Herrenkohl,
CHILD MALTREATMENT
Russo / ABUSIVE
/ FEBRUARY
REARING2001
AND AGGRESSION
Articles
Abusive Early Child Rearing
and Early Childhood Aggression
Roy C. Herrenkohl
M. Jean Russo
Lehigh University
Childhood aggression is significant for children, their
families, and the society because aggressive children often
become violent adolescents. This article examines the rela-
tionship between maltreatment and early childhood aggres-
sion. Data are from a longitudinal study of maltreated and
nonmaltreated children assessed as preschoolers and again at
school age. The dependent variable is the child’s teacher’s rat-
ing of aggression at school age. The independent variables
are from preschool and school age observations of the
mother-child interaction and the mother’s report of physical
discipline practices. Using structural equation modeling,
harshness of interaction at preschool age but not school age
and severity of physical discipline at school age but not pre-
school age, relate to aggression at school age. Results suggest a
difference in the developmental stage at which different fea-
tures of harsh child rearing exert their influence. Strategies
for intervening to prevent the development of childhood ag-
gression are suggested.
The significance of early childhood aggression for
the child and for society is considerable. Aggressive
young children have more difficulties relating posi-
tively to peers (Dodge, 1983; Dodge & Somberg, 1987;
Patterson, 1986), have more school problems
(Patterson, Capaldi, & Bank, 1991), tend to be more
isolated, and have more emotional problems (Offord,
Boyle, & Racine, 1991). Both child and society are af-
fected by the demonstrated relationship between
early childhood aggression and adolescent violent be-
havior (Farrington, 1989; Loeber & Hay, 1997;
Moore, Prothrow-Stith, Guyor, & Spivak, 1994;
Patterson et al., 1991; Pepler, Craig, & Roberts, 1995).
CHILD MALTREATMENT, Vol. 6, No.1, February 2001 3-16
© 2001 Sage Publications, Inc.
Several studies have identified a relationship
between abusive and neglectful child rearing and
childhood aggression (Alesandri, 1991; George &
Main, 1979; R. C. Herrenkohl & Herrenkohl, 1981;
Hoffman-Plotkin & Twentyman, 1984). These studies
were not explicit about the features of child rearing
involved. Other studies were more specific. Punish-
ment styles were found to be related to childhood
aggression (Farrington, 1978; J. McCord, 1982; W.
McCord, McCord, & Howard, 1961; Wells & Ranken,
1988). Lack of parental involvement was found to be
related to childhood aggression (Farrington, 1978;
Loeber & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1986; W. McCord et al.,
1961). Greater specificity would enhance understand-
ing of how childhood aggression occurs and would
provide a clearer theoretical framework.
Harsh Early Child Rearing
and Early Childhood Aggression
To be more specific, several questions need to be
addressed. First, How is harsh parenting manifest?
There are several manifestations. Among these are a
parent’s ongoing harsh, negative interaction with
their child. Another is the parent’s episodic use of
severe physical punishment.
A second question is, How does harsh parenting
lead to early childhood aggression? One possibility is
that a negative parent-child interaction is associated
with an insecure attachment between mother and
child (Egeland & Farber, 1984). The insecurely
attached and poorly nurtured child develops expecta-
tions that the world is uncaring and that he or she is
unworthy of warmth and care. The resulting distrust
and anger lay the groundwork for aggressive interac-
tions with peers and adults alike (Cicchetti & Toth,
1995).
3
4 Herrenkohl, Russo / ABUSIVE REARING AND AGGRESSION
Another possibility is that a parent’s severe physical
discipline provides the child a model of behavior and
coping (Bandura, 1973; Patterson, 1982, 1986;
Patterson, DeBaryshe, & Ramsey, 1989). Children
who experience violent, physical discipline learn that
violence is a way to respond to behavior that is disliked
in others. This social-learning perspective suggests
that young children become involved in a dynamic,
coercive exchange with their caretaker(s) and that
they then generalize their overly aggressive behavior
to their extrafamilial interactions.
A third question is, Does the timing of harsh
parenting relative to the child’s developmental pro-
cess make a difference? One possibility is that harsh
parenting at any point in the child’s early develop-
ment is related to increased aggression. This might
occur due to frustration experienced by a child’s
interacting with a negative, uncaring caretaker. It
might also occur as a result of the coping strategies
learned in the experience of harsh, severe physical
discipline.
Another possibility is that the point in the child’s
development when harsh parenting occurs is impor-
tant. Bornstein (1987) outlines various issues related
to sensitive periods, a term that refers to a certain expe-
rience at a certain time in the life cycle exerting a dra-
matic effect on an individual’s future developmental
course. Was there to be such a sensitive period, harsh
parenting at that time—particularly severe, physical
discipline—might lead to subsequent aggressive
behavior. From another perspective, Erikson (1963)
described “stages” of psycho-social development
when characteristics such as trust develop. If a child
experiences harsh parenting that leads to distrust,
associated hostile feelings might also result. In a
somewhat similar vein, Masten and Coatsworth
(1998) propose that a child develops social compe-
tence by proceeding through a series of age appropri-
ate, developmental tasks. Were this progression to be
distorted in some way by overly harsh parenting, inap-
propriate aggressiveness might develop.
By contrast, Rutter (1987), rather than talking about
points in time or events, considers the process by which
vulnerability develops or recedes. From this perspective,
prior experience and how the individual copes with that
experience is crucial for understanding a person’s
response in the present. Were harsh parenting—
particularly early, inadequate nurturance—to result
in a child’s developing a sense of vulnerability, aggres-
sive behavior could become a manner of coping as a
way to lessen these feelings.
Socioeconomic Status (SES) and
Early Childhood Aggression
SES has been found to relate directly to the occur-
rence of severe early child rearing (McLoyd, 1998;
National Research Council, 1993) and to relate
directly to school age aggression (Loeber & Hay,
1997). What are the implications of these relation-
ships? G. Duncan, Brooks-Gunn, and Klebanov
(1994), considering 5-year-olds, found that having
more low-income neighbors predicted to higher lev-
els of externalizing problems such as temper tan-
trums. These authors speculate that parents in
low-income neighborhoods might be less inclined to
restrict aggressive behavior because of children’s
greater need to defend themselves in such neighbor-
hoods. Less adult supervision might also result in
fewer efforts to inhibit aggressive behaviors.
SES is indirectly related to socioemotional devel-
opment, including school age aggression. McLoyd
(1990, 1998) describes three relevant assumptions in
Bronfenbrenner’s (1986) “person-process-context”
model. One assumption is that poverty diminishes
parents’ capacity for supportive, consistent, and
involved relationships with their children. A second is
that psychological distress, which derives from nega-
tive life events, is a major mediator between economic
hardship and parenting behavior. Economic hard-
ship increases a parent’s experience of stress, which
diminishes the capacity for positive parenting and
increases the tendency to use coercive discipline. A
third is that poverty affects children’s socioemotional
functioning indirectly through its impact on the par-
ent’s behavior toward the child. The implications of
these assumptions is that SES can be expected to influ-
ence the quality of parenting, with reduced quality
being more frequent in lower SES families.
Harsh Early Child Rearing and
Early Childhood Aggression:
A Proposed Model
The analyses that follow address several related
questions. First, do manifestations of harsh parenting
in early childhood relate to childhood aggression?
