298) and coded as
absent for families whose children had not observed such
behaviors (n ⫽ 854). For the violence and angry verbal
conflict variables, the data were coded so that absence
equaled 0 and presence equaled 1.
Violence toward a family member often co-occurred with
angry verbal conflict; of the 91 children reported to have
observed violence against a family member, 71 were re-
ported also to have observed angry verbal conflict. Thus,
only 20 children (1.7% of the total sample) were reported to
have been exposed to violence toward a family member but
not to angry verbal conflict. Of the 91 children who were
reported to have witnessed violence toward a family mem-
ber, 5 were reported to have observed the use of a weapon.
Among those 5, only 1 was reported to have observed
weapon use but not to have seen someone hit, push, or kick
a family member.
Results
Preliminary Analyses
Using Mahalanobis distance and regression residuals, we
examined the data for outliers that might disproportionately
affect the results. One consistently highly discrepant case
was dropped from further analyses.
Bivariate correlations among the demographic variables
and the child adjustment domains are presented in Table 1.
Caregiver’s age, caregiver’s education, minority status, one
versus two parents in the household, and whether the house-
hold lived in poverty were each associated with all of the
child adjustment domains. Child age was related only to
externalizing problems, and child sex was unrelated to the
adjustment domains. Although the demographic variables
were not all associated with each of the individual adjust-
ment domains, each has been associated with family vio-
lence and with children’s adjustment in previous research.
Consequently, for clarity of interpretation of the results, all
demographic variables were retained as control variables in
the study analyses.
180 MCDONALD ET AL.

Evaluating the Associations of Family Conflict and

female ⫽ 0; male ⫽ 1. b White ⫽ 0; all other ethnicities ⫽ 1. c Child age in months. d 1 ⫽ less than high school; 2 ⫽ high school graduate; 3 ⫽ some college; 4 ⫽ college
731 White/421 non-White

236 below/916 above

Violence With Children’s Adjustment

238 single/914 dual

578 girls/574 boys A multivariate multiple regression analysis was con-
ducted in which the adjustment domains (externalizing
n

problems, internalizing problems, dysregulation, and

atypical/maladaptive problems) served as the dependent
variables. The independent variables were angry verbal
conflict (0 ⫽ absent, 1 ⫽ present), violence (0 ⫽ absent,
1 ⫽ present), and the Angry Verbal Conflict ⫻ Violence
7.77
6.27
0.97

5.66
7.88
0.22
0.29
0.25
0.17
SD

interaction term. The seven demographic variables were

included as control variables in the model. An initial anal-
ysis indicated that the Angry Verbal Conflict ⫻ Violence
24.56
32.02
3.03

4.58
8.94
0.53
0.49
0.47
0.23
M

degree. e 0 ⫽ at or below poverty level; 1 ⫽ above poverty level. f 0 ⫽ one parent; 1 ⫽ two parents. g Means reflect item means.
interaction term was not significant; therefore, it was
dropped and the analysis was recomputed. Results indicated
.28**

that after controlling for the demographic variables, angry

12

verbal conflict, Wilks’s ␭ ⫽ .97, F(4, 1138) ⫽ 10.23, p ⬍

.01, ␩2 ⫽ .04, and violence, Wilks’s ␭ ⫽ .99, F(4, 1138) ⫽
.55**
.34**
11

3.58, p ⬍ .01, ␩2 ⫽ .01, were each associated with higher

levels of children’s adjustment problems (see Table 2 for
.37**
.50**
.27**

the adjusted groups means on each of the domains). The

10

results also indicated that six of the seven demographic

variables in the model were associated with children’s ad-
.25**
.29**
.29**
.23**
—

justment (ps ⬍ .05): Minority status, living in poverty,

9

younger caregiver age, a less educated caregiver, male

.59**
.18**
.27**
.24**
.16**

gender, and child age were each associated with higher

—
8

levels of adjustment problems. The only demographic vari-

able that was not related to the adjustment domains was
⫺.08**
⫺.20**
⫺.17**
⫺.27**
⫺.16**
⫺.15**

whether the child lived in a one- or two-parent household.

