ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Co-Occurrence of Interparental Violence and Child Physical

Abuse and Its Effect on the Adolescents Behavior
Chantal Bourassa
Published online: 31 July 2007
# Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2007
Abstract This study analyzed the impact of the co-
occurrence of parental and interparental violence on the
behavior of adolescents. Results reveal that the co-
occurrence of interparental violence and child physical
abuse has a significantly greater negative impact on
behavior than does exposure to interparental violence only.
Moreover, participants, who are both abused and exposed
to interparental violence, exhibit internalized and external-
ized symptoms falling within the clinical range more
frequently. Exposure exclusively to interparental violence
also has definite impact; for example, teens who are only
exposed to interparental violence exhibit internalized and
externalized symptoms more frequently than do those who
have been neither subject to physical abuse from a parent
nor exposed to interparental violence. Implications of the
findings are discussed.
Keywords Adolescents
.
Behavior
.
Co-occurrence
of interparental violence and child physical abuse
Studies have indicated that the incidence of exposure to
interparental violence is far from marginal. It is estimated
that every year in the United States, between 3.3 million
(Carlson 1984) and 10 million (Peled et al. 1995) children
are at risk of exposure to interparental violence. Between
1994 and 1999, approximately half a million Canadian
children saw or heard violence directed toward a parent
(Canadian Center for Justice Statistics 2000). According to
Sudermann and Jaffe (1999), between 11 and 23% of all
children in Canada witness such violence. These research-
ers have calculated that in the average class in the school
setting, from two to six children have likely been exposed
to interparental violence.
In addition to their exposure to interparental violence,
many children are the direct targets of abuse; the average
rate of co-occurrence of interparental violence and child
abuse lies between 30 and 60% (Edleson 2001; McKay
1994;). A study conducted in Quebec indicated that, of all
the reports made to the child protection services, 22.9%
included the presence of interparental violence (Chamberland
et al. 2007). Interparental violence constituted the primary
form of abuse for 40% of these children, while negligence
(56%) and physical abuse (32%) were the primary forms of
abuse for the rest. Studies on the rate of co-occurrence have
been associated with a number of methodological gaps
(Appel and Holden 1998; Edleson 1999). For example,
Appel and Holden (1998) noted that rates of co-occurrence
vary depending on the sample: from 26 to 50% among
children involved in reports to child protection agencies;
from 4 to 100% among abused women; and from 6 to 21%
for the general public.
Studies have revealed the many negative consequences
of living in a violent domestic environment. Exposure to
interparental violence is associated with the presence of
externalized and internalized symptoms in children
(Bourassa 1998; Chnard 1994; Christopoulos et al. 1987;
Fantuzzo et al. 1991; Fortin et al. 2000; Jaffe et al. 1985,
1990) and adolescents (Bourassa 2002). However, accord-
ing to the research available, the co-occurrence of interpar-
ental and child abuse is associated with more severe
symptoms among children (Davis and Carlson 1987; Fortin
et al. 2000; Hughes 1988; Hughes et al. 1989) and
teenagers (OKeefe 1996).
Research is inconsistent regarding differences between
boys and girls regarding the impact of exposure to interpar-
ental violence on behavior. Some studies indicate that boys
J Fam Viol (2007) 22:691701
DOI 10.1007/s10896-007-9117-8
C. Bourassa (*)
School of Social Work, Universit de Moncton,
Moncton, New Brunswick, Canada E1A 1E9
e-mail: bourasc@umoncton.ca
show more externalizing symptoms (Jaffe et al. 1986) and
that girls exhibit more internalizing symptoms (Christopoulos
et al. 1987; Holden and Ritchie 1991; Stagg et al. 1989).
However, several studies failed to find differences between
boys and girls (Fantuzzo et al. 1991; Gleason 1995; OKeefe
1994b). The only gender difference in the Fortin et al. (2000)
study is that girls show more delinquent behaviors than boys.
Therefore, according to those results, it is difficult to
establish if girls and boys are affected differently by their
exposure to interparental violence.
Moreover, research to date represents only a limited
portrait of the consequences of the co-occurrence of
interparental and child abuse. First, most studies have
focused on young children; only limited knowledge is
available with regard to teens, particularly those between
the ages of 16 and 19. A study conducted with adolescents
allows us to investigate the effects of domestic violence on
a population that has probably been exposed for a longer
period. In addition, while studies indicate that children who
are both abused and exposed to interparental violence
exhibit more severe problems than those who are only
exposed to interparental violence, many studies have not
checked for the presence of child abuse, particularly
directed toward teens.
A few theories can help better understand the impact of
interparental violence on the presence of internalized and
externalized symptoms. According to social learning
theory, the observation of others constitutes the central
component of learning (Bandura 1973; Patterson et al.
1984). The more significant the model (e.g. ones parents),
the greater the chance that the observer will reproduce a
given behavior. The chances that an observer will repro-
duce a models behavior also increase if the model is a
member of the same gender (Bandura 1969; Margolin and
Patterson 1975). The observation of violent behaviors can
lead a child to adopt attitudes that favor violence and,
eventually, to imitate these violent behaviors (Anderson and
Cramer-Benjamin 1999). Also, the observation of victim
behaviors can lead children to imitate those behaviors.
Moreover, if a child is subjected to child physical abuse in
addition to exposure to aggressive models, then the
probability of imitation of the violent or victim behaviors
may increase (Kashani et al. 1991; OKeefe 1996).
Another theoretical explanation is the psychiatric model
who indicates that the adaptation problems of children and
adolescents exposed to interparental violence can be explained
by post-traumatic stress (Anderson and Cramer-Benjamin
1999; Margolin and John 1997). The psychiatric model
suggest that the traumatic experiences (e.g., earthquake, war,
interparental violence) provokes an intense fear and a
helpless feeling and this could be manifested as internalizing
problems (somatic difficulties, sleep problems, depression,
anxiety) and externalizing problems (Anderson and Cramer-
Benjamin 1999). Children exposed to interparental violence
live in a family environment in which they are scared for
their protection and that of the parent who is victim.