Second, do any relationships found between the indi-
cators of harsh parenting and childhood aggression
differ depending on the age at which the harsh
parenting occurs? Third, does parental SES relate
directly to harsh parenting and to childhood aggres-
sion and/or indirectly through harsh parenting to
childhood aggression?
A model was devised that specifies a set of relation-
ships between manifestations of harsh, early child
rearing and early childhood aggression. The model
CHILD MALTREATMENT / FEBRUARY 2001
 Herrenkohl, Russo / ABUSIVE REARING AND AGGRESSION
tests the general hypothesis that harsh early child
rearing is associated with early school age aggression.
The two features of harsh early child rearing are harsh
physical discipline and negative interaction. Their
relationships to aggression are at two points in time:
preschool age and early school age. The model also
specifies relationships between SES and early child-
hood aggression and between SES and each of the
manifestations of harsh early child rearing.
METHOD
The data analyzed in this article were gathered in
the course of a long-term study of abused and
nonabused children (R. C. Herrenkohl, Herrenkohl,
Egolf, & Wu, 1991). The focus of the study was to
determine if developmental differences were associ-
ated with children who had been severely disciplined;
the design was longitudinal. Interviews of the parents
were conducted, and parents and children were
observed at two points in time. The first round,
referred to as preschool age, was gathered in
1976-1977, when the children were between 16
months and 6 years old. The families were again con-
tacted in 1980 to 1982, when the children were
between 6 and 11 years old. The data gathered at this
time are referred to as “school age data.” Parents were
paid a modest amount for their participation.
Participants
The children in the study comprised five groups:
abused—families labeled abusive and served by child
welfare (n = 144); protective service—families served
by child welfare and labeled neglectful but not abusive
(n = 105); Head Start—those in a Head Start Program
(n = 70); day care—children in a day care program
(n = 64); and middle income—children enrolled in a
private nursery school program (n = 74). The protec-
tive service, Head Start, day care, and middle-income
groups were intended to serve as controls for the
abuse group because there was no reason to believe
that these children had been abused. A preliminary
examination of the mothers’ reports of the discipline
methods used showed that this was not the case.
There was evidence of severe discipline in some fami-
lies from each group. For this reason, the group desig-
nation was dropped, and the entire group was exam-
ined using the mothers’ reports to determine which
children had been severely disciplined.
One might ask whether study staff had to deal with
instances of severe, negative parenting behavior. No
instances of abusive behavior, as defined by state law,
were observed or were evident to study personnel.
Thus, technically, there was nothing to report. There
CHILD MALTREATMENT / FEBRUARY 2001
5
were, however, several families, served by child wel-
fare, in sufficient distress for various reasons that one
of the study’s senior staff encouraged the family to
contact their social worker for assistance, which they
did. In a few instances, Head Start families were
encouraged to request assistance from Head Start,
which they did. Finally, in one parent-child interac-
tion, a parent was sufficiently harsh with her child,
although again not abusive, that the study staff
stopped the interaction.
The school age assessment was able to follow up on
374 (81.8%) of the 457 children in the preschool
study. The children who were not followed were com-
pared to the remaining group in several important
areas: original group assignment, age, and preschool
independent variables. Only two statistically signifi-
cant differences were found. On one of the discipline
practice measures, fathers of the lost children were
less severe than the fathers of those remaining. The
other difference involved the age of the children; the
mean age of the lost children was approximately a
year younger than the mean age of those remaining.
The two groups were comparable on all other vari-
ables tested (R. C. Herrenkohl et al., 1991).
Even for those children who were followed at both
data collection points, some of the necessary informa-
tion was not available. For example, of those children
assessed at both the preschool and school age rounds,
preschool interaction data were not available for 103
of the children, and school age interactions were
unavailable for an additional 9 children. Nineteen
children did not have teachers’ ratings for social and
emotional development. The remaining 8 children
had missing information on one or more of the
remaining variables.
For analyses that examine all the relationships
simultaneously, information must be present on all
variables or the participant is dropped from the analy-
sis. This study applied structural equation modeling
using the LISREL program. This analysis included
235 participants with data on all relevant variables. To
support the belief that this reduced sample did not
differ significantly from the entire group, t tests were
run on relevant variables. To utilize all available data
on the entire sample of 457 children, an imputation
program was used, and LISREL was rerun using the
imputed data. The results of these procedures are dis-
cussed below.
The children included in the analyses were com-
pared to the remainder who were not included. t tests
were performed, and the results indicated that there
were no significant differences between the means of
any of the independent variables including the SES
6 Herrenkohl, Russo / ABUSIVE REARING AND AGGRESSION
variables and the parenting variables measured both
at preschool and school age.
Other methods for dealing with missing values
have been developed in recent years. One such
method involves multiple imputation of missing data.
This procedure was performed using the Norm pro-
gram, mul tip le imp u tation of inco mp lete
multivariate data under a normal model, which was
developed by J. L. Schafer and M. K. Olsen of Pennsyl-
vania State University. Norm generates a user-speci-
fied number of data sets with imputed missing data.
These data sets are generated using the Expectation
Maximization algorithm, which is an iterative imputa-
tion method. Missing data are estimated by using all
variables as predictors in a regression analysis
and adding error components that one would expect
due to errors in predicting estimates as well as errors
in predicting the regression line itself. Each of the
imputed data sets is analyzed separately, and the esti-
mated parameters and their standard errors are used
to provide an overall estimate.
The Norm program was applied to these data in
two ways. The first analysis was done using all available
data on the 457 children; the second was done using
data on the children who participated in both waves
of data collection. (This involved 369 children; the
other 5 children contacted in the school age assess-
ment did not provide information on some of the rel-
evant variables.) For both of these groups, the analy-
ses of the multiple imputed data sets provided
parameter estimates similar to those provided by the
235 participants for which all data were available. The
pattern of significant and nonsignificant relation-
ships remained the same. This increases our confi-
dence that the estimated relationships from the sam-
ple of 235 participants are representative of the
relationships that would be found if the entire sample
was used.
The parameter estimates reported in the results
section were derived from the group with no missing
data, n = 235. The children in this group were almost
evenly split between males and females, with slightly
more males (53%). The average age at preschool was
4.3 years, with a range of 1.3 to 6.4. At school age, the
average age was 8.6, with a range of 5.9 to 11.5. For
both preschool and school age, the standard devia-
tion was 1.2.
Operational Definitions and Measures
SES was measured using three indicators: the level
of the family’s monthly after-tax income, the level of
the mother’s education, and the level of the mother’s