—
7

Conceptually, multivariate multiple regression aggre-

gates the separate dependent variables into a “composite”
.38** ⫺.53**
⫺.11** .16**
⫺.24** .27**
⫺.15** .20**
⫺.30** .31**
⫺.15** .18**
⫺.21** .23**

variable and calculates a discriminant function relating the

—
6

composite variable to the grouping variable in such a way

Note. Weighted values presented. CES ⫽ Center for Epidemiologic Studies.

that maximally distinguishes among the groups. To better

⫺.48**
—

understand how the four child adjustment domains contrib-

5

uted to distinctions among the exposure groups, we exam-

Correlations and Descriptive Information on Study Variables

ined the structure matrix of correlations of the adjustment

.48**
⫺.42**
.37**
⫺.08**
⫺.20**
⫺.13**
⫺.27**
⫺.09**
⫺.23**

variables with the discriminant function (i.e., the correlation

—
4

between each of the dependent variables and the composite

dependent variable calculated in the multivariate analysis).
.07*
.03
⫺.03
⫺.04
⫺.01
⫺.03
⫺.03
.03

.04
.09

For angry verbal conflict, the groups (present vs. absent)

—
3

were differentiated most heavily by externalizing problems,

r ⫽ .92; followed by dysregulation, r ⫽ .74; internalizing
⫺.37**
⫺.35**
.47**
⫺.43**

.19**
.22**
.25**
.19**
.23**

problems, r ⫽ .64; and atypical/maladaptive problems, r ⫽

.00

.05
—
2

.49. On the other hand, atypical/maladaptive problems, r ⫽

.99, contributed most strongly to the violence group (present
.00
.00
⫺.01
⫺.03
.04
.01
⫺.02
⫺.01
⫺.04
.05
⫺.02
⫺.03

vs. absent) differences, followed by externalizing problems,

—
1

r ⫽ .30; dysregulation, r ⫽ .20; and internalizing problems,

r ⫽ .19. This pattern suggests that among those exposed to
CES Depression Inventory

angry verbal conflict, risk for adjustment problems is ele-

Beck Anxiety Inventory

Atypical/Maladaptiveg

vated across all of the adjustment problem areas. However,

Caregiver educationd

those in the violence group appear to be at much higher risk

Dual-parent homef

p ⬍ .05. **p ⬍ .01.

Minority statusb

for atypical/maladaptive behavior, with some elevation in

Variable

Poverty statuse

Dysregulationg
Externalizingg
Caregiver age

Internalizingg

risk for externalizing problems and little increased risk for

Child agec
a

dysregulation and internalizing problems.

Child sex

Follow-up inspection of the univariate models for each of

Table 1

the dependent variables indicated an effect of violence on

atypical/maladaptive problems, t(1146) ⫽ 3.78, p ⬍ .05,
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.

