Prev Sci (2012) 13:370–383
DOI 10.1007/s11121-011-0223-8
Contribution of Family Violence to the Intergenerational
Transmission of Externalizing Behavior
Miriam K. Ehrensaft & Patricia Cohen
Published online: 1 July 2011
# Society for Prevention Research 2011
Abstract Research finds that early antisocial behavior is a
risk for later intimate partner violence (IPV) perpetration and
victimization, and that children’s exposure to their parents’
IPV is a risk for subsequent behavior problems. This study
tests whether intimate violence (IPV) between partners
contributes independently to the intergenerational transmis-
sion of antisocial behavior, using the Children in the
Community Study, a representative sample (N=821) followed
for over 25 years in 6 assessments. The present study
includes a subsample of parents (N=678) and their offspring
(N=396). We test the role of three mechanisms by which
IPV may influence child antisocial behavior—parental
psychopathology, parenting practices, and child self-
regulation. Results suggest that IPV independently increased
the risk for offspring externalizing problems, net of the
effects of parental history of antisocial behavior and family
violence. IPV also increased the risk for parental post
traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and alcohol use disorder
2 years later, but not for major depressive disorder. Alcohol
use disorder independently increased the risk for offspring
externalizing behavior, but IPV continued to predict off-
spring externalizing net of parental alcohol use. Parenting,
particularly low satisfaction with the child, was significantly
associated with both IPV and externalizing behavior, but
did not mediate the effects of IPV on externalizing. IPV
predicted higher levels of emotional expressivity, aggres-
M. K. Ehrensaft (*)
Dept of Psychology, John Jay College of Criminal Justice,
445 West 59th street,
New York, NY 10019, USA
e-mail: mehrensaft@jjay.cuny.edu
M. K. Ehrensaft : P. Cohen
Div. of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, Columbia University
College of Physicians & Surgeons,
New York, NY, USA
sion and hostile reactivity, and depressive mood in
offspring. Implications for future research and prevention
are discussed.
Keywords Intimate partner violence . Family violence .
Psychopathology . Externalizing . Parenting
Introduction
Three-generational studies consistently find evidence sup-
porting the intergenerational transmission of externalizing
psychopathology across generations (Capaldi et al. 2003;
Conger et al. 2003; Kim et al. 2009; Thornberry et al.
2003). This familial transmission is critical from the
perspective of prevention, because of the serious additive
sequellae of antisocial behavior over the life course (Moffitt
et al. 2001; Patterson et al. 1989). These findings have lead
to the pursuit of models explaining the propagation of
antisocial behavior within families.
A number of studies have begun to investigate the role
of family conflict and violence as a major environmental
stressor that may lead to increased risk for transmission of
antisocial behavior (Ehrensaft, Cohen, et al. 2003; Capaldi
and Clark 1998; Jaffee et al. 2002; Yates et al. 2003).
Developmental psychologists are increasingly recognizing
the influence of child maltreatment and intimate partner
violence (IPV) on risk for new episodes of mental health
disorders in those who are at familial risk, given their
potential to impact physical health and to disrupt family
constellations, living conditions, and key support networks
(Ehrensaft 2005; Horwitz et al. 2001).
In fact, a wealth of studies documents the increased risk
for externalizing psychopathology among the offspring of
men and women involved in IPV (Evans, Davies and
Prev Sci (2012) 13:370–383
DiLillo 2008; Kitzman et al. 2003). The earliest studies
were limited by methodological problems, particularly
reliance on samples of women and children in domestic
violence shelters, and cross-sectional designs (Jouriles et al.
2001; Silva et al. 2000). Recent studies have addressed
some of these flaws with epidemiological studies and
longitudinal designs, finding evidence for the independent
influence of exposure to IPV between parents and elevated
risk for mental health problems, substance abuse, and
juvenile crime (Ehrensaft, Cohen et al. 2006; Fergusson and
Horwood 1998; Wolfe et al. 2003), even accounting for
heritable risks (Jaffee et al. 2002; Yates et al. 2003).
Despite this clear identification of risk attributable to
IPV exposure, little remains known about the mechanisms