occupational prestige as measured by O. D. Duncan
(1961).
Parenting behavior was assessed in two ways: physi-
cal discipline and the quality of the mother-child
interaction. The measure of discipline severity was
based on the mother’s response to a 39-item question-
naire, including both physical and emotional meth-
ods of discipline (R. C. Herrenkohl et al., 1991). The
index to measure the severity of physical discipline
consisted of a number of physical methods, ranging
from nonabusive techniques, such as spanking, to
severely abusive techniques, such as burning or hit-
ting, to bruise the child. Each method was rated for
severity, keeping in mind the age of the child and the
frequency with which it was administered. These rat-
ings were done by a group of child development and
child welfare professionals (N = 24). The mean rating
for each method provided the weight assigned to a
child who was disciplined with that method. The
weights of all methods used by the mother on a partic-
ular child were added to provide a severity rating. A
high rating on this index would indicate varied severe
punishments used by the mother on the child (see
R. C. Herrenkohl et al., 1991).
For the preschool age data, the mother was asked
whether these disciplining methods were used in the
past 3 months and/or whether they were used prior to
3 months. An index was constructed for each of these
time periods. The reliability estimated by Cronbach’s
alpha on the physical discipline index was .50. The
school age data collection asked only what methods
the mother had been using on the child in the current
year. To provide two measures for use in the LISREL
model, the discipline practices were divided in half to
form two roughly parallel measures.
How forthcoming were parents in revealing their
use of severe physical discipline, especially parents
who were under scrutiny by child welfare agencies?
There are several relevant considerations. First, par-
ents, although invited to participate in the study
through a particular agency or program—for exam-
ple, child welfare—were assured that their responses
were confidential. Second, families served by child
welfare agencies were already receiving a full range of
services, including those of a treatment and preven-
tion demonstration program. Third, in the preschool
interview, parents were asked about their discipline
“in the last 3 months” and “prior to the last 3 months.”
Less severe physical discipline was revealed in
response to the “last 3 months” question than to the
“prior to the last 3 months.” This may reflect a caution
about recent events, due to child welfare involvement,
or simply reflect the longer time span covered by the
“prior to the last 3 months” question. Finally, the rela-
tively low correlations between preschool age and
school age responses—r s = .27 and .21 for the two
CHILD MALTREATMENT / FEBRUARY 2001
 Herrenkohl, Russo / ABUSIVE REARING AND AGGRESSION
physical discipline measures—may reflect an incon-
sistency due to hesitancy to reveal the discipline prac-
tices used in one time period or the other, or they may
reflect changes in discipline practices due to the
child’s age or reflect other influences that tend to
reduce correlations between the same measure
administered at two different times.
To measure the positive or negative quality of the
mother-child relationship, observers were sent to the
family’s home to observe the mother and child com-
plete three tasks requiring 10 minutes each (E. C.
Herrenkohl, Herrenkohl, Toedter, & Yanushevski,
1984). These tasks were as follows: a set of puzzles for
the parent and child to put together, Play-Doh or
blocks for the parent and child to play with, and a
book for the parent and child to read. The observers,
one watching the mother and the other watching the
child, noted behaviors in 10-second intervals through-
out the 10-minute period for each task. This included
negative behaviors, such as the mother being irrita-
ble, being hostile toward the child, being frustrated
with the child, impeding the child’s progress or work
on the task, or criticizing the child. These items
formed an index with a reliability of .87 at preschool
age and .68 at school age. This measure is taken as
reflecting the degree of attachment between mother
and child (Egeland & Farber, 1984). The behaviors in
this measure have been found by Egeland and Farber
(1984) to be highly correlated with the quality of the
child’s attachment to his or her mother.
The developmental outcome measures included
the destructive/acting out behaviors as well as the
angry/negative affect of the child. These were pro-
vided by teachers’ ratings on a modified version of the
Achenbach child behavior inventory (Achenbach,
1978; Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1979). The
Achenbach measure for this age group was newly pub-
lished at the time of the school age data collection.
On reviewing the inventory, the researchers believed
that positive and negative behaviors should be
included. The modifications involved adding 87 ques-
tions, most of which specified positive behaviors, and
deleting 9 items that might prove difficult for teachers
to answer. The final set of items numbered 200. Factor
analyses provided seven dimensions, two of which
provided the measures of aggression used as the
dependent variable. Forty items made up the emo-
tional factor of angry/negative. The items with the
highest loadings on this factor included the following:
stubborn, irritable, unusually loud, temper tantrums, and
acts without thinking. The social factor, destructive/
acting out, included 36 items, with the highest load-
ing items being the following: misbehaves when not
indulged, argues, gets into fights, disobeys at home or
CHILD MALTREATMENT / FEBRUARY 2001
7
school, and lies or cheats. Each factor had a reliability
of .93 (R. C. Herrenkohl et al., 1991).
The Model
The relationships hypothesized above were config-
ured for testing by means of structural equation mod-
eling. The explanatory model included the severity of
physical discipline at preschool and school age, the
measures of the negative tenor of the mother-child
relationship at preschool and school age, the mea-
sures of SES of the family at preschool age, and the
aggressiveness of the child at school age. This longitu-
dinal model is depicted in Figure 1. As illustrated by
the model, SES is expected to affect both parenting
practices at both time periods and is expected to have
a direct impact, as well, on the child’s aggressiveness.
It is expected that the level of discipline and negative
interaction at preschool will be related to those prac-
tices at school age and will also have a direct impact on
the aggressiveness of the child at school age. Finally,
the level of severe discipline and negative interaction
at school age will also be associated with more aggres-
siveness on the part of the child.
DATA ANALYSIS PROCEDURES
Zero-order correlations were calculated among all
of the variables used in the model. Structural equa-
tion modeling analysis was performed using the
LISREL8 software program (Jöreskog & Sörbom,
1993). The measurement model shows how the
observed variables are related to the latent constructs.
The structural model estimates the relationships
between the latent constructs while adjusting for the
unreliability of the observed measures.
Finally, two analyses were done to examine more
closely the significant relationships estimated by
LISREL. For the first analysis, four groups were cre-
ated depending on the type of parenting the child
experienced over time: consistently good; inconsis-
tent, but poor parenting tending to occur at times
when the effect on aggression is lower; inconsistent,
but poor parenting tending to occur at times when
the effect on aggression is higher; and consistently
poor. A graph appears in the Discussion section,
which depicts the mean aggression score for each of
these groups; in a second graph, the groups are fur-
ther broken down by high and low SES. For the sec-
ond analysis, the groups were characterized by
whether their aggression score was in the lower, mid-
dle, or upper third of the standardized aggression
measure. Graphs showing the preschool and school
age levels of physical discipline and negative interac-
8 Herrenkohl, Russo / ABUSIVE REARING AND AGGRESSION