sr2 ⫽ .01, with mean differences in the expected direction

*
a
 FAMILY VIOLENCE
Table 2
Adjusted Item Means for Child Adjustment Domains by Type of Exposure
A. Internalizing problems
a
Angry verbal conflict
Absent Present
Absent .51b .57c
Violence
Present .57d .57e
C. Dysregulation problems
a
Angry verbal conflict
Absent Present
Absent .45 .52
Violence
Present .51 .53
Note. Cell sizes are the same for A, B, C, and D. Item means are adjusted for demographic control variables.
a
Variable significantly predicted adjustment problems (p ⬍ .05). b n ⫽ 854. c n ⫽ 227. d n ⫽ 20. e n ⫽ 71.
(but not reaching statistical significance) for each of the
other problem domains. Angry verbal conflict was associ-
ated with higher levels of adjustment problems on each of
the four adjustment domains: t(1146) ⫽ 2.58, p ⬍ .05, sr2 ⫽
.01, for atypical/maladaptive problems; t(1145) ⫽ 3.68, p ⬍
.05, sr2 ⫽ .01, for internalizing problems; t(1143) ⫽ 5.76,
p ⬍ .05, sr2 ⫽ .02, for externalizing problems; and
t(1139) ⫽ 4.46, p ⬍ .05, sr2 ⫽ .02, for dysregulation. The
group item means (adjusted for the demographic control
variables) on each of the adjustment domains are presented
in Table 2.
We repeated the original multivariate analysis, adding
caregiver symptoms of depression (CES–D) and anxiety
(BAI) as additional control variables (23 additional partic-
ipants were excluded from this analysis because of missing
data on one or both of these measures). This analysis
allowed us to control for two important measures of mater-
nal psychological distress that might otherwise account for
some of the differences observed in the above analyses. As
in the first analysis, the Angry Verbal Conflict ⫻ Violence
interaction term was nonsignificant; therefore, the interac-
tion term was dropped and the model was recomputed.
Results indicate that after controlling for the demographic
and caregiver distress variables, both violence, Wilks’s ␭ ⫽
.99, F(4, 1103) ⫽ 3.14, p ⬍ .02, ␩2 ⫽ .01, and angry verbal
conflict, Wilks’s ␭ ⫽ .98, F(4, 1103) ⫽ 4.83, p ⬍ .001,
␩2 ⫽ .02, remained associated with increased risk for child
adjustment problems. In addition, caregiver depression, F(4,
1103) ⫽ 6.64, p ⬍ .001, and anxiety, F(4, 1103) ⫽ 6.54,
p ⬍ .001, were related to child adjustment. Five of the
demographic variables also remained associated with child
adjustment. Minority status, younger caregiver age, less
caregiver education, and older child age were each associ-
ated with increased adjustment problems (ps ⬍ .05), and
male participants were reported to have higher levels of
externalizing problems than female participants (p ⬍ .05).
The structure matrix of correlations of the adjustment
variables with the discriminant function for the angry verbal
conflict effect indicated that the groups were again differ-
181
B. Externalizing problems
Angry verbal conflicta
Absent Present
Absent .46 .56
Violence
Present .52 .58
D. Atypical/maladaptive problems
Angry verbal conflicta
Absent Present
Absent .22 .24
Violencea
Present .29 .31
entiated most heavily by externalizing problems (r ⫽ .95),
followed by dysregulation (r ⫽ .70), internalizing problems
(r ⫽ .61), and atypical/maladaptive problems (r ⫽ .42).
Atypical/maladaptive problems (r ⫽ .98) was most strongly
associated with the discriminant function differentiating the
violence groups, followed by externalizing problems (r ⫽
.24), internalizing problems (r ⫽ .11), and dysregulation
(r ⫽ .09). This pattern mirrors the result from the first
multivariate analysis.
The univariate models indicated that the levels of child
problems were higher in the presence of angry verbal con-
flict than in its absence for each of the problem domains
except atypical/maladaptive problems (all ps ⬍ .05). Expo-
sure to violence was associated with increased problems but
was statistically significant only for atypical/maladaptive
problems (p ⬍ .05).
To test specifically whether violence is a risk factor for
child adjustment problems over and above angry verbal
conflict, we conducted an analysis to compare those chil-
dren who were exposed only to angry verbal conflict with
those who were exposed to violence (regardless of their
exposure to angry verbal conflict). To make this compari-
son, we combined the two groups of children who were
exposed to violence (those exposed to violence and to angry
verbal conflict, n ⫽ 71, and those exposed only to violence,
n ⫽ 20) into a single group, leaving us with three groups,