Thus violence that occurs at the hands of one parent
and that victimizes the other parent may create a world
for children that is frightening, confusing, and lacking
security and safety. Interparental violence transforms
the home into a dangerous and unpredictable environ-
ment. As concluded by Jafnoff-Bulmann (1993), The
most devastating negative life events on children are
likely to be those that involve victimization by the
very people who are looked to for protection and
safety (Margolin and John 1997, p. 91).
According to Rutters (1981) cumulative risk hypothe-
ses, the risk of children experiencing problems doubles or
quadruples with the presence of two or more stressors.
Therefore, being exposed to domestic violence with the
stress of being physically abused interact to contribute to an
increase in externalized and internalized symptoms.
The results presented in this article are part of a study
which seeks to extend our knowledge about the impact of
interparental violence on teens aged between ages 15 and 19,
a group age neglected in most studies on exposure to
interparental violence. It was predicted that teens who were
both victim of child abuse and exposed to interparental
violence would show more behavioral problems (internalized
and externalized symptoms) than those who are only exposed
to interparental violence. It was also predicted that those
exposed to interparental violence would exhibit more behav-
ioral problems than those not exposed to that violence or not
victim of child abuse. Because of the inconsistencies
regarding the effect of interparental violence by gender, it is
difficult at this point to elaborate an hypothesis on that aspect.
Materials and Methods
Participants and Procedure
The population studied was composed of teens attending a
secondary school in New Brunswick, Canada. Three school
districts were selected based on two criteria: representation
of three geographic areas in the province and accessibility
to the researcher. One secondary school in each district was
subsequently identified, and a total of 984 French teens
aged 16 to 18 were invited to take part in the project. Of
this number, 296 (30.1%) opted not to respond to the
questionnaire. Among the completed questionnaires, 198
(20.1%) were rejected due to an excessive number of
missing responses. A total of 490 teens, aged between 15
and 19 years old (M=16.9), formed the final sample
(49.8% of original respondents): 269 girls and 221 boys.
692 J Fam Viol (2007) 22:691701
Overall, 78.4% of the sample resided in two-parent
families. Eighteen percent of youth lived in a single parent
or a reconstituted family. Eleven percent of responds had no
siblings, while the rest had two or more siblings.
The number of refusal and rejected questionnaires may
affect the generalization and external validity of the study.
While the response rate was somewhat low, it compares to
the rates typically recorded in studies of this nature. For
example, Dumas and Beauchesne (1993) obtained a re-
sponse rate of 52.1% in a study of paid employment among
secondary school students.
Many reasons can explain the number of refusal or
rejected questionnaires. Some may live severe violence at
home and not want to think about it during class. Others
may not live violence at home and, therefore, not feel
concerned by the research. Also, the questionnaires were ad-
ministered during flu season and there are many absences.
Finally, because the questionnaires were administered during a
free period, some preferred to use that time to finalize a paper
or study for a test.
A comparison was done between the respondents by,
whom the questionnaire was completed and those whom
the questionnaire was rejected according to the gender,
grade, number of children in the family and family type.
The comparison is based on the 490 youths whom the
questionnaire was retained and 143 of the 198 youths
whom the questionnaire was rejected. The Chi-Square tests
indicated that the respondents who had the questionnaire
retained and those with the rejected questionnaires present a
similar profile; there were no significant differences for
gender (
2
=0.136, ns), grade (
2
=1.95, ns) and family
type (
2
=1.74, ns). However, there was a significant
difference with regards to the number of children in the
family (
2
=10.81, p<0.05).
The questionnaires, which featured four rating scales,
were distributed to the participants during regular school
hours. At two of the schools, the questionnaires were
distributed either by the researcher herself or by her research
assistant. At the third school, the questionnaires were
distributed by the teachers due to the high number of grade
11 and 12 classes at the school. A letter was forwarded to all
parents in advance to advise them of the study and to
encourage them to contact the researcher if they needed
additional information. Participants were free to complete the
questionnaire if they chose, and they completed a consent
form. A list of resources available within the community was
also sent out with the questionnaire.
Measures
The presence of internalized and externalized symptoms was
assessed using the French versions of the internalized and
externalized symptoms scales of the Youth Self Report
(YSR) (Achenback 1991): Rapport personnel des jeunes.
These scales enable measurement of the perception of
children or teenagers (aged 11 to 18) in terms of their
behavior and social skills (Achenback 1991). The internal-
ized disorder scale covers the subscales of withdrawal,
somatic complaints, and anxiety/depression. The external-
ized disorder scale is composed of subscales to measure
delinquent and aggressive behavior. Achenback (1991)
prescribed cutoff points based on subject gender for
determining whether problems were within the normal range
or exceeded the clinical threshold. The psychometric
qualities of the French version of the YSR have not been
evaluated; the authors of the French version instead use the
standards from the U.S. version, whose psychometric
properties are viewed as excellent, particularly when applied
to teens between the ages of 15 and 18 (Achenback 1991).
Interparental violence was assessed using the French
versions of the psychological and physical aggression scales
from the Relationships Between My Parents questionnaire
(Straus 2000, CTS2-CA). The CTS2-CA serves in assessing
a persons perception of conflicts between his or her parents.
The CTS2-CA is a version of the Revised Conflict Tactics
Scale, couple version (Straus et al. 1996; CTS2). Therefore,
subsequent to the authors approval of the original tool, the
CTS2-CA was translated based on the French version of the
CTS2 (Lussier 1997, Questionnaire sur la rsolution des
conflits conjugaux [Resolution of partners conflicts Quec-
tionnaire], unpublished data). In the CTS2-CA and the
CTS2, the psychological aggression scale contains 16 items
and the physical aggression scale contains 24 items. The
respondent answers on a Likert scale ranging from 0 (never)
to 6 (more than 20 times). The psychometric properties of
the CTS2-CA have not been evaluated; however, the CTS2
is known to have superior psychometric qualities (Lussier
1997, Questionnaire sur la rsolution des conflits conjugaux
[Resolution of partners conflicts Quectionnaire], unpub-
lished data; Straus et al. 1996).