by which the risk operates to influence subsequent
psychopathology. Stress theory (Cicchetti and Walker
2001) provides a useful framework to conceptualize
possible mechanisms by which IPV may influence the
intergenerational transmission of psychopathology (Wolfe
et al. 1985). That is, IPV, a known developmental outcome
of early antisocial behavior (Ehrensaft et al. 2003), may
stress both parents and children on the level of parental
emotional distress, parent–child interactions (Jouriles et al.
2009), and interference with the development of children’s
stress reactivity (Kaufman and Charney 2001). Extant
literature points to three possible mechanisms that reflect
this overarching stress framework: parental psychopatholo-
gy, parenting practices, and child self-regulation, reviewed
presently.
IPV Increases Risk for Parental Psychopathology
IPV may impact the risk for child psychopathology by
increasing the risk for parental psychopathology. Although
family history of psychopathology increases vulnerability
to developing psychopathology, the risk increases with
environmental stressors (Kraemer et al. 1997). Domestic
violence has been associated with mental health symptoms,
particularly depression (Carlson et al. 2003; Levendosky
and Graham-Bermann 2001; Stein and Kennedy 2001), and
anxiety (Carlson et al. 2003; Mertin and Mohr 2001). In
prospective longitudinal studies, IPV increases the risk in
young women for new episodes of mental health disorders,
particularly major depressive disorder, post-traumatic
stress disorder (PTSD), and substance abuse disorders,
net of an earlier history of such disorders (Ehrensaft et al.
2006).
IPV Increases Risk for Adverse Parenting Practices
Parenting practices represents a second possible mechanism
for the influence of IPV on child psychopathology. There is
some evidence that victimized mothers tend to be more
371
impulsive and to use harsh punishment with their children
(Osofsky 1998). These types of parenting practices have
been associated with elevated risk for internalizing and
externalizing problems in children (Chamberlain et al.
1997). Limited evidence suggests that the quality of the
parent–child relationship mediates the influence of IPV
exposure on child behavior (Lieberman et al. 2005). On the
other hand, these findings are based on a sample of
preschool children referred for either mental health prob-
lems or maternal experience of IPV, limiting generalizabil-
ity to unreferred samples. Few longitudinal studies have
followed offspring past the preschool years.
IPV May Influence the Development of Emotional
and Behavioral Self-Regulation
Finally, individual differences in self-regulation, such as
mood regulation, emotional expressivity, aggressive behav-
ior, and hostile reactivity, may be affected by exposure to
IPV. Patterns of emotional and behavioral regulation are
learned and reinforced in the family, and may become
stable with repetition (Gilliom et al. 2002). Studies of early
stress, such as child maltreatment, support its association
with altered neurobiological processing, particularly the
hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis functioning
(Kaufman et al. 1997). Abused children exhibit increased
anticipatory monitoring in response to hostile interpersonal
interactions and greater difficulty regulating their arousal
(Pollack et al. 2005). These neurobiological changes are
known to increase risk for depression (Kessler and Magee
1993) and reactive aggression (Lopez-Duran et al. 2009).
Current Study and Hypotheses
We sought to test intergenerational models linking family
violence exposure with the risk for propagation of
psychopathology across generations. Using the Children
in the Community Study (CIC) sample—a prospective
longitudinal study of a representative sample of youth
(Generation 2; G2), their parents (Generation 1; G1), and
their own offspring (Generation 3; G3), followed for over
25 years—we tested five sets of hypotheses. First, we
expected that adolescent conduct disorder (CD) measured
prospectively in one generation (G2) would predict exter-
nalizing behavior problems in the next (G3). Second, we
expected that IPV reported by those youth (G2) in early
adulthood would predict subsequent externalizing symp-
toms in their offspring in middle childhood (G3). We
controlled for G2 parents’ prospectively measured child-
hood risks assumed to independently increase the risk for
externalizing behavior, including child abuse, exposure to
parental (G1) IPV, and an adolescent history of conduct