those exposed to neither angry verbal conflict nor violence
(n ⫽ 854), those exposed to angry verbal conflict but not to
violence (n ⫽ 227), and those exposed to violence (n ⫽ 91).
We conducted a multivariate analysis of covariance, using
the newly formed three-level grouping variable as the inde-
pendent variable and the seven demographic variables as
covariates. Results of a multivariate contrast comparing the
two groups of interest (the children exposed to violence
with those exposed to angry verbal conflict but no violence)
indicated that the children exposed to violence had signifi-
cantly higher levels of adjustment problems than those
exposed only to angry verbal conflict, Wilks’s ␭ ⫽ .99, F(4,
1139) ⫽ 2.85 p ⬍ .05, ␩2 ⫽ .01. When we examined the
182 MCDONALD ET AL.
univariate analyses, the violence group had higher levels of
atypical/maladaptive behaviors than the angry verbal con-
flict only group, F(1, 309) ⫽ 10.42, p ⬍ .01, sr2 ⫽ .02. The
two groups did not differ on the other three domains of child
adjustment problems. We repeated these analyses, adding
the two additional covariates that controlled for two dimen-
sions of maternal adjustment problems (depression and anx-
iety), and obtained an identical pattern of results. Specifi-
cally, the multivariate contrast from the multivariate
analysis of covariance yielded differences between the chil-
dren exposed to violence and those exposed only to angry
verbal conflict, Wilks’s ␭ ⫽ .99, F(4, 1104) ⫽ 2.74, p ⬍
.05, ␩2 ⫽ .01, with the univariate analyses revealing higher
levels of atypical/maladaptive behavior among those ex-
posed to violence, in comparison with those exposed only to
angry verbal conflict, F(1, 1107) ⫽ 9.76, p ⬍ .01, sr2 ⫽ .02.
Discussion
This is the first community-based study to our knowledge
that evaluates whether witnessing violence toward a family
member increases risk for very young children’s adjustment
difficulties after accounting for the risk attributable to ex-
posure to angry adult verbal conflict. Strengths of this
research include the use of a scientifically selected sample
of community families, consideration of sociodemographic
and caregiver distress variables that might account for re-
sults, and a broad assessment of child adjustment difficul-
ties. Our findings suggest that adjustment difficulties are
more likely among 1- to 3-year-olds who witness violence
toward a family member than among children who do not
witness such violence. Similarly, young children who wit-
ness angry adult verbal conflict are more likely to exhibit
adjustment difficulties than children who do not witness
such conflict. Finally, young children who witness violence
toward a family member exhibit more adjustment difficul-
ties than those who witness angry adult conflict but no
violence toward a family member.
The findings regarding violence toward a family member
are consistent with theory on the disruptive effects of family
violence on children and caregivers (Garbarino, 1995; Ross-
man, 1999; Streeck-Fischer & van der Kolk, 2000) and the
results from a handful of studies of older children suggest-
ing that exposure to family violence may be a more potent
risk factor for child problems than exposure to other forms
of family conflict (Fantuzzo et al., 1991; Jouriles et al.,
1989, 1996; McDonald et al., 2000; Rossman & Rosenberg,
1992). Violence exposure, however, was associated primar-
ily with atypical/maladaptive symptoms. Violence toward a
family member may thus be a stressor sufficient to produce
behavioral disorganization or other very unusual or mal-
adaptive coping responses in young children. It is also
possible that exposure to violence in early childhood has
specific, circumscribed effects (e.g., diminished regulation
of affect or behavior) that, as development progresses, in-
fluence adjustment more broadly. In other words, the results
observed in the present research may represent only the
initial emergence of symptomatic behavior that has yet to
reach a final form; the effects of exposure to violence can be
expected to unfold over time, and the assessment of very
young children may capture only the initial stages of those
effects.
Although our results provide evidence that exposure to
violence confers additional risk beyond the effects attribut-
able to exposure to angry adult conflict (and vice versa), the
processes responsible for this increased risk are not clear. It