coefficients were fixed at .93 and .83, based on their

Preschool Age School Age
reliability coefficients. Finally, the loadings for
.52
(3.26) angry/negative affect of the child and destructive/
Physical Physical
Discipline 76 Discipline 80 .36 acting out behavior were .97 and .92, respectively. The
-.27
(-3.73)
(4.13) associated t values ranged from 3.81 to 18.00; t values
-.07 -.06
(-0.83) (-0.75) greater than 2.0 are considered significant.
-.27 Angry/
SES
(-3.39) Acting Out LISREL provided several measures of the good-
-.25 .19 ness-of-fit of the model. Although the chi-square for
-.48 (-2.81) (2.20)
.08 the model was significant, several other indices sug-
(-6.67) ( 0.83 )
Negative Negative gested an acceptable fit. For example, the Goodness
Interaction 76 Interaction 80
.49 of Fit Index, Normed Fit Index, and Comparative Fit
(5.68)
Index were all greater than .9 (.94, .93, and .96,
T-Value is significant respectively).
T-Value is nonsignificant The results of the hypothesized longitudinal
model appear in Figure 1. A mother’s negative emo-
FIGURE 1: Hypothesized Relationships and LISREL Estimates: tional reaction in her parenting of the preschool
Coefficients and t Values
child was associated with anger and destructive behav-
ior of that child at school age (β = .19, t = 2.20). The
severity of the physical discipline at preschool age did
tion for these groups are also presented in the Discus- not appear to be related (β = –.06, t = –0.75). At school
sion section. age, the severity of the discipline was related to
anger/destructiveness (β = .36, t = 4.13), however, a
RESULTS negative mother-child interaction was not signifi-
cantly related to aggression by the child (β = .08, t =
A correlation matrix was generated that included 0.83). SES was related to anger/destructiveness (γ =
all the independent and dependent variables. Table 1 –.27, t = –3.39) and all the parenting constructs with
indicates the zero-order correlations among the one exception; the relationship between SES and the
observed variables used to test the conceptual model. severity of the mother’s physical discipline at school
Several correlations indicate the degree of agree- age was not significant (γ = –.07, t = –0.83).
ment. These are r = .90 for the two indicators of Although there does not appear to be a direct
aggression, r = .53 for the two indicators of school age effect relating preschool age physical discipline to
physical discipline, r = .42 for the two indicators of pre- school age aggressiveness, the model suggests that
school physical discipline, and rs = .65, .67, and .67 for there is a significant indirect effect (β = .18, t = 2.51).
the three indicators of SES. Several correlations are That is, preschool age physical discipline is signifi-
indicative of test-retest reliability. For negative inter- cantly related to school age physical discipline, which
action indicators, the correlation between preschool in turn, is significantly related to aggression.
and school age is r = .46. For the two indicators of phys- The stability of the measures was provided by the
ical discipline at preschool age and the two indicators coefficients connecting the preschool age and school
at school age, the four correlations (rs) are .27, .14, age measures of physical discipline and negative inter-
.48, and .21. Although these latter are all statistically action. These coefficients were high and significant
significant, the correlation between preschool physi- (β = .52, t = 3.26 and β = .49, t = 5.68, respectively). This
cal discipline 2 and school age physical discipline 1 is suggests that the parenting experienced by many chil-
low; that is, r = .14. The range of these latter four corre- dren at preschool age continues into their school age
lations suggests a less than desirable degree of consis- years.
tency among the physical discipline indicators.
The LISREL analysis provided a measurement
model with coefficients that were all highly signifi- DISCUSSION
cant. The standardized coefficients for the three SES Validity of the Present Model
variables were .83 for family’s income, .81 for
mother’s education, and .79 for mother’s job status. The strengths of the present statistical model are
The discipline variables had loadings of .85 and .50 at the simultaneous examination of relationships
preschool age and .70 and .75 at school age. With only between two features of early child rearing at two
a single variable representing the construct of nega- points in time with SES included in the model. This
tive parent-child interaction for each age period, the provides a more accurate estimate of each relation-

CHILD MALTREATMENT / FEBRUARY 2001

 Herrenkohl, Russo / ABUSIVE REARING AND AGGRESSION 9

TABLE 1: Zero-Order Correlations Among the Independent and Dependent Variables (n = 235)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. Mother’s job prestige

2. Family income .65***
3. Mother’s education .67*** .67***
4. Preschool physical discipline 1 –.14* –.26*** –.14*
5. Preschool physical discipline 2 –.08 –.16* –.03 .42***
6. Preschool negative interaction –.33*** –.39*** –.34*** .28*** .06
7. School age physical discipline 1 –.17** –.31*** –.16* .27*** .14* .10
8. School age physical discipline 2 –.12 –.18** –.04 .48*** .21*** .13* .53***
9. School age negative interaction –.24*** –.33*** –.35*** .39*** .15* .47*** .22*** .22***
10. Angry/Negative –.33*** –.43*** –.30*** .28*** .16** .38*** .31*** .37*** .34***
11. Destructive/Acting out –.32*** –.41*** –.30*** .25*** .17** .35*** .30*** .33*** .29*** .90***
*p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01. ***p ≤ .001.

ship than would be the case if each relationship were
examined separately. The model has, however, sev-
eral possible sources of weakness. First, although one
objective of LISREL is to disentangle the covariation
among the variables involved and to adjust for unreli-
ability in those variables, either process may not have
been altogether successful, resulting in unknown
underestimates or overestimates of the magnitude of
the relationships. Second, other variables besides
those included in the model may be related to the
occurrence of childhood aggression. Were these
included, estimates of the relationships’ magnitude
could be changed. Third, the measurement model on
which the structural model depends might, to some
degree, inadequately operationalize the model’s
observed variables. Were this to have occurred, mea-
surement invalidity could affect the validity of the
results.
Such invalidity could be present because parents
may have tended to be more guarded in their school
age interactions than in their preschool interactions,
thus reducing the negative level of the former. The
correlation between the preschool and school age
negative interaction is, however, relatively high, mak-
ing this less likely. Another possibility is that parents,
especially those under scrutiny by child welfare agen-
cies, may have been less inclined to report severe phys-
ical discipline at preschool than at school age, thus
reducing the observed level of severity at preschool
age. A related consideration is that the reliabilities for
physical discipline severity are mixed, raising the pos-
sibility of attenuated correlations, even though
LISREL is designed to adjust for unreliability.
Although further research may lead to adjustments in
the present results, these are considered more accu-
rate estimates than zero-order or cross-sectional
results would be.
Meaning of the Interaction Results
These results indicate that the relationship between
the negative quality of maternal preschool interaction
and the child’s level of school age aggression is statisti-
cally significant. The relationship between maternal
school age interaction and school age aggression is
not statistically significant. This suggests that at least
as far as aggression is concerned, quality of interac-
tion asserts its effect at or before preschool age.
Following the view of attachment theorists, during
the infancy and preschool years inadequate or inap-
propriate attachment (Carlson, Cicchetti, Barnett, &
Brunwald, 1989; Egeland & Sroufe, 1981) is assumed
to exist where there is evidence of the mother’s nega-
tive, harsh interactions with the child (Egeland &
Farber, 1984). The attachment experience is the basis
for the child’s working model of the world and of itself
(Cicchetti & Toth, 1995; Egeland & Sroufe, 1981).
The child who experiences harsh, negative parenting
is likely to perceive the world as a negative,
nonnurturing place and to perceive him or herself as
unworthy of warmth and caring. The present results
suggest, as this theory proposes, that the conse-
quences from negative interaction occur early in the
child’s life and affect the way that child comes to inter-
act with others.
Meaning of the Discipline Results
These results also indicate that the relationship
between severity of the mother’s school age physical
discipline and the child’s school age level of aggres-
sion is statistically significant. Severity of maternal
preschool age physical discipline is not significantly
related to level of school age aggression. This suggests
that early school age is the time when harsh, physical
discipline most powerfully influences the develop-
ment of aggressive behavior in “latency” age children.