disorder. Third, we hypothesized that the association of
372
parental IPV and later child externalizing problems would
be accounted for by parental psychiatric disorders that are
known to be outcomes of partner violence (PTSD,
substance abuse, and depressive disorders). Fourth, we
expected parenting practices would account for the influ-
ence of IPV and parental psychopathology on later child
symptomatology. Finally, we expected that parental IPV
would predict offspring preadolescent/adolescent self-
regulation (poorer mood regulation, higher aggression,
hostile reactivity, depressive mood, and emotional expres-
sivity). Figure 1 outlines the hypotheses and the expected
relationships between variables.
Methods
Participants and Procedure
The CIC cohort derives from a randomly selected sample
residing in two upstate New York counties in 1975
(Kogan et al. 1977). The area sampled for this study was
selected to be generally representative of the Northeastern
United States on socioeconomic status (SES) and the
majority of demographic variables, but reflected the
sampled region with regard to high proportions of
Catholic (54%) and Caucasian (91%) participants. From
1975 to 1983, 54 new families were recruited from urban
poverty areas to replace families lost to urban renewal. At
first follow-up (1983), 821 parents (G1) and their
offspring (G2) were interviewed on a range of health,
behavioral and environmental factors. The youths and
their mothers were assessed in three additional follow-up
interviews (1985–1986, 1991–1993, and 2001–2004)
regarding demographic, psychiatric, and other psychoso-
cial factors. This sample was demographically representa-
tive of the sampled Northeast regions, with retention rates
of 95% until 1991–1993, and 84% by the 2001–2004
Fig. 1 Proposed conceptual G2
Childhood/ G2 Mean
model—parental IPV predicting Adolescence Age 31
offspring externalizing behaviors
G2 Conduct
Disorder
G2 Childhood
IPV Exposure
G2 IPV
G2 Childhood
Abuse
Prev Sci (2012) 13:370–383
assessments. Interviews were conducted in the home by
intensively trained and supervised lay personnel. Youths
and mothers were interviewed separately, and each
interviewer was blind to the other informant’s responses.
In 1999, a questionnaire on recent life changes, work
history, aggressive behavior, intimate partner history, and
partner violence was mailed to 815 participants, 582
(71%) of whom responded (detailed in Measures).
Detailed descriptions of the sample characteristics, proce-
dures and follow up are available in earlier reports (Cohen
and Cohen 1996).
G2 were 13.8 years (SD=2.6, range=9–19) in 1983
(Wave 2), 16.2 years (SD=2.8, range=11–22) in 1985–
1986 (Wave 3), 22.1 years (SD=2.7, range=17–28) in
1991–1993 (Wave 4), 31.0 years (SD=2.7, range=26–35)
in 1999 (Wave 5), and 33.48 years (SD=2.73 range=27–
38) in 2001–2004 (Wave 6). At Wave 6, of 678 total
participants, 396 had children and completed measures of
offspring (G3) behavior and their parenting practices.
Women were about 5% more likely to participate in each
adult follow-up, but differential sample attrition was
unrelated to age, race, socioeconomic class, or with
adolescent or adult psychiatric disorders.
From 2000 to 2006, the 10–18 year old offspring (n=
190; median age=13.00 years, SD=2.40) of the G2 study
participants (i.e., Generation 3; G3) were invited to
participate in a telephone-based interview on opposite-sex
relationship development, peer relations, and self-
regulation. Most were interviewed within 1–3 years after
the recruitment of their parents for the Wave 6 assessments
(M=29 months; SD=13.7). Those who were recruited later
were younger, and were invited to participate once they
turned 10. We successfully recruited 129 (68%) of age-
eligible G3 offspring. Aside from age, children who
participated in the Teen Study did not differ significantly
from the children who did not participate, on gender, SES,
or ethnicity.
G2 Mean G3 Mean
Age 33 Age 13
G2 Adult
Disorders
G3
Externalizing
G3 Self-
Regulation
G2 Parenting
of G3
Prev Sci (2012) 13:370–383
The telephone-based, computerized format was selected
because the original study participants and their families
were now living across multiple states, making in-person
interviews costly. Telephone assessments are commonly
used to measure sensitive personal information about
adolescents, including psychiatric symptomatology, antiso-
cial behavior, and substance abuse (Gould et al. 2004;
Shaffer et al. 2000), as evidence suggests that adolescents
are more likely to disclose sensitive information in