may be that witnessing violence toward a family member
has direct, traumatic, and disorganizing effects on young
children (Scheeringa & Zeanah, 1995; Zeanah et al., 1999).
Violence toward a family member may also mark the pres-
ence of other variables that increase risk for child adjust-
ment difficulties. For example, caregivers who are victims
of violence may, perhaps, be distressed or traumatized
themselves and less able to provide consistent, sensitive,
and responsive care to their very young child (Levendosky
& Graham-Bermann, 2000). Interpretation of the present
results should be limited to the idea that, in community
samples, children exposed to violence directed toward a
family member are at increased risk for adjustment difficul-
ties, after accounting for their exposure to angry adult
conflict; however, the processes responsible for this in-
creased risk have yet to be identified.
The results also suggest that angry adult verbal conflict is
associated with adjustment problems among very young
children independent of the effects of witnessing violence
against a family member. Although one might intuitively
anticipate stronger effects for violence than for angry verbal
conflict, this finding is consistent with research indicating
that angry interparent conflict is associated with children’s
adjustment (Cummings et al., 1981). Moreover, angry ver-
bal conflict occurs much more frequently than physical
violence, thus higher base rates of children’s exposure to
angry verbal conflict might partially account for the finding.
That is, more exposures to adult angry verbal conflict pro-
vide more frequent opportunities for children to be affected
by it and for cumulative effects to begin to emerge. Al-
though our findings cannot be interpreted to indicate that
witnessing angry verbal conflict causes increased risk for
adjustment problems among young children, the findings
are consistent with the prescription not to “fight in front of
the children,” even when the children are very young.
Related to this, it is important to note that marital distress—
and perhaps the likelihood of angry adult conflict—is
heightened during the early child-rearing years (Belsky &
Rovine, 1990; Glenn, 1990). Very young children may
therefore be more likely than older children to be exposed to
such conflict. For families with very young children referred
to mental health service providers, assessment of conflict
and violence that occurs within the family may therefore
provide clinically relevant and useful information.
Certain aspects of this research may have constrained the
magnitude of the observed association between young chil-
dren’s adjustment and witnessing family violence. For ex-
ample, this research was conducted with a community sam-
ple; hence, most of the violence witnessed by the children
was likely to be infrequent and minor (Jouriles, McDonald,
et al., 2001). In addition, considering some of the demo-
graphic differences between participants and nonpartici-
 FAMILY VIOLENCE
pants, families at highest risk for frequent and severe vio-
lence may have been underrepresented in the sample. Given
these factors, our results likely represent a conservative test
of the hypothesis that witnessing violence toward a family
member increases risk for young children’s adjustment
problems beyond the risk associated with angry adult con-
flict.
Several additional limitations should also be considered
when interpreting the present findings. First, all data were
obtained from a single source—the child’s caregiver. It may
be argued that caregivers are the best sources for informa-
tion on what their young children have seen or heard and on
child functioning, but collecting data from only one source
may artificially inflate associations between variables via
shared method variance. This concern is partially mitigated
by the inclusion of caregiver self-reports of anxiety and
depressive symptoms as control variables (i.e., shared
method variance would be captured in the analyses by these
control variables), but the results might still be considered
more compelling if the data came from independent sources.
Second, the assessment of violence exposure was limited to
two items, and those items were vague regarding the pa-
rameters and context of the violence (e.g., victim, perpetra-
tor, relationship of victim and perpetrator, whether injuries