The French version of the physical aggression subscale
of the ParentChild Conflict Tactics Scales, children
version (Straus 2000, CTSPC-CA) was used to evaluate
the physical violence to which respondents had been
exposed. The CTSPC-CA enabled assessment of the
persons perception of the physical violence to which they
had been subjected by their parents. The CTSPC-CA is a
version of the Revised ParentChild Conflict Tactics
Scales, parent version, which serve in the assessment of
the disciplinary practices of parents. Again, subsequent to
the authors approval of the original tool, the CTSPC-CA
was translated based on the French version of the Revised
ParentChild Conflict Tactics Scales, parent version (Fortin
et al. 1996). The respondent answers on a Likert scale
ranging from 0 (never) to 6 (more than 20 times). Data are
not currently available on the psychometric properties of
J Fam Viol (2007) 22:691701 693
the CTSPC-CA. However, in the study carried out by
Straus et al. (1998), the internal consistency coefficient for
the physical aggression subscale of the PCCTS was 0.55.
The PCCTS also appears to have a high degree of construct
validity (ibid. 1998).
Finally, a number of questions were used to collect
information on the sociodemographic characteristics of the
participants, including age, gender, number of children in
the family, family type and parents educational level.
However, the educational level of parents was not taken
into account in this study since a high number of
respondents did not provide this information.
Results
Respondent Profile Based on Independent Study Variables:
Interparental Violence and Child Physical Abuse
Of the 490 adolescents comprising the final sample, 253
(51.6%) had been exposed at least once to interparental
violence within the past five years, while 237 (48.4%) had
not been exposed to this type of violence. Among the
respondents who had been exposed to violence, 101
(20.6%) had been exposed to both psychological and
physical violence, while 152 (31%) had been exposed only
to psychological violence. Girls reported more frequent
exposure to interparental violence than boys. T tests with
Bonferonni correction (p<0.007) revealed that this differ-
ence was significant with regard to physical violence
perpetrated by the mother [t (488)=1.91, p<0.007; see
Table 1], psychological violence perpetrated by the mother
[t (488)=1.95, p<0.007], psychological violence perpetrat-
ed by the father [t (488)=2.51, p<0.007], total psycholog-
ical violence [t (488) =2.32; p<.007], total physical
violence [t (488)=1.24, p<0.007). However, there was no
significant difference between boys and girls for physical
violence perpetrated by the father [t (488)=0.49, ns], total
physical violence [t (488)=1.24, ns] and total interparental
violence [t (488)=2.15, ns].
There was a positive and significant correlation between
psychological violence perpetrated by the mother and that
perpetrated by the father as well as between physical
violence perpetrated by the mother and that perpetrated by
the father (see Table 2). In addition, a positive and significant
correlation is noted between total psychological violence and
Table 1 Interparental violence by the aggressors gender and youths gender: mean and standard deviations
Variables Girls (n=269) Boys (n=221)
M SD M SD
Mother to father violence
Psychological violence 15.30 27.55 10.76* 23.93
Physical violence 4.46 17.68 2.06* 9.62
Father to mother violence
Psychological violence 14.48 26.05 8.91* 23.11
Physical violence 3.51 15.31 2.84 14.79
Violence by both parents
Psychological violence 29.77 50.79 19.67* 45.50
Physical violence 7.97 31.62 4.90* 23.14
Total interparental violence (psychological + physical) 37.75 73.34 24.57* 62.59
* p<0.05
Table 2 Correlations among different forms of interparental violence
Interparental violence 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Psychological violence
Mother to father 0.83** 0.96** 0.54** 0.51** 0.55** 0.90**
Father to mother 0.95** 0.47** 0.59** 0.56** 0.90**
Violence by both parents 0.53** 0.57** 0.58** 0.94**
Physical violence
Mother to father 0.79** 0.95** 0.76**
Father to mother 0.95** 0.79**
Violence by both parents 0.82**
Interparental violence in total
** p<0.01
694 J Fam Viol (2007) 22:691701
total physical violence. Thus, the more the youth is exposed
to psychological violence and physical violence perpetrated
by the mother, the more likely he is exposed to psycholog-
ical violence and physical violence perpetrated by the father.
Given the elevated correlations among the variables, the
subsequent analyses will take only total interparental
violence into account. Meanwhile, although violence perpe-
trated by female and male parents has been grouped, the
researcher does not claim that these acts of aggression have
the same goals or identical consequences.
Of the 490 respondents in the final sample, 32 (6.5%),
that is, 18 girls and 14 boys had been victims of child
physical abuse but had not been exposed to interparental
violence, 131 (26.7%), including, 79 girls and 52 boys had
been exposed to interparental violence but had not been
victims of child physical abuse and 122 (24.9%) more
specifically, 74 girls and 48 boys had been both abused and
exposed to interparental violence. According to the results of
the T tests with Bonferonni correction (p<0.01), there was
no significant difference between boys and girls (see Table 3)
for violence perpetrated by the mother [t (488)=1.53, ns],
violence perpetrated by the father [t (488)=0.81, ns] and
violence perpetrated by both parents [t (488)=1.17, ns].
Table 4 illustrates the correlations between physical
violence perpetrated by the father and that perpetrated by
the mother as well as the correlations between child
physical abuse and interparental violence. First, with regard
to child physical abuse, violence perpetrated by the mother
and violence perpetrated by the father are closely associat-
ed. The more the youth is victim of violence by the mother,
the more likely he is victim of violence by the father. On
these grounds, subsequent analyses take only total child
physical abuse into account. Next, a positive and significant
correlation is noted between total interparental violence and
total child physical abuse; as such, the greater the
participants exposure to interparental violence, the more
likely it is that the participant was also subjected to child
physical abuse.
Respondent Profile Based on Dependent Study Variables:
Internalized and Externalized Symptoms
Girls had significantly higher scores on the internalized
symptoms scale (see Table 5). T tests with Bonferonni
correction (p<0.007) indicated that girls showed significantly
more anxiety/depression [t (488)=5.62, p<0.007] and somatic
complaints [t (488)=5.97, p<0.007], and were significantly
more withdrawn [t (488)=5.62, p<0.007]. However, there was
no significant difference between boys and girls on the
externalized symptoms scale [for delinquent behavior: t (488)=
1.81, ns; for aggressive behavior: t (488)=1.37, ns; and for total
externalized symptoms: t (488)=0.23, ns].