CHILD MALTREATMENT / FEBRUARY 2001

10 Herrenkohl, Russo / ABUSIVE REARING AND AGGRESSION
Social learning theory (Patterson et al., 1991) pro-
poses that aggressive and violent behavior is learned
by the child from models of violent behavior in the
family and from involvement in the family’s coercive
interaction. The experience of harsh, physical disci-
pline terrorizes and humiliates the child and dimin-
ishes the child’s sense of self-worth. The child who
views the world as noncaring and is angry in response
to negative, inadequate nurturance may be particu-
larly susceptible to adopting aggressive behavior in
early childhood as a self-protective measure. As such
children become more embroiled in the coercive
family interaction (Patterson, 1982), their style of
social interaction becomes more aggressive. They
may perceive aggression as protection in a hostile,
noncaring family environment.
The Relationship Between Harsh
Discipline and Negative Interaction
Are a parent’s harsh, physical discipline and nega-
tive interactions manifestations of the same underly-
ing personality or interpersonal dynamics, or are they
independent processes? Interactions reflect an ongo-
ing quality of the relationship between parent and
child (E. C. Herrenkohl et al., 1984). Harsh physical
discipline is a parental response, generally motivated
by anger, to more episodic occurrences (R. C.
Herrenkohl, Herrenkohl, & Egolf, 1983). Early observ-
ers suggested that the two are related (Burgess, 1977;
Burgess & Conger, 1978; E. C. Herrenkohl et al., 1984).
These results suggest that the discipline and inter-
action dimensions arise from independent con-
structs. When the hypothesis that the negative interac-
tion construct is related to the harsh discipline
construct was tested, using LISREL, the fit of the struc-
tural equation model became poorer. Furthermore,
the finding that the two dimensions affect the occur-
rence of aggression at different stages in the child’s
development suggests their independence as well.
The Combined Effect of
Discipline and Interaction
The structural equation model does not explore
the combined effect of interaction and discipline,
although some evidence is available. To examine this
issue, children were grouped in four categories. One
grouping (consistently more positive) involved chil-
dren exposed to the least severe discipline and the
least negative interaction across the two time periods.
Another grouping (consistently more negative)
involved children exposed to the most severe disci-
pline and most negative interaction across both time
periods. A third grouping, that is, preschool age for
interaction and school age for discipline, involved
children who experienced inconsistently negative
treatment, but the harsh treatment they did receive
was at the time when the interaction and discipline
had the greatest effect (inconsistent, greater effect).
A fourth grouping, that is, school age for interaction
and preschool age for discipline, involved children
who experienced inconsistently harsh treatment, but
the harsh treatment they received was at the time
when the interaction and discipline had the least
effect (inconsistent, smaller effect).
In combination over an extended time, consis-
tently severe discipline and negative interaction result
in the highest level of aggression. This level is higher
than the highest level for either measure taken alone.
Furthermore, the group with the least severe disci-
pline and the least negative interaction, that is, consis-
tently good, exhibit considerably less aggression as
compared with aggression levels when either aspect of
child rearing was considered alone. The other two
inconsistent groupings had aggression levels com-
mensurate with the presumed level of effect, that is,
the lower effect group had lower aggression than the
higher effect group. Figure 2 provides a graphical
depiction of the relationships suggested by the
LISREL model.
SES and the Impact of Severe,
Negative Child Rearing
SES at preschool age was both directly and indi-
rectly related to school age aggression. An indirect
effect occurs when the independent variable (e.g.,
SES) is related to a dependent variable (e.g., aggres-
sion) through their common relationship with an
intervening variable (e.g., discipline). Indirect rela-
tionships were found between SES and school age
aggression through physical discipline and between
SES and school age aggression through preschool
interaction. SES at school age was not included in the
model as a separate construct because it was found to
be so highly related to preschool SES that it dimin-
ished the fit of the model when it was included.
A further question concerns whether childhood
aggression differs for children of approximately the
same child-rearing experience differentiated by high
or low SES. To examine this issue, the groupings in
Figure 2 were further broken down by dividing each
group at the median SES of the total group. Figure 3
gives these results.
Several observations can be made about these
results. First, dividing each subgroup at the median
SES for the entire group, there are only 6 low SES chil-
dren in the least negative child-rearing group whereas
there are 36 children in the high SES group. In the
consistently poor child-rearing group, only 26 chil-
CHILD MALTREATMENT / FEBRUARY 2001
 Herrenkohl, Russo / ABUSIVE REARING AND AGGRESSION 11

130.1
140
(26.9)
119.9
(24.2)
120 108.0
(23.9)
92.8
100 (13.7)
Level of Aggression

80

60

40

20

0
Consistently good Inconsistent lower Inconsistent higher Consistently poor
effect effect

Mean
(Std. Dev.)

FIGURE 2: Levels of Aggression for Children Experiencing Four Levels of Negative Parenting

132.5
140 127.0 125.5 (25.1)
(23.5) (30.0)
114.6
110.6
120 (27.8)
102.6 (22.1)
93.9 (19.4)
100 (14.3) 86.0
Level of Aggression

(6.4)

80
High SES
Low SES
60

40

20

0
Consistently good Inconsistent lower Inconsistent higher Consistently poor
effect effect
Mean
(Std. Dev.)

FIGURE 3: Levels of Aggression for Children Experiencing Four Levels of Negative Parenting Broken Down by Higher and Lower SES
Levels

dren are in the high SES group whereas 48 are in the The direct effect of SES on school age aggression is
low SES group. Second, in all but the consistently such that the lower the SES, the higher the level of
good child-rearing group, low SES children are more aggression. This may reflect the influence of one or
aggressive than the high SES children. Third, these more conditions. SES can be a proxy for specific
results indicate that SES is correlated with negative dynamics within the family, for example, interspousal
child rearing. conflict (Conger, Ge, Elder, Lorenz, & Simons, 1994),