resulted, etc.). This limits our ability to identify key param-
eters of the violence that may be important to understanding
its links with child adjustment. Third, the study design is
cross-sectional and correlational, precluding inferences
about causality and the persistence of problems subsequent
to exposure to angry verbal conflict and violence. Although
violence toward a family member and angry adult conflict
mark an increased risk for young children’s adjustment
difficulties, these results should not be interpreted as evi-
dence that such violence and conflict cause those difficul-
ties.
In conclusion, this research suggests that understanding
the development of adjustment problems in normative sam-
ples may be enhanced by taking a closer look at the angry
adult conflict and violence to which very young children are
exposed. In addition, it may be useful to consider child
adjustment somewhat broadly in relation to conflict and
violence. Longitudinal studies are needed to examine how
conflict and violence may alter developmental trajectories,
to better understand the processes by which very young
children may be affected by angry adult conflict and vio-
lence in the home, and to identify the naturally occurring
circumstances that may buffer children from the detrimental
effects of exposure to angry adult conflict and violence.
References
Beck, A. T., & Steer, R. A. (1993). Manual for the Beck Depres-
sion Inventory. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
Belsky, J., & Rovine, M. (1990). Patterns of marital change across
the transition to parenthood: Pregnancy to three years postpar-
tum. Journal of Marriage & the Family, 52, 5–19.
Briggs-Gowan, M. J., & Carter, A. S. (1998). Preliminary accept-
ability and psychometrics of the Infant–Toddler Social and Emo-
tional Assessment (ITSEA): A new adult-report questionnaire.
Infant Mental Health, 19, 422– 455.
183
Briggs-Gowan, M. J., Carter, A. S., Skuban, E., & Horwitz, S.
(2001). Prevalence of social– emotional and behavioral problems
in a community sample of 1- and 2-year-old children. Journal of
the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 40,
811– 819.
Carter, A. S. & Briggs-Gowan, M. J. (2006). ITSEA/BITSEA:
Infant Toddler & Brief Infant Toddler Social Emotional Assess-
ment: Examiner’s manual. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Cor-
poration.
Carter, A. S., Briggs-Gowan, M. J., Jones, S. M., Little, T. D.
(2003). The Infant–Toddler Social and Emotional Assessment
(ITSEA): Factor structure, reliability, and validity. Journal of
Abnormal Child Psychology, 31, 495–514.
Carter, A. S., Little, C., Briggs-Gowan, M. J., & Kogan, N. (1999).
The Infant–Toddler Social–Emotional Assessment (ITSEA):
Comparing parent ratings to laboratory observations of task
mastery, emotion regulation, coping behaviors, and attachment
status. Infant Mental Health, 20, 375–392.
Crockenberg, S. (1985). Toddlers’ reactions to maternal anger.
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 31, 361–373.
Cummings, E. M., Ballard, M., & El-Sheikh, M. (1991). Re-
sponses of children and adolescents to interadult anger as a
function of gender, age, and mode of expression. Merrill-Palmer
Quarterly, 37, 543–560.
Cummings, E. M., Zahn-Waxler, C., & Radke-Yarrow, M. (1981).
Young children’s responses to expressions of anger and affection
by others in the family. Child Development, 52, 1274 –1282.
El-Sheikh, M., & Cummings, E. M. (1995). Children’s responses
to angry adult behavior as a function of experimentally manip-
ulated exposure to resolved and unresolved conflict. Social De-
velopment, 4, 75–91.
Fantuzzo, J., Boruch, R., Beriama, A., & Atkins, M. (1997).
Domestic violence and children: Prevalence and risk in five
major U.S. cities. Journal of the American Academy of Child &
Adolescent Psychiatry, 36, 116 –122.
Fantuzzo, J. W., DePaola, L. M., Lambert, L., Martino, T., Ander-
son, G., & Sutton, S. (1991). Effects of interparental violence on
the psychological adjustment and competencies of young chil-
dren. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59, 258 –
265.
Garbarino, J. (1995). The American war zone: What children can
tell us about living with violence. Journal of Developmental &
Behavioral Pediatrics, 16, 431– 435.
Glenn, N. D. (1990). Quantitative research on marital quality in the
1980s: A critical review. Journal of Marriage and the Family,
52, 818 – 831.
Graham-Bermann, S. A., & Levendosky, A. A. (1998). Traumatic