Experience of Violence and Extent of Internalized
and Externalized Symptoms
The sample was divided into three groups: exposed to
interparental violence and victim of child abuse (co-
occurrence; 74 girls and 48 boys); exposed to domestic
violence only (79 girls and 52 boys); and not exposed and
not victim of child abuse (98 girls and 107 boys). Because
of the hypotheses verified in this study, the youths that were
only victim of child abuse were not included in the present
analysis. Two 3 (abuse status) 2 (gender) analysis of
variance (ANOVA) were conducted to verify if the co-
occurrence of interparental violence and child physical
abuse had a significantly greater impact on the presence of
internalized symptoms and externalized symptoms than did
exposure exclusively to interparental violence. The
ANOVA, with internalized symptoms as the dependant
variable, indicated no significant interaction between
gender and group status, F(3,482) =1.47, ns, partial

2
=0.01, but significant main effects for abuse status,
F(3,482)=29.52, p<0.001, partial
2
=0.16, and gender,
F(1,482)=22.43, p<0.001, partial
2
=0.04 (see Table 5).
The gender main effect indicated that the girls tended to have
greater internalized symptoms than the boys.
Table 4 Correlations among child physical abuse and interparental
violence
Types of violence 1 2 3 4
Child physical abuse
Mother to child 0.78* 0.93* 0.62*
Father to child 0.96* 0.56*
Mother and father to child 0.62*
Interparental violence
*p<0.01
Table 3 Child physical abuse
by the aggressors gender and
youths gender: mean and
standard deviations
Variables Girls (n=269) Boys (n=221)
M SD M SD
Mother to child 5.20 20.17 2.91 12.48
Father to child 5.48 24.70 3.90 16.35
Mother and father to child 10.68 41.77 6.81 28.29
J Fam Viol (2007) 22:691701 695
Follow-up analyses of the main effect for abuse status,
consisting of all pairwise comparisons among the three
types of groups, was examined. The Tukey HSD procedure
was used to control for Type I error across the pairwise
comparisons. The results of this analysis indicate that there
was a significant difference between the three groups: the
youth who were both abused and exposed to interparental
violence exhibited internalized symptoms significantly
more frequently than those exposed exclusively to inter-
parental violence. Moreover, those who had only been
exposed to interparental violence reported internalized
symptoms significantly more frequently than those who
reported neither parental nor interparental violence.
The same analyses were conducted but with the external-
ized symptoms as the dependant variable. The ANOVA indi-
cated no significant interaction between gender and abuse
status, F(3,482)=0.16, ns, partial
2
=0.00 (see Table 6). Also
there was no significant main effect for gender, F(1,482)=
0.97, ns, partial
2
=0.00; girls and boys exhibited similar
externalized symptoms. However, there was a significant
main effect for abuse status, F(3,482)=42.59, p<0.001,
partial
2
=0.21.
Follow-up analyses of the main effect for abuse status,
using the Tukey HSD procedure, indicated that the youth
who were both abused and exposed to interparental
violence exhibited externalized symptoms significantly
more frequently than those exposed exclusively to inter-
parental violence, and those who had only been exposed to
interparental violence reported externalized symptoms
significantly more frequently than those who reported
neither parental nor interparental violence (Table 7).
Problems Falling within Clinical Range by the Experience
of Violence
An analysis was carried out to determine the percentage of
respondents whose scores concerning any problems fell
within the clinical range. The scores were subjected to
differentiated analysis after grouping the respondents into
the same categories as for the preceding analyses (see
Table 8). The chi-square tests indicated that the participants
who were both abused and exposed to interparental
violence exhibited significantly more problems falling
within the clinical range most frequently. Moreover, a higher
proportion of respondents who had only been exposed to
interparental violence exhibited internalized and externalized
symptoms falling within the clinical range than those who
reported neither parental nor interparental violence.
Discussion
According to the findings, half of all the teens who
responded to the questionnaire had been exposed at least
once to interparental violence within the past five years,
while nearly a third had been subjected to physical abuse
from a parent. Also, a quarter of the respondents had been
both exposed to domestic violence and were victims of
Table 5 Internalized and ex-
ternalized symptoms by youths
gender: mean and standard
deviations
*p<0.05
**p<0.01
Variables Girls (n=269) Boys (n=221)
M SD M SD
Internalized symptoms
Withdrawn 4.13 2.87 3.40* 2.56
Somatic complaints 4.23 3.13 2.72** 2.45
Anxiety/depression 8.71 6.72 5.63** 5.35
Total internalized symptoms 16.47 10.80 11.36** 8.64
Externalized symptoms
Delinquent behavior 3.47 3.18 3.99 3.08
Aggressive behavior 7.30 5.59 6.62 5.28
Total externalized symptoms 10.78 8.05 10.61 7.71
Table 6 Abuse status and youths gender: mean and standard deviations for internalized symptoms
Abuse status Girls (n=269) Boys (n=221)
n M SD n M SD
Comparison 98 10.96 7.42 107 8.49 7.14
Exposed 79 17.38 10.73 52 13.15 8.28
Exposed and victim 74 22.68 11.33 48 16.06 9.89
696 J Fam Viol (2007) 22:691701
child abuse. Moreover, many youths who had been exposed
to interparental violence were also victims of physical
violence at the hands of their parents.
The significant and moderately high correlation between
interparental violence and child physical abuse revealed in
this study is consistent with other studies (Chnard 1994;
Davis and Carlson 1987; Echlin and Marshall 1995;
Edleson 1999; Hughes 1988; Hughes et al. 1989; Jouriles
et al. 1987; McCloskey et al. 1995; Muller et al. 2000;
OKeefe 1996). As indicated by Holden et al. (1998: 291),
...a negative marital interaction may spill over into child
rearing and result in harsh and possibly aggressive behavior
directed toward the child. Interparental violence creates a
dysfunctional domestic environment resulting in phenome-
na such as reduced parental capacity (Jaffe et al. 1990).