computer- and telephone-based assessments than in face-
to-face interviews (Rohde et al. 1997; Supple et al. 1999).
Interviewers were laypersons extensively trained for the
earlier protocols. The interview was designed and admin-
istered using Dialogix, a computer software tool designed
to support complex data entry of healthcare information
(Choi et al. 2005). Dialogix has been used to computerize
and deploy a wide range of survey instruments used in large
epidemiological trials, Web-enabled decision trees, clinical
guidelines, and consumer-oriented decision support tools
(Choi et al. 2005).
The Columbia University and New York State Psychiatric
Institute Institutional Review Boards approved all CIC study
procedures. Written informed consent or assent was obtained
from all participants after the interview procedures were fully
explained. A National Institute of Health Certificate of
Confidentiality was also secured for the study. Further details
about the study methodology is published (Cohen and Cohen
1996; Johnson et al. 2001) and described on the study Web
site (http://nyspi.org/childcom).
Measures
Table 1 lists the measures used in the study, in addition to
sample items, scale reliabilities, and assessment period
information. Each measure is also detailed below.
Socioeconomic Status
Parental (G1) SES was assessed in 1975, 1983, and 1985–
1986, as a standardized sum of: (a) maternal and paternal
years of education, (b) maternal and paternal occupational
status, and (c) family income category (Hollingshead and
Redlich 1958). In the present study, we employed the
1985–1986 score (Wave 3) which had more complete SES
data. Parental SES was chosen to represent G2’s childhood
disadvantage, which has been found to predict adult health
and psychological distress even after controlling for adult
SES (Poulton et al. 2002).
G2 Childhood Exposure to IPV
A section of the 1999 crime questionnaire asked G2
respondents (N=582, M age 31) whether they had seen or
373
heard as a child physical fights between their parents or
between a parent and his or her partner (never, once, or two
or more times). Respondents were counted as exposed to
IPV as a child if they reported two or more incidents of IPV
on this scale, 14% (N=80) of G2. This retrospective
measure was associated with prospective measures of
‘rough conflict resolution’ asked of G2’s mothers (i.e.,
G1) at the Wave 2, 3 and 4 assessments. Reliability and
validity of this measure are reported in detail in Ehrensaft,
Cohen, et al. (2003).
G2 Abuse and Neglect in Childhood
Data on child abuse were obtained using a combination of
retrospective self-reports obtained in 1991–1993 (Wave 4,
M age 22 years) of all G2 aged 18 years or over (N=664),
and official records from the New York State Central
Registry (full details in Cohen et al. 2001; Ehrensaft,
Cohen, et al. 2003). Consistent with prior work on child
abuse and neglect on this sample, we used a combined
either/or measure of self-reported or official records of
physical abuse (n=37), official records of neglect (n=14),
and self-reported sexual abuse (n=19).
G2 Childhood Psychiatric Disorders
Parent and youth versions of the Diagnostic Interview
Schedule for Children (Costello et al. 1984) were admin-
istered in 1983 (Wave 2), and 1985–1986 (Wave 3) for
disruptive behavior disorders (attention-deficit disorder
[ADD], oppositional defiant disorder [ODD], and CD),
and for other disorders not included in this study. The
current study includes only an assessment of CD and ODD.
We combined mother (G1) and youth reports (G2), so that
symptoms were considered present if endorsed by either the
parent or the child. This ‘or’ rule is based on empirical
evidence that both the child and parent contribute unique
information to the diagnosis (Loeber et al. 1990).
To improve on the specificity of the resulting diagnoses,
we created a scale for each syndrome based on all the
relevant items, including associated impairment, and gave
‘severe’ diagnoses to children who scored at least two SD’s
above the population mean. This approach generates better
construct validity and prevalences consistent with clinical
practice (Cohen et al. 1987, 1993; Piacentini et al. 1992).
We pooled diagnostic information from 1983 (Wave 2) and
1985–1986 (Wave 3) interviews to produce an estimated
adolescent diagnosis (N=811; M age=14.9 years; SD=1.8).
G2 Adult Psychiatric Disorders
We assessed Axis I psychiatric disorders at Wave 6
(N=671; M age 33) with the nonpatient version of the
374 Prev Sci (2012) 13:370–383