stress symptoms in children of battered women. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 13, 111–128.
Graham-Bermann, S. A., & Seng, M. (2005). Violence exposure
and traumatic stress symptoms as additional predictors of health
problems in high-risk children. Journal of Pediatrics, 146, 349 –
354.
Huth-Bocks, A. C., Levendosky, A. A., Bogat, G. A., & von Eye,
A. (2004). The impact of maternal characteristics and contextual
variables on infant-mother attachment. Child Development, 75,
480 – 496.
Jouriles, E. N., McDonald, R., Norwood, W. D., & Ezell, E.
(2001). Issues and controversies in documenting the prevalence
of children’s exposure to domestic violence. In S. A. Graham-
Bermann & J. L. Edleson (Eds.), Domestic violence in the lives
of children: The future of research, intervention, and social
policy (pp. 12–34). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
184 MCDONALD ET AL.
Jouriles, E. N., McDonald, R., & Skopp, N. (2005). Partner vio-
lence and children. In W. Pinsoff & J. Lebow (Eds.), Family
psychology: The art of the science (pp. 223–242). New York:
Oxford University Press.
Jouriles, E. N., Murphy, C. M., & O’Leary, K. D. (1989). Inter-
spousal aggression, marital discord, and child problems. Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57, 453– 455.
Jouriles, E. N., Norwood, W. D., McDonald, R., & Peters, B.
(2001). Domestic violence and child adjustment. In J. H. Grych
& F. D. Fincham (Eds.), Interparental conflict and child devel-
opment: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 315–336). New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Jouriles, E. N., Norwood, W. D., McDonald, R., Vincent, J. P., &
Mahoney, A. (1996). Physical marital violence and other forms
of marital aggression: Links with child behavior problems. Jour-
nal of Family Psychology, 10, 223–234.
Levendosky, A. A., & Graham-Bermann, S. A. (2000). Behavioral
observations of parenting in battered women. Journal of Family
Psychology, 14, 80 –94.
Margolin, G., & Gordis, E. B. (2000). The effects of family and
community violence on children. Annual Review of Psychology,
51, 445– 479.
McDonald, R., Jouriles, E. N., Norwood, W., Ware, H. S., & Ezell,
E. (2000). Husbands’ marital violence and the adjustment prob-
lems of clinic-referred children. Behavior Therapy, 31, 649 – 665.
Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES–D Scale: A self-report depression
scale for research in the general population. Applied Psycholog-
ical Measurement, 1, 385– 401.
Rossman, B. B. R. (1999). Multiple risks for children exposed to
parental violence: Family factors, psychological maltreatment,
and trauma. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 2,
207–237.
Rossman, B. R., & Rosenberg, M. S. (1992). Family stress and
functioning in children: The moderating effects of children’s
beliefs about their control over parental conflict. Journal of Child
Psychology & Psychiatry & Allied Disciplines, 33, 699 –715.
Scheeringa, M. S., & Zeanah, C. H. (1995). Symptom expression
and trauma variables in children under 48 months of age. Infant
Mental Health Journal, 16, 259 –270.
Sroufe, L. A., & Rutter, M. (1984). The domain of developmental
psychopathology. Child Development, 55, 17–29.
Streeck-Fischer, A., & van der Kolk, B. A. (2000). Down will
come baby, cradle and all: Diagnostic and therapeutic implica-
tions of chronic trauma on child development. Australian & New
Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 34, 903–918.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate
statistics (4th ed.) Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
U.S. Department of Justice. (2005). Family violence statistics:
Including statistics on strangers and acquaintances. Washing-
ton, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs.
Yates, T. M., Dodds, M. F., Sroufe, L. A., & Egeland, B. (2003).
Exposure to partner violence and child behavior problems: A
prospective study controlling for child physical abuse and ne-
glect, child cognitive ability, socioeconomic status, and life
stress. Developmental Psychopathology, 15, 199 –218.
Zeanah, C. H., Danis, B., Hirshberg, L., Benoit, D., Miller, D., &
Heller, S. S. (1999). Disorganized attachment associated with
partner violence: A research note. Infant Mental Health Journal,
20, 77– 86.
Received May 10, 2005
Revision received May 3, 2006
Accepted May 7, 2006 䡲