Violence within the parental couple may make parents
anxious, depressed, or irritable (Anderson and Cramer-
Benjamin 1999; Brody et al. 1996; Cummings and Davies
1994; Holden and Ritchie 1991; Jaffe et al. 1985). A parent
may consequently be more likely to resort to disciplinary
acts including acts of physical violence (Jaffe et al. 1990).
This abusive domestic environment has definite con-
sequences in terms of compromising the behavioral
development of the victim. Results of the present investi-
gation are supportive of the hypotheses that the co-
occurrence of interparental violence and child physical
abuse had a significantly greater impact on the presence of
internalize and externalize symptoms than did exposure
exclusively to interparental violence, and that exposure to
interparental violence provoked more internalize and
externalize symptoms than living in a environment with
no domestic violence or child abuse. These findings support
previous research conducted among children (Davis and
Carlson 1987; Fortin et al. 2000; Hughes 1988) and
teenagers (Carlson 1991; OKeefe 1996).
Based on social learning theory, parents are highly
influential models for their children, who are consequently
likely to reproduce the behaviors they observe in their
parents. Children who live in a domestic environment
affected by violence come to believe that violence is
acceptable for resolving conflicts and are, consequently,
likely to use violence in dealing with the people around
them, whether brothers and sisters, friends, peers, or,
eventually, their own romantic partners. They absorb many
dysfunctional messages about the acceptability of violence
as a way to resolve conflict, about rationalizing the use of
Table 7 Abuse status and youths gender: mean and standard deviations for externalized symptoms
Abuse status Girls (n=269) Boys (n=221)
n M SD n M SD
Comparison 98 6.91 4.97 107 7.63 5.05
Exposed 79 10.32 6.52 52 10.81 6.90
Exposed and victim 74 16.46 9.83 48 16.52 8.79
Table 8 Percentage of adolescents with clinical internalized and externalized symptoms
Gender and abuse status Behavioral symptoms
Internalized symptoms Externalized symptoms
n %
2
%
2
Girls
No violence 98 4.08 27.94* 1.02 52.57*
Expose 79 22.78 7.59
Expose and victim 74 33.78 35.14
Boys
No violence 107 6.54 22.75* 0.93 25.57*
Expose 52 19.23 3.85
Expose and victim 48 33.33 18.75
Total
No violence 205 5.36 29.20* 1.46 43.38*
Expose 131 21.37 6.11
Expose and victim 122 36.61 30.33
*p<0.001
J Fam Viol (2007) 22:691701 697
violence as essential under stressful conditions (Margolin
and Gordis 2003, p.88). Our study indicated that in the
opinion of most of the teen respondents, violence was
mutual within the parental couple. As a result, both girls
and boys were exposed to models belonging to the same
gender who acted as both victim and aggressor. Moreover,
exposure to the co-occurrence of abuse and interparental
violence reinforces the learning of the behaviors of
aggressor and victim.
Also, the presence of internalized and externalized symp-
toms may be explained by the presence of post-traumatic
stress. Witnessing or hearing the violence may be troubling
for the youth. The presence of violence creates an unhealthy,
unstable and concerning family climate. Therefore, the youth
will possibly have feelings of fear and helplessness. He can
even fear for his own life ant the life of the parent who is a
victim. In addition, the youth may feel responsible for the
violence between his parents (Osofsky 1995). Consequently,
he may display behaviors that are related to trauma
symptoms, including internalized disorders (anxiety, social
withdrawal) and externalized disorders (aggression et delin-
quency; Anderson and Cramer-Benjamin 1999; Graham-
Bermann 1998; Osofsky 1995).
Also, according to Rutters (1981) cumulative risk
hypotheses, a childs adjustment problems may become
more significant in the presence of interaction of multiple
stress factors; therefore, being both abused and exposed to
interparental violence taxes the youth resources beyond
their ability to cope (Hughes et al. 1989).
Results indicating a more frequent presence of internal-
izing symptoms for girls are in line with other research that
indicates that adolescent girls are more susceptible to show
internalized symptoms when they experience stressful
incidents (Leadbeater et al. 1999; Petersen et al. 1991).
Girls are socially considered to be passive and submissive
while boys are socialized as being aggressive, controlling
and somewhat in power. Thus, in the general society,
children and teenagers observe and copy the social models
given to women and men. It is also possible that, because of
those prescribed roles, girls are more susceptible to admit
the presence of internalized symptoms than boys.
However, in our study, even though girls demonstrate
internalized disorders that could be explained by the
socialization they received in the general society, they are
nevertheless susceptible to demonstrate externalized disor-
ders. This can be explained by the socialization received at
home: in our research, women are generally as violent as
men. Therefore, the girls are exposed to a model where the
same sex uses violence. They are, in turn, susceptible to
demonstrating violent behaviors.
Another result of the current study is disquieting in that a
higher proportion of youths who live in families where
there is interparental violence and/or child abuse exhibited
problems at clinical levels than youths with no violence at
home. The situation is even more urgent for adolescents
who are both abused and exposed to interparental violence.
For example, 36.6% of youths who are both abused and
exposed to interparental violence exhibit internalized prob-
lems that fall within the clinical range, in comparison to
21.4% who are only exposed to interparental violence.
Meanwhile, analyses reveal that 33.0% of teens who are
both abused and exposed to interparental violence exhibit
externalized problems requiring clinical intervention, com-
pared to 6.11% of participants who are only exposed to
interparental violence.
According to the majority of the written materials,
between 35 and 45% of children who are witnesses to
spousal abuse will demonstrate clinical behavior problems
(Christopoulos et al. 1987; mond 2000; Graham-Bermann
1998; Wolfe et al. 1985). In a study conducted by Fortin et
al. (2000), 74.8% of the kids (aged 6 to 12 years old)
exposed to domestic violence and victim of child abuse and
65.7% of those exposed only had scores falling in the
clinical range for internalized symptoms. For the external-
ized symptoms, 73.7% of the persons who are witnesses of
spousal abuse and victims of parental abuse and 41.4% of
those who are witnesses of spousal abuse demonstrate
clinical problems.