Table 1 Measures used in the current study

Measure Respondent Wave Mean N α Sample items

age

Adolescent Psychological G1 & G2 2 & 3 15 811 N/A Followed DISC interview, e.g. “loses temper”;
Disorders (ODD, CD) “destructive”; “gets others in trouble,”
Child Abuse and Neglect G2 4 22 664 N/A “Did any older person (not a boyfriend or girlfriend)
(Retrospective) (≥18 Only) ever touch you or play with you sexually ?”
Exposure to Intimate Partner G2 VC 31 577 N/A “Did you see or hear as a child physical fights between
Violence (Retrospective) your parents or between your parent and your parent’s
partner?”
Intimate Partner Violence G2 VC 31 543 .89 “I kicked, bit, or hit my partner with a fist.”;
“My partner pushed, grabbed, or shoved me.”
Adult Psychological Disorders G2 6 33 671 N/A Followed DSM-IV criteria, e.g., “depressed mood 2+
(MDD, PTSD, SUD) weeks”; “loss of energy 2+ weeks,”
Inconsistency G2 6 33 395 .44 “It sometimes depends on my mood how strict I
am with my child.”
Satisfaction G2 6 33 395 .79 “I am satisfied with my child’s emotional or social
behavior.”
Authority Orientation G2 6 33 392 .62 “I expect my child to do what I say no matter what.”
Rules for the Child G2 6 33 393 .54 Rules for…“time for being in at night.”
Closeness G2 6 33 393 .81 “I frequently show my love for my child.”
Child’s Identification with Parent G2 6 33 392 .76 “How much does your child emulate you?”
Discipline G2 6 33 396 .63 “I sometimes reject my child if he/she does something
I do not like.”
Externalizing Behaviors (CBCL) G2 6 9 (G3) 256 .89 “Hangs around with others who get in trouble.”;
“Disobedient at home.”; “Threatens people.”
Berkeley Expressivity G3 TS 12.8 129 .75 “I experience my emotions very strongly.”;
Questionnaire “My body reacts very strongly to emotional situations.“
Early Adolescent Temperament G3 TS 12.8 129 .63 “When I’m angry, I throw or break things.”;
Questionnaire—Aggressive “I pick on people for no real reason.”
Early Adolescent Temperament G3 TS 12.8 129 .70 “It often takes very little for me to feel like crying.”;
Questionnaire—Depressive “My friends/other people my age seem to enjoy
themselves more than I do.”
Negative Mood Regulation G3 TS 12.8 129 .71 “I can do something to feel better.”;
“Doing something nice for someone else will cheer me up.”

G2 = Generation 2 Parents (N=821); G3 = Generation 3 Offspring (N=396)

Wave 1: 1975; Wave 2: 1983; Wave 3: 1985–1986; Wave 4: 1991–1993; Wave 6: 2001–2004
VC Violence & Crime Survey, Mailed in 1999
TS Teen Study (Generation 3, 10–18 year olds only), 2002–2007
MDD Major Depressive Disorder; PTSD Post Traumatic Stress Disorder; SUD Susbtance Use Disorder

Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders G2 IPV

(First et al. 1996). This interview has strong reliability and
validity (Williams et al. 1992). Here, we focused on
diagnoses of PTSD, major depressive disorder, and sub-
stance use disorders, because these disorders have been
shown to be significant outcomes of IPV, particularly
among women (Ehrensaft et al. 2006). We combined data
on alcohol use disorders (alcohol abuse, alcohol depen-
dence) and drug use disorders (abuse, drug dependence
disorders), given the low prevalence of each of these
disorders individually.
The questionnaire mailed in 1999 (N=582; M age 31) asked
respondents whether they had a romantic partner during the
last 12 months, and, if so, to answer a series of questions
about violence toward and from a partner, derived from the
Conflict Tactics Scale (Straus 1990). The scale is described
in detail in earlier publications (Ehrensaft, Cohen, et al.
2003, 2006). Participants who denied having a partner
during the past year were excluded from the analyses.
The scale had good internal consistency (Cronbach’s
Prev Sci (2012) 13:370–383
alpha=.89). Consistent with other studies of partner
violence in community samples (Magdol et al. 1998;
Straus 1990; Straus et al. 1980), when we collapsed across
all levels of severity and frequency, 22% of the sample
who reported having a partner (n=543) endorsed perpe-
trating at least one act of physical violence toward their
partner, and 19% endorsed being the victim of physical
violence by their partner in the last 12 months. No gender
differences were observed.
To examine more serious partner violence seen by
clinicians, we focused on models of risks for perpetrating
(n=34, 6%) and receiving (n=35, 6%) injury by the use of
any act during the past year. Injury was assessed by asking
participants, ‘Did you or a partner of yours receive the
following injuries in a fight with each other: cuts, bruises,
broken bone or sprains’ and ‘Did you or a partner of yours
require medical attention for injuries received in an
argument between you’. Responses were recorded sepa-
rately for injuries received by the respondent and the
partner.
G2 Parenting Practices
At the Wave 6 (N=678; M age 33) interview, G2 participants
who reported having at least one child (n=396) were
asked 33 items assessing parental behaviors, that when
high (e.g., inconsistent parental discipline) or when low
(e.g., parental affection), have been found to be indicative
of problematic parenting (e.g., Johnson et al. 2001). These
items were adapted from the Disorganizing Poverty
Interview and other validated measures of child-rearing
behavior (Avgar et al. 1977; Schaefer 1965). For the
present study, we employed scaled scores of parental
reports of inconsistency (Cronbach’s alpha=.44), satis-
faction with child (Cronbach’s alpha=.79), orientation to
authority with regards to the child (Cronbach’s alpha=.62),
closeness (Cronbach’s alpha=.81), child’s identification
with the parent (Cronbach’s alpha=.76), rules for the
child (Cronbach’s alpha=.54), and discipline (Cronbach’s
alpha = .63). These child-rearing behavior assessment
items and subscales administered in the CIC are reliable
and valid (Cohen and Cohen 1996; Johnson et al. 2001;
Kogan et al. 1977), and predict offspring risk for
psychiatric symptoms and disorders (Cohen and Brook
1987; Johnson et al. 2001; Johnson et al. 2008).
G3 Externalizing Behavior
G3 behavior problems in middle childhood were assessed by
maternal report with the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL;
Achenbach 1991) externalizing problems scale during the
Wave 6 G2 assessment, when G3 were a mean age of
9 years. For G3 youth who were offspring of male G2
375
participants, CBCL forms were mailed to female partners of
the G2 participants. Of the 396 G2 parents that had children,
256 completed the CBCL (65%). Analysis indicates parents
who did not complete the CBCL did not differ significantly
from the parents who did not complete the CBCL on age,
SES, or ethnicity. Female partners of male participants were
less likely to complete the CBCL than female participants
(F(1,394)=23.5, p<.01).
G3 Adolescent Self Regulation
As part of the Teen and Preteen Study (n=129, M age 13,
2000–2006), G3 youth who were 10–18 years of age
completed three measures of self-regulation.
Negative Mood Regulation Negative mood regulation was
assessed with a subset of 12 items from the Negative Mood
Regulation (NMR) scale (Catanzaro and Mearns 1990;
Cronbach’s alpha=.71). Item responses are based on a 5-
point Likert scale, from 1 (‘strongly disagree’) to 5
(‘strongly agree’). This scale was modestly associated with
internal-external locus of control, and high scores were
associated with low self-report scores on the Beck
Depression Inventory. Psychometric studies of the scale
suggest that the NMR scale is not a proxy for general
negative mood; rather, there is evidence for the discriminant
validity of the scale from measures of depression. All of the
age-eligible G3 participants (n=129) completed the NMR.
Berkeley Expressivity Questionnaire The Berkeley Expres-
sivity Questionnaire (BEQ; Gross and John 1997; Cronbach’s
alpha=.75), as originally developed, assesses three facets of
individual differences in emotional expressivity: negative
expressivity, positive expressivity, and impulse strength. For
the purpose of the present study, only the impulse strength
items (six in total) were included (‘I experience my emotions
very strongly’; ‘I am sometimes unable to hide my feelings,
even though I would like to’; ‘There have been times when I
have not been able to stop crying even though I tried to
stop’; ‘My body reacts very strongly to emotional situations’;
‘I sometimes cry during sad movies’; and ‘I am sometimes
unable to hide my feelings, even though I would like to’).
Although the original scale was designed with a 7-point
Likert scale, the scale was shortened to a 5-point scale for
the present study, because the nature of the telephone-based
interview for adolescents required a parsimonious format
across several scales. In this way, item response choices were
identical for the BEQ and the NMR. All of the age-eligible
G3 participants (n=129) completed the BEQ.
Early Adolescent Temperament Questionnaire (EATQ)—
Aggressive and Depressive Behavior Scales This scale was
designed to assess temperament in adolescents aged 9–
376 Prev Sci (2012) 13:370–383

15 years, but includes two behavioral subscales that were
employed in the present study (Capaldi and Rothbart
1992; Ellis and Rothbart 2001). The aggressive behavior
scale (Cronbach’s alpha=.63) measures hostile and ag-
gressive actions, including person- and object-directed
physical violence, direct and indirect verbal aggression, and
hostile reactivity. The depressive mood scale (Cronbach’s
alpha=.70) includes unpleasant affect and lowered mood,
and loss of enjoyment and interest in activities (Ellis and
Rothbart 2001). All of the age-eligible G3 participants
(n=129) completed the EATQ.
Analytic Plan
We first conducted descriptive analyses of the associa-
tions among variables. Second, we tested for multivariate
associations, using hierarchical linear regressions, of
parents’ (G2) childhood risks (abuse, exposure to G1 IPV,
adolescent CD) and G2 adult IPV with the risk for offspring
(G3) behavior problems. Next, we conducted hierarchical
linear regressions to test whether G2 adult psychopathology
and parenting account for the association of G2 IPV and G3
externalizing problems. Finally, we employed linear regres-
sion to test, in the sub-sample of 10–18 year old G3’s, the
risk for poor self-regulation conferred by prior exposure to
G2 IPV.