CHILD MALTREATMENT / FEBRUARY 2001

12 Herrenkohl, Russo / ABUSIVE REARING AND AGGRESSION
which spill over on the child (R. C. Herrenkohl et al.,
1983). Low SES can reflect material deprivation due
to unemployment, low income, and poor housing
(McLoyd, 1998), which severely limit advantages that
foster the child’s development. Low SES families also
live in neighborhoods that lack important social sup-
port systems (Garbarino, 1977; McLoyd, 1998). This
lack can mean, for example, that the child has no
alternative sources outside the nuclear family for care
and nurturance.
A relationship exists between SES and negative
interaction and between SES and severe physical dis-
cipline. The relationship is such that the lower the
SES, the more negative the interaction and the more
severe the discipline. This result supports, at least in
part, th e assu mp tions d escr ibed ab o v e
(Bronfenbrenner, 1986; McLoyd, 1990) that low SES,
specifically poverty, increases parental distress and
diminishes the parents’ capacity to be supportive and
consistent toward their children. This heightened dis-
tress and diminished capacity have a negative impact
on the parent’s behavior toward the child.
Low SES parents may have experienced inade-
quate nurturance as children and, thus, may have
reduced resources for dealing effectively with the
child’s needs for nurturance (Conger et al., 1994;
McLeod & Shanahan, 1993). The parent’s own early
experience may also increase the likelihood that
harsh, physical discipline will be employed (E. C.
Herrenkohl, Herrenkohl, & Toedter, 1983). Low SES
suggests parents who lack the personal resources to
nurture their children effectively. Furthermore, they
find themselves in a social environment that lacks the
material and social buffers that can make the
parenting process more positive. These, in turn, exac-
erbate the effect of negative family dynamics on the
child’s development (McLoyd, 1998).
Comparing Parenting at
Preschool and School Age
The preceding results indicate that maternal inter-
action and physical discipline differ in the degree of
their relationship to school age aggression, depend-
ing on whether they are considered at preschool age
or school age. How does the level of these dimensions
change over time? To examine this question, the total
group of children was divided into three groups, the
upper third of the school age aggression distribution
(high aggression), the middle third (moderate
aggression), and the lowest third (low aggression).
The mean level of negative interaction was calculated
for children at each level of aggression at preschool
age and at school age. Figure 4 gives these results.
This figure indicates that negative interaction at
preschool age is more strongly related to aggression
than at school age. Mothers whose children are in the
low aggression group are slightly more negative at
school age than at preschool age. Mothers whose chil-
dren are in the high aggression groups exhibit less
negative interaction from preschool to school age.
Mothers of children in the moderately aggressive
group stay approximately the same.
Why does negative interaction in the high aggres-
sion group decline? One possibility is that these moth-
ers become more nurturant. This seems unlikely in
view of the discipline results described below.
Another possibility is that these children become less
demanding of their mothers. The children routinely
expect and seek less from their mothers. As a result,
the mothers are less likely to express negative behav-
ior. This latter seems more plausible.
How does severity of physical discipline change
from preschool age to school age? The same
three-part breakdown of aggression was used, and the
mean level of harsh, physical discipline was calculated
for children at each level of aggression at preschool
and school age. Figure 5 gives these results.
This figure indicates that the level of harsh physical
punishment is less sharply differentiated for high,
medium, and low aggression preschool children than
it is for school age children. The mean level of severe
physical discipline for the high aggression children is
higher at school age than at preschool age. The mean
physical discipline for the low aggression children is
slightly lower at school age than at preschool age.
Why does the severe physical discipline of mothers
of high aggression children increase from preschool
age to school age when their negative interaction is
declining? This pattern does not indicate that they are
becoming better at parenting. Rather, although the
child’s reduced expectations and demands may result
in reduced pressure on the parent in one sense, the
child’s response to not receiving nurturance is likely
to be anger and even aggressiveness. Added to this is
the desire of children of this age to explore and
manipulate their environment, as described by sev-
eral authors (White, 1959). Faced with this combina-
tion, the parent episodically perceives the child as
needing to be controlled (E. C. Herrenkohl et al.,
1983; Wolfe, 1999). This results in an increased use of
harsh, physical discipline techniques.
What underscores this dynamic is the opposite ten-
dency in the behavior of mothers whose children were
in the low aggression group. These mothers, whose
use of severe physical discipline was already low at pre-
school age, manifest a modest decrease. Although
CHILD MALTREATMENT / FEBRUARY 2001
 Herrenkohl, Russo / ABUSIVE REARING AND AGGRESSION 13

4.5 4.1
(4.8)
4.0

3.5 3.2
Level of Negative Interaction
(3.8)
3.0

2.2 2.3
2.5 (3.3) Low Aggression
(4.2)
Moderate Aggression
2.0 High Aggression

1.5
0.8
1.0 (2.4)
0.3
0.5 (2.6)

0.0
Preschool School Age

Mean
(Std. Dev.)

FIGURE 4: Amount of Negative Interaction at Preschool and School Age Experienced by Children Characterized as Having Low, Moder-
ate, or High Levels of Aggression at School Age

3.0 2.8
(1.8)
2.5
(1.7)
2.5
Level of Physical Discipline

2.0
(1.7) 1.9
2.0 (1.7)

1.5
Low Aggression
(1.5) 1.3
1.5 Moderate Aggression
(1.4)
High Aggression

1.0

0.5

0.0
Preschool School Age

Mean
(Std. Dev.)

FIGURE 5: Severity of Discipline at Preschool and School Age Experienced by Children Characterized as Having Low, Moderate, or High
Levels of Aggression at School Age

caution is necessary when interpreting modest shifts social-emotional relationship with the child and
in such low observed levels, the direction of the increase their nonphysical efforts to control—for
changes suggests mothers who, faced with active, example, by verbal threats—rather than depend on
exploring early school age children, depend on their severe, even violent forms of physical discipline.