These higher percentages shown in those research may
be attributable to the fact that researchers interviewed the
mothers with regard to the behavioral difficulties of their
children (via the CBCL). Some researchers (Fortin et al.
2000; Hughes and Barad 1983; Hughes et al. 1989; Wolfe
et al. 1985) have suggested that some mothers who are
victims of interparental violence overestimate the problems
of their children. This overestimation on the part of a
mother may be attributable to the anxiety she has
experienced in relation to her own abuse and subsequent
admission to a womens shelter (Hughes 1986) or to her
determination to reach out for help (Fortin et al. 2000).
This study indicates that, although girls show more
internalized symptoms than boys, the proportion of boys
and girls who are exposed to domestic violence, and who
are both exposed and victim, that fall in the clinical range
for internalized symptoms is similar (see Table 8). Probably
that boys and girls who are severely traumatized by the
violence at home will show similar internalized symptoms.
However, the proportion of girls exposed to domestic
violence and exposed and victim who fall in the clinical
range for externalized symptoms is higher than boys who live
the same kind of violence at home. Relying on Rutterss notion
of cumulative stressors, this may be explained by particular
vulnerabilities or certain stressors experienced by the girls in
the study. In fact, the findings show that girls report being
more exposed to violence than boys. Also, the adolescence
period is particularly stressful for girls (Leadbeater et al. 1999).
698 J Fam Viol (2007) 22:691701
However, it is interesting to note that an important
proportion of the youth from violent homes were not
evidencing problems at clinical levels. The present findings
are consistent with research which indicates that reactions
to violence in the home may vary among children (Grych et
al. 2000; Hughes and Luke 1998; Jaffe et al. 1985). Those
variations may be explained by the presence of risk (e.g., an
alcoholic parent) and protective factors (e.g., presence of a
warm and supportive relationship with the mother).
Finally, the findings indicating that in the opinion of
most of the respondents the violence is mutual within the
parental couple, is in keeping with previous research. Other
research revealed a high and significant correlation between
the use of violence by a male on his wife and by the female
on her husband (Jouriles et al. 1996). Results of the current
study must nevertheless be interpreted with care, since
context of the violence was not considered; it is impossible
to determine if the violence perpetrated by the women was
used for a different goal than men. It is possible that the
mothers used violence as the mean to protect themselves.
There are several implication of these results. First, a
significant percentage of youth attending certain French
schools in New Brunswick live in a domestic environment
characterized by violence. This outcome supports the
importance of raising awareness among all educators
concerning the phenomena of interparental violence and
child physical abuse and their negative impact on behavior.
Teachers, principals, and school counselors need access to
information on screening for abuse, approaches to use with
teens, etc. This could include information on how to
recognize warning signs, develop nonjudgmental listening
skills, know when to report to authorities, develop safety
plan with the child, etc. (Anderson and Cramer-Benjamin
1999). Also, as noted by Fontes (2000), when school
counselors are referred students for bad behavior, its
important that they evaluate the presence of violence at
home before engaging in a punitive response. Children who
are initially approached accusatorially are unlikely to reveal
embarrassing problems at home (Fontes 2000, p.233).
Second, the result in terms of the co-occurrence of
interparental violence and child physical abuse supports the
importance of checking for the simultaneous presence of
multiple forms of interparental violence in the teens
environment. Intervention may prove ineffective in situa-
tions involving the co-occurrence of interparental violence
and child physical abuse where only one of these two
variables is detected (OKeefe 1996). It essential for child
protective service workers, clinicians, researchers, and
others who identify abused and neglected children to assess
the presence or absence of other types of violence in the
home (Hughes et al. 1989, p.206). The findings that a
higher proportion of youths living violence in the home
showed problems falling within the clinical range support
the importance for them to receive appropriate help.
Concerted, innovative measures need to be implemented
to assist children who are traumatized by violence at home.
Third, gender is also important to consider. The findings
show that girls and boys may be affected differently by the
violence at home. Girls may exhibit more internalized
symptoms and show more clinical externalized symptoms.
Therefore, intervention must consider how violence impacts
differently on youths according to their gender and the
different stressors present in their lives.
Finally, children living in an abusive domestic environ-
ment need exposure to patterns of behavior and interaction
that assist them in modifying their behaviors and attitudes
toward violence. They need to learn prosocial ways of
interacting with other people. In this regard, it would be
useful to implement or continue offering programs in the
schools covering healthy relationships, respect, conflict
resolution, and cooperation. Early intervention may also
assist children in developing an inventory of non-violent
means of expressing their emotions and resolving conflicts.
Several limitations must be noted in interpreting the
findings presented. One such limitation has to do with the
fact that the sample population consisted only of teens aged
between 16 and 19; younger teens were not included.
Another limitation is related to the proportion of partic-
ipants contacted who agreed to participate in the final
sample; 30.1% of participants who were approached
refused to respond to the questionnaire, and 20.1% of
questionnaires were rejected due to an excessive number of
missing and/or incoherent responses. The study results may
therefore be biased. A third limitation is related to the
information source. In the present study, the participants
responded directly to the questionnaire, and self-reported
data may be biased for various reasons, such as memory
problems or social desirability. A fourth limitation has to do
with the fact that the socioeconomic status of the
respondents was not taken into account. A final limitation
is that physical abuse from a parent was the only form of
abuse evaluated.
Future research should take the following issues into
account with a view to advancing the body of knowledge.
First, many studies have not assessed all forms of violence
witnessed or experienced by children exposed to interpar-
ental violence. As a result, future efforts need to focus more
on the co-occurrence of interparental violence and the
various possible forms of abuse directed toward young and
teenage children (sexual abuse, negligence, etc.). In adition,
other studies need to analyze the impact of interparental
violence on various aspects of childrens lives (social
functioning, attitudes toward women, etc.). Research to
date has focused primarily on behavioral problems; how-
ever, young and teenage children who live in abusive
domestic environments may exhibit few to no behavioral
J Fam Viol (2007) 22:691701 699
problems, yet demonstrate other types of problems (Davis
and Carlson 1987; Jaffe et al. 1985, 1990). Finally, future
studies need to focus on identifying protective and risk
factors that may account for the variation in adaptation of
children in violent homes.
References
Achenback, T. M. (1991). Manual for the youth self report and 1991
profile. Burlington, Vermont: University of Vermont, Department
of Psychiatry.
Anderson, S. A., & Cramer-Benjamin, D. B. (1999). The impact of
couple violence on parenting and children: An overview and
clinical implications. The American Journal of Family Therapy,
27, 113.
Angold, A., Costello, E. J., & Erkanli, A. (1999). Pubertal changes in
hormone levels and depression in girls. Psychological Medicine,
29, 10431053.
Appel, A. E., & Holden, G. W. (1998). The co-occurrence of spouse
and physical child abuse: A review and appraisal. Journal of
Family Psychology, 12, 578599.
Bandura, A. (1969). Principles of behavior modification. New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning approach. New
Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Bourassa, C. (1998). Le point de vue des enfants exposs la violence
conjugale [Childrens perspective on interparental violence].
Masters thesis. Qubec, Canada: Universit Laval.
Bourassa, C. (2002). La relation entre la violence conjugale et les
troubles de comportement ladolescence : les effets mdiateurs
des relations parentsadolescent et du soutien des amis, Thse
de doctorat, cole de service social. Qubec, Canada: Universit
Laval.
Brody, G. H., Arias I., & Fincham, F. D. (1996). Linking marital and
child attributions to family processes and parentchild relation-
ships. Journal of Family Psychology, 4, 408421.
Canadian Centre for Justice Statistic (2000). Family violence in
Canada: A statistical profile (No. 85-224-XPE). Ottawa, Ontario,
Canada: Statistics Canada.
Carlson, B. E. (1984). Childrens observation of interparental
violence. In A. R. Roberts (Ed.), Battered women and their
families (pp. 147167). New York: Springher.
Carlson, B. E. (1991). Outcomes of physical abuse and observation of
marital violence among adolescents in placement. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 6, 526534.
Chamberland, C., Laporte, L., Lavergne, C., Tourigny, M., Mayer, M.,
& Wright, J. (2007). Psychological maltreatment: A social
problem captured in the Quebec incidence study of child
protection services. Journal of Emotional Abusefs, in press.
Chnard, L. (1994). ...et les enfants. In M. Rinfret-Raynor &S. Cantin (Eds.),
Violence conjugale: Recherches sur la violence faite aux femmes en
milieu conjugal (pp. 113130). Boucherville: Gatan morin.
Christopoulos, C., Cohn, D. A., Shaw, D. S., Joyce, S., Sullivan-Hanson, J.,
Karft, S. P., et al. (1987). Children of abused women: Adjustment at
time of shelter residence. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 49,
611619.
Cummings, E. M., & Davies, P. T. (1994). Maternal depression and
child development. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,
35, 73112.
Davis, L., & Carlson, B. (1987). Observation of Spouse Abuse: What
Happens to the Children. Journal of Interpersonnal Violence, 2,
278291.
Dumas, S., & Beauchesne, C. (1993). tudier et travailler? Enqute
auprs des lves du secondaire sur le travail rmunr durant
lanne scolaire [Study or work? Study with secondary students
pertaining to paid work during school year]. Qubec, Qubec,
Canada: Ministre de lducation, Gouvernement du Qubec.
Echlin, C., & Marshall, L. (1995). Child protection services for
children of battered women. Practice and controversy. In E.
Peled, P. G. Jaffe, & J. L. Edleson (Eds.), Ending the cycle of
violence: Community responses to children of battered women
(pp. 170185). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Edleson, J. L. (1999). The overlap between child maltreatment and
woman battering. Violence Against Women, 5, 134154.
Edleson, J. L. (2001). Studying the co-occurrence of child maltreat-
ment and domestic violence in families. In S. A. Graham-
Bermann & E. R. Edleson (Eds.), Domestic violence in the lives
of children (pp. 91110). Washington: American Psychological
Association.
mond, I. (2000). La relation entre la violence conjugale et les
troubles extrioriss et intrioriss des enfants, Thse de doctorat,
Facult dducation, Universit de Sherbrooke, Qubec, Canada.
Fantuzzo, J. W., Depaola, L. M., Lambert, L., Martino, T., Anderson, G.,
& Sutton, S. (1991). Effects of interparental violence on the
psychological adjustment and competencies of young children.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59, 258265.
Fontes, L. A. (2000). Children exposed to marital violence: How
school counselors can help. Professional School Counseling, 3,
231237.
Fortin, A., Cyr, M., & Chnier, N. (1996). Questionnaire sur la
rsolution de conflits : stratgies utilises par les parents envers
les enfants [Resolution of conflicts Questionnaire: strategies used
by parents toward their childrens]. Unpublished manuscript,
Universit de Montral at Montreal. Canada.
Fortin, A., Cyr, M., & Lachance, L. (2000). Les enfants tmoins de
violence conjugale: Analyse des variables de protection [Chil-
dren witnesses of domestic violence: Analysis of protection
variables]. Collection tudes et analyses, 13, Qubec, Qubec,
Canada: Centre de recherche interdisciplinaire sur la violence
familiale et la violence faite aux femmes.
Gleason, W. J. (1995). Children of battered women: Developmental
delays and behavioral dysfunction. Violence and Victims, 10,
153160.
Graham-Bermann, S. A. (1998). The impact of woman abuse on
childrens social development: Research and theoretical perspec-
tives. In G. W. Holden, R. Geffner, & E. N. Jouriles (Eds.),
Children exposed to marital violence: Theory, research, and
applied issues (pp. 2154). Washington, DC: American psycho-
logical Association.
Grych, J. H.; Jouriles, E. N., & Swank, P.R. (2000). Patterns of
adjustment among children of battered women. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, 8494.
Holden, G. W., & Ritchie, K. L. (1991). Linking extreme marital
discord, child rearing, and child behavior problems: Evidence
from battered women. Child Development, 62, 311327.