CHILD MALTREATMENT / FEBRUARY 2001

14 Herrenkohl, Russo / ABUSIVE REARING AND AGGRESSION
Child Rearing and Early
Childhood Aggression
As noted at the outset, infants and preschoolers
whose early socioemotional needs are not appropri-
ately met develop expectations that care is not avail-
able and that others cannot be trusted to be caring.
Consequently, these children may view themselves as
unworthy of such care and become angry in the
expectation that their needs will not be met. This
sense of deprivation gives rise to frustration and
anger.
Overly severe physical discipline in early childhood
is one type of violent behavior experienced at a time
when the child is learning to interact with the world.
The experience of harsh, physical discipline both ter-
rorizes and humiliates the child, adding to the sense
of worthlessness and providing a model for coping in
social interactions. The child who is already angry in
response to negative, inadequate nurturance and is
seeking protection from a coercive family and a
threatening world might be particularly susceptible to
using aggressive behavior.
In the low SES environment, this process often
involves parents who as children did not experience
adequate nurturance and who are likely to feel vulner-
able and to view others negatively. Consequently, they
are likely to lack adequate resources for coping with
child rearing. In a low SES social environment, par-
ents have fewer material resources and experience
higher levels of stress. This can reduce the parents’
ability to deal effectively with the child’s needs for
nurturance (Conger et al., 1994; McLeod &
Shanahan, 1993). Lower SES also means that the
child is less likely to experience positive models of
social interaction outside the nuclear family setting to
serve as contrasts to the models experienced at home
because harsh child rearing is more prevalent in low
SES families in general (McLoyd, 1998). Further-
more, the family is likely to suffer the relative social
isolation and lack of social supports that frequently
characterize lower SES environments (McLoyd,
1990). Low SES suggests a social environment that
exacerbates the negative dynamics of family interac-
tion and that lacks the material and social buffers that
can make the parenting process more positive.
The preceding results also may have relevance to a
theoretical perspective on the occurrence of adoles-
cent violent behavior. According to “control theory,”
violent adolescents lack a “bond” with family, result-
ing in the inability of the family to control the child’s
behavior (Hirschi, 1969). Adolescents who lack this
bond are free to express their aggressive impulses and
are susceptible to the influence of deviant, including
violent, peers (Elliott, Huizinga, & Ageton, 1985;
Hirschi & Hindelang, 1977; Liska & Reed, 1985). A
possible explanation for the bond to the family failing
to develop is the caretaker’s nonnurturing, harsh
interaction with the child and the child’s resulting
view of the family as negative and uncaring.
Implications for Intervention
The preceding results identify three factors, nega-
tive mother-child interaction, severe maternal physi-
cal discipline, and low family SES, as risk factors for
the occurrence of early childhood aggression.
Although these results do not examine intervention
strategies, they do suggest several considerations rele-
vant to intervention. These derive from findings that
negative interaction exerts its influence in the pre-
school years, and probably before, as attachment the-
ory suggests; that severe physical discipline exerts its
influence in the early school age years; and that low
SES influences the occurrence of childhood aggres-
sion directly as well as indirectly by being associated
with increases in levels of negativity and severity,
respectively.
Early intervention programs seek to enhance the
quality of the mother’s early relationship to her child.
Olds (1997) describes a program in which this is
accomplished by initially guiding the mother toward
better self-care, then by helping her to improve the
quality of her child care. Concurrently, to moderate
the effects of low SES, mothers are assisted to identify
and utilize scarce community economic and social
resources. This early intervention approach does not
address, however, the effects of severe physical disci-
pline that according to the present results, come later
and are not necessarily moderated by less negative
mother-child interactions.
Home-based programs to help caretakers moder-
ate coercive child-rearing practices can be effective
(Kazdin, 1987). Forehand and Long (1991) describe
a parent-training program to modify noncompliance
in young children (age 3-7). Elementary school–
based programs to teach positive interpersonal skills,
such as the one described by Hawkins, Catalano,
Kosterman, Abbott, and Hill (1999), are likely to be a
necessary follow-up to early intervention efforts to
directly address the social skills issue.
CONCLUSION
The preceding suggests three independent but
interrelated processes that lead to and sustain early
childhood aggression. The first has to do with
resources for parenting. Parents who are more afflu-
ent are more likely to have experienced positive
CHILD MALTREATMENT / FEBRUARY 2001
 Herrenkohl, Russo / ABUSIVE REARING AND AGGRESSION
parenting themselves. They have sufficient skills and
resources to cope more adequately with many
stresses. They also have available social and economic
buffers, which can assist them when needed. By con-
trast, poverty level parents are more likely to have
experienced harsh negative parenting. They are
more likely to be burdened by economic stresses with
which they are ill equipped to cope. They also live
where there are few supportive resources.
The second process is the child’s experience of
nurturance, which is the foundation for his or her
view of the world. The experience of secure, nurtur-
ing interactions results in expectations that he or she
is valued and will be protected. This, in turn, is associ-
ated with an inclination to expect positive relations
with others both within and outside the family. A
child’s experience of harsh, negative interactions and
a lack of nurturance will result in a feeling of vulnera-
bility and of anger. These feelings can result in a
search for ways to protect oneself in a family that is
unfeeling, hostile, and punitive.
The third process concerns how the child relates to
others. The positively nurtured and protected child,
especially those in more affluent circumstances, is less
likely to experience violent discipline and also less
likely to model it when it is experienced. Such a child
also is more likely to find satisfaction in interacting
with similarly nonaggressive others. Poverty level par-
ents who seek to address the growing anger and
aggressiveness of their child are likely to use severe
discipline, often the only discipline strategy they
know. This, however, only serves to confirm their chil-
dren’s negative view of their family, the world, and
themselves. Aggressive behavior is perceived as
affording protection and a way to exert control over
others’ disliked and threatening behavior. Conse-
quently, it becomes an important feature of the
child’s interactions with others.
REFERENCES
Achenbach, T. M. (1978). The child behavior profile: I. Boys aged
6-11. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, 378-488.
Achenbach, T. M., & Edelbrock, C. S. (1979). The child behavior
profile: II. Boys aged 12-16 and girls aged 6-11 and 12-16. Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 47, 223-333.
Alesandri, S. M. (1991). Play and social behavior in maltreated pre-
schoolers. Development and Psychopathology, 3, 191-205.
Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bornstein, M. H. (1987). Sensitive periods in development: Defini-
tion, existence, utility, and meaning. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.),
Sensitive periods in development: Interdisciplinary approaches (pp. 3-
17). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). The ecology of the family as a context
for human development. Developmental Psychology, 22, 723-742.
CHILD MALTREATMENT / FEBRUARY 2001
15
Burgess, R. (1977). Child abuse: A social interactional analysis. In
B. Lahey & A. Kazdin (Eds.), Advances in clinical child psychology
(pp. 141-172). New York: Plenum.
Burgess, R., & Conger, R. (1978). Family interaction in abusive,
neglectful, and normal families. Child Development, 49,
1163-1173.
Carlson, V., Cicchetti, D., Barnett, D., & Brunwald, K. (1989). Disor-
ganized/disoriented attachment relationships in maltreated
infants. Developmental Psychology, 25, 525-531.
Cicchetti, D., & Toth, S. (1995). A developmental psychopathology
perspective on child abuse and neglect. Journal of the American
Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 34(5), 541-565.
Conger, R., Ge, X., Elder, G., Lorenz, G., & Simons, R. (1994). Eco-
nomic stress, coercive family process and developmental prob-
lems of adolescents. Child Development, 65, 541-561.
Dodge, K. (1983). Behavioral antecedents of peer social status.
Child Development, 54, 1386-1399.
Dodge, K. A., & Somberg, D. R. (1987). Hostile attributional biases
among aggressive boys are exacerbated under conditions of
threat to self. Child Development, 58, 213-224.
Duncan, G., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Klebanov, P. (1994). Economic
deprivation and early childhood development. Child Develop-