Holden, G. W., Stein, J. D., Ritchie, K. L., Harris, S. D., & Jouriles, E. N.
(1998). Introduction. In G. W. Holden, R. Geffner, & E. N. Jouriles
(Eds.), Children exposed to marital violence: Theory, research,
and applied issues (pp. 289234). Washington, DC: American
psychological Association.
Hughes, H. M. (1986). Research with children in shelters: implications
for clinical services. Children Today, 15, 2125.
Hughes, H. M. (1988). Psychological and behavioral correlates of
family violence in child witnesses and victims. American Journal
of Orthopsychiatry, 58, 7790.
Hughes, H. M., & Barad, S. J. (1983). Psychological functioning of
children in a battered womens shelter: A preliminary investiga-
tion. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 53, 525531.
700 J Fam Viol (2007) 22:691701
Hughes, H. M., & Luke, K. A. (1998). Heterogeneity in adjustment
among children of battered women. In G. W. Holden, R. Geffner,
& E. N. Jouriles (Eds.), Children exposed to marital violence.
Theory, research and applied issues (pp. 185221). Washington:
American Psychological Association.
Hughes, H. M., Parkinson, D., & Vargo, M. (1989). Witnessing
spouse abuse and experiencing physical abuse: A double
whammy? Journal of Family Violence, 4, 197209.
Jaffe, P. G., Wolfe, D. A., & Wilson, S. K. (1990). Children of
battered women. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Jaffe, P. G., Wolfe, D. A., Wilson, S. K., & Zak, L. (1985). Critical
issues in the assessment of childrens adjustment to witnessing
family violence. Canadas Mental Health, 33, 1519.
Jaffe, P. G., Wolfe, D. A., Wilson, S. K., & Zak, L. (1986). Family
violence and child adjustment: A comparative analysis of girls
and boys behavioral symptoms. American Journal of Psychiatry,
143, 7477.
Jouriles, E. N., Barling, J., & OLeary, K. D. (1987). Predicting child
behavior problems in maritally violent families. Journal of
Abnormal Child Psychology, 15, 165173.
Jouriles, E. N., Norwood, W. D., McDonald, R., Vincent, J. P., &
Mahoney, A. (1996). Physical violence and other forms of
marital aggression: links with childrens behavior problems.
Journal of Family Psychology, 10, 223234.
Kashani, J. H., Daniel, A. E., Dandoy, A. C., & Holcomb, W. R. (1991).
Family violence: impact on children. Journal of the American
Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 32, 181189.
Leadbeater, B. J., Kupeminc, G. P., Hertzok, C., & Blatt, S. J. (1999).
A multivariate model of gender differences in adolescents
internalizing and externalizing problems. Developmental
Psychology, 35, 12681282.
Margolin, G., & Gordis, E. B. (2003). Co-occurrence between marital
aggression and parents child abuse potential: the impact of
cumulative stress. Violence & Victims, 18, 243258.
Margolin, G., & John R. S. (1997). Childrens exposure to marital
aggression. Direct and mediated effects. In G. K. Kantor, & J. L.
Jasinski (Eds.), Out of the darkness. Contemporary perspectives
on family violence (pp. 90104). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Margolin, G., & Patterson, G. R. (1975). Differential consequences
provided by mothers and fathers for their sons and daughters.
Developmental Psychology, 11, 537538.
McCloskey, L. A., Figueredo, A. J., & Koss, M. P. (1995). The effects
of systemic family violence on childrens mental health. Child
Development, 66, 12391261.
McKay, M. M. (1994). The link between domestic violence and child
abuse: assessment and treatment considerations. Child Welfare,
13, 2939.
Muller, R. T., Goebel-Fabbri, A. E., Diamond, T., & Dinklage, D.
(2000). Social support and the relationship between family and
community violence exposure and psychopathology among high
risk adolescents. Child Abuse and Neglect, 24, 449464.
OKeefe, M. (1994b). Adjustment of children from martially violent
homes. The Journal of Contemporary Human Services, 403415.
OKeefe, M. (1996). The differential effects of family violence on
adolescent adjustment. Child and Adolescent Social Work
Journal, 13, 5168.
Osofsky, J. D. (1995). Children who witness domestic violence: The
invisible victims. Social Policy Report: The Society for Research
in Child Development, 9, 116.
Patterson, G. R., Dishion, T. J., & Bank, L. (1984). Family
interactions: A process model of deviancy training. Aggressive
Behavior, 10, 253267.
Peled, E., Jaffe, P. G., & Edleson, J. L. (1995). Introduction. In
E. Peled, P. Jaffe, & J. Edleson (Eds.), Ending the cycle of
violence: Community responses to children of battered women
(pp. 39). New York: Sage.
Petersen, A. C., Sirigiani, P. A., & Kennedy, R. E. (1991). Adolescent
depression: Why more girls? Journal of Youth and Adolescence,
20, 247271.
Rutter, M. (1981). Stress, coping, and development: Some issues and
some questions. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 22,
323356.
Stagg, V., Wills, G. D., & Howell, M. (1989). Psychopathology in
early childhood witnesses of family violence. Topics in Early
Childhood Special Education, 9, 7387.
Straus, M. (2000). Handbook for the Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS).
New Hamphire: Family Research Laboratory, University of New
Hampshire.
Straus, M., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. B.
(1996). The revised conflict tactic scales (CTS2). Journal of
Family Issues, 17, 283316.
Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Finkelhor, D., Moore, D. W., & Runyan, D.
(1998). Identification of child maltreatment with the parentchild
conflict tactics scales: development and psychometric data for a
national sample of american parents. Child Abuse And Neglect, 22,
249270.
Sudermann, M., & Jaffe, P. (1999). A handbook for health and social
service provdiers and educators on children exposed to women
abuse/ family violence. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Health Canada,
Family Violence Prevention Unit.
Wolfe, D. A., Jaffe, P., Wilson, K, & Zak, L. (1985). Children of
battered women: The relation of child behavior to family
violence and maternal stress. Journal of Consulting and Clinical,
53, 657665.
J Fam Viol (2007) 22:691701 701