ment, 65, 296-318.
Duncan, O. D. (1961). A socio-economic index for all occupations.
In A. Reiss (Ed.), Occupations and social status (pp. 109-138). New
York: Free Press.
Egeland, B., & Farber, E. (1984). Infant-mother attachment: Fac-
tors related to its development and changes over time. Child
Development, 55, 753-771.
Egeland, B., & Sroufe, A. (1981). Developmental sequelae of mal-
treatment in infancy. In R. Rizley & D. Cicchetti (Eds.), Develop-
mental perspectives on child maltreatment (pp. 72-92). San Fran-
cisco: Jossey-Bass.
Elliott, D., Huizinga, D., & Ageton, S. (1985). Explaining delinquency
and use. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Erikson, E. (1963). Childhood and society. New York: Norton.
Farrington, D. P. (1978). The family backgrounds of aggressive
youths. In L. Hersov, M. Berger, & D. Shaffer (Eds.), Aggression
and antisocial behavior in childhood and adolescence (pp. 73-93).
Oxford: Pergamon.
Farrington, D. P. (1989). Early predictors of adolescent aggression
and adult violence. Violence and Victims, 4, 79-100.
Forehand, R. & Long, N. (1991). Prevention of aggression and
other behavior problems in the early adolescent years. In D. J.
Pepler & H. Rubin (Eds.), The development and treatment of child-
hood aggression (317-330). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Garbarino, J. (1977). The human ecology of child maltreatment: A
conceptual model for research. Journal of Marriage and the Family
39(4), 721-735.
George, C., & Main, M. (1979). Social interactions of young abused
children: Approach, avoidance, and aggression. Child Develop-
ment, 50, 306-318.
Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R. F., Kosterman, R., Abbott, R., & Hill,
K. G. (1999). Preventing adolescent high risk behaviors by
strengthening protection during childhood. Archives of Pediatric &
Adolescent Medicine, 152, 226-234.
Herrenkohl, E. C., Herrenkohl, R. C., & Toedter, L. (1983). Per-
spectives on the intergenerational transmission of abuse. In
D. Finkelhor, R. J. Gelles, G. T. Hotaling, & M. A. Straus (Eds.),
The dark side of families: Current family violence research (pp. 305-
316). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Herrenkohl, E. C., Herrenkohl, R. C., Toedter, L., & Yanushevski,
A. M. (1984). Parent-child interactions in abusive and non-abu-
sive families. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry,
23, 641-648.
Herrenkohl, R. C., & Herrenkohl, E. C. (1981). Some antecedents
and developmental consequences of child maltreatment. In
R. Rizley & D. Cicchetti (Eds.), Developmental perspectives on child
maltreatment (pp. 57-76). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Herrenkohl, R. C., Herrenkohl, E. C., & Egolf, B. P. (1983). The cir-
cumstances surrounding the occurrence of child maltreatment.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51, 424-431.
16 Herrenkohl, Russo / ABUSIVE REARING AND AGGRESSION
Herrenkohl, R. C., Herrenkohl, E. C., Egolf, B. P., & Wu, P. (1991).
The developmental consequences of child abuse: The Lehigh
longitudinal study. In R. H. Starr & D. A. Wolfe (Eds.), The effects
of child abuse and neglect: Issues and research (pp. 57-80). New York:
Guilford.
Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley: University of Cali-
fornia Press.
Hirschi, T., & Hindelang, M. (1977). Intelligence and delinquency:
A revisionist review. American Sociological Review, 42, 571-587.
Hoffman-Plotkin, D., & Twentyman, C. (1984). A multi-modal
assessment of behavioral and cognitive deficits in abused and
neglected preschoolers. Child Development, 55, 794-802.
Jöreskog, K., & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL®8: Structural Equation
Modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Hillsdale, NJ: Law-
rence Erlbaum.
Kazdin, A. E. (1987). Treatment of antisocial behavior in children:
Current status and future directions. Psychological Bulletin, 102,
187-203.
Liska, A., & Reed, M. (1985). Ties to conventional institutions and
delinquency: Estimating reciprocal effects. American Sociological
Review, 50, 547-560.
Loeber, R., & Hay, D. (1997). Key issues in the development of
aggression and violence from childhood to early adulthood.
Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 371-410.
Loeber, R., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1986). Family factors as cor-
relates and predictors of juvenile conduct problems and delin-
quency. In M. Tonry & N. Morris (Eds.), Crime and justice:
Annual review of research (pp. 29-149). Chicago: University of Chi-
cago Press.
Masten, A. S., & Coatsworth, J. D. (1998). The development of com-
petence in favorable and unfavorable environments. American
Psychologist, 53, 205-220.
McCord, J. (1982). A longitudinal view of the relationship between
paternal absence and crime. In J. Gunn & D. Farrington (Eds.),
Abnormal offenders, delinquency and the criminal justice system
(pp. 113-128). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
McCord, W., McCord, J., & Howard, A. (1961). Familial correlates
of aggression in non-delinquent male children. Journal of Abnor-
mal and Social Psychology, 62, 79-93.
McLeod, J., & Shanahan, M. (1993). Poverty, parenting, and chil-
dren’s mental health. American Sociological Review, 58, 351-366.
McLoyd, V. (1990). The impact of economic hardship on Black
families and children: Psychological distress, parenting and
socio-emotional development. Child Development, 61, 311-346.
McLoyd, V. (1998). Socioeconomic disadvantage and child devel-
opment. American Psychologist, 53(2), 185-204.
Moore, M. H., Prothrow-Stith, D., Guyor, B., & Spivak, H. (1994).
Violence and intentional injuries: Criminal justice and public
health perspectives on an urgent national problem. In A. J. Reiss
& J. A. Roth (Eds.), Understanding and preventing violence (Vol. 4,
pp. 167-216). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council. (1993). Understanding child abuse and
neglect. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Offord, D. R., Boyle, M. H., & Racine, Y. A. (1991). The epidemiol-
ogy of anti-social behavior in childhood and adolescence. In D. J.
Pepler & K. H. Rubin (Eds.), The development and treatment of
childhood aggression (pp. 31-54). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Olds, D. (1997). The prenatal early infancy project: Preventing
child abuse and neglect in the context of promoting maternal
and child health. In D. A. Wolfe, R. J. McMahon, & R. DeV.
Peters (Eds.), Child abuse: New directions in prevention and treat-
ment across the lifespan (pp. 130-154). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Patterson, G. (1982). Coercive family process: A social learning approach,
Vol. 3. Eugene, OR: Castalia.
Patterson, G. (1986). Performance models for antisocial boys. Amer-
ican Psychologist, 41, 432-444.
Patterson, G., DeBaryshe, B., & Ramsey, E. (1989). A developmen-
tal perspective on anti-social behavior. American Psychologist, 44,
329-335.
Patterson, G. R., Capaldi, D., & Bank, L. (1991). An early starter
model for predicting delinquency. In D. J. Pepler & K. H. Rubin
(Eds.), The development and treatment of childhood aggression (pp.
139-168). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Pepler, D. J., Craig, W., & Roberts, W. L. (1995). Social skills train-
ing and aggression in the peer group. In J. McCord (Ed.), Coer-
cion and punishment in long term perspective (pp. 213-228). Cam-
bridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Rutter, M. (1987). Psychological resilience and protective mecha-
nisms. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 57, 316-331.
Wells, L., & Ranken, J. (1988). Direct parental control and delin-
quency. Criminology, 26, 263-285.
White, R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of com-
petence. Psychological Review, 66, 297-334.
Wolfe, D. A. (1999). Child abuse: Implications for child development and
psychopathology (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Roy C. Herrenkohl is Distinguished University Service Professor
at Lehigh University. He is a member of Lehigh’s department of Soci-
ology and Anthropology and holds a joint appointment in Lehigh’s
College of Education. He received his Ph.D. in social psychology in
1966 from New York University and joined the Lehigh faculty in the
same year. He was director of Lehigh’s Center for Social Research
from 1974 to 1990 when he became Vice Provost for Research and
Dean of Graduate Studies. In 1996, he returned to full-time teach-
ing and research. Since 1975, Dr. Herrenkohl has codirected with
Dr. Ellen Herrenkohl a longitudinal study of the consequences of
child abuse, following families whose children were preschool age in
1976-1977, until, in 1990-1992, the same children were in late
adolescence.
M. Jean Russo is a research scientist at the Center for Social
Research at Lehigh University. She received her Ph.D. in Applied
Social Research from Lehigh University in 1992. She has partici-
pated in various research activities, including statistical analysis of
data collected for the Lehigh Longitudinal Study and data collec-
tion, management, and statistical analysis for the Industrial
Research Institute/Center for Innovation Management Studies
Annual R&D Database project. She has been involved in numer-
ous evaluation activities at Lehigh University and has just com-
pleted editing the second of a two-volume series composed of the
important works of Donald T. Campbell.
CHILD MALTREATMENT / FEBRUARY 2001