Missing data was handled using the Expectation Maximi- Results

zation (EM) method in the SPSS Missing Values module to
impute missing data for G3 externalizing scores, resulting
in a complete dataset (N=396). Expectation maximization
is an iterative procedure and consists of two steps, the first
of which involves computing the expected value of the
complete data log likelihood, while the second step
substitutes the expected values for the missing data
obtained in the prior step to obtain new parameter estimates
(Dempster et al. 1977). The EM method has been
demonstrated to perform better than listwise and pairwise
deletion, and stochastic regression imputation in terms of
parameter estimates and standard errors and performs
similarly to multiple imputation in some cases (Newman
2003). Analyses predicting G3 externalizing behaviors
consisted of 396 participants, while analyses predicting
Emotional or Self-Regulation consisted of a subset of 129
10–18 year old G3 offspring.
Descriptive Statistics
All variables were first examined for distribution and
standardized scores were used where indicated. Table 2
shows the bivariate correlations among variables. G3
externalizing was significantly correlated with G2 IPV, G2
MDD and alcohol use disorder, G2 parenting practices, and
G3 aggression/hostility. G2 IPV was significantly correlat-
ed with G2 PTSD, alcohol use disorder, most parenting
practices, and three of the four G3 self-regulation measures.
Significant correlations were also obtained among the G2
parenting variables, and among most G3 self-regulation
variables.
The prevalence of G2 psychiatric disorders at age
33 years was as follows: MDD, 12.2% (n=82); PTSD,
2.7% (n=18); any substance use disorder, 13.7% (n=92)

Table 2 Correlation matrix for all variables

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

1. G3 Externalizing 1 .35** .17** .07 .21** .28** .20** −.27** −.40** .06 .02 .20* .17+
2. G2 IPV .04 .11* .12** .10+ .16** −.09 −.19** .21* .06 .20* .19*
3. G2 MDD .23** .08* .01 .03 −.09+ −.14** .04 −.03 .22* .09
4. G2 PTSD .06 −.07 .11* −.02 .01 .09 −.03 .05 −.003
5. G2 Alcohol Use Disorder .10* .05 −.09+ −.14** .06 .08 .07 .13
6. Discipline .27** −.17** −.38** .10 −.10 .17* .02
7. Inconsistency −.14** −.20** −.04 .13 .04 −.08
8. Child Identification with Parent .44** .12 .15+ −.01 .03
9. Satisfaction with Child −.03 .08 −.14 −.16+
10. G3 Emotional Expressivity −.09 .18* .49**
11. G3 Negative Mood Regulation −.21* −.26**
12. G3 Aggression/Hostility .34**
13. G3 Depressive Mood 1

G2 Generation 2; G3 Generation 3; IPV Intimate Partner Violence; MDD Major Depressive Disorder, age 33 years; PTSD Post-Traumatic Stress
Disorder, age 33 years
*p<.05. **p<.01. + p<.10
Prev Sci (2012) 13:370–383 377

(summing participants with alcohol dependence disorder,
2.7% (n=18); drug dependence disorder, 1.9% (n=13);
alcohol abuse disorder, 8.9% (n=60) and drug abuse
disorder, 1.9% (n=13). Additionally, 11.5% (n=78) met
criteria for either alcohol abuse or dependence disorder,
and 3.9% (n=26) met criteria for either drug abuse or drug
dependence disorder. Women had significantly higher
odds of PTSD diagnosis (OR = 9.88, 95% CI = 2.96–
32.98) and MDD diagnosis OR=1.74, 95% CI=1.07–
2.81, p < .02). Men had significantly higher odds of
substance use disorder diagnosis (OR=3.34, 95% CI=
2.06–5.41, p<.001).
Models of G2 Childhood Risks, IPV, and G3 Externalizing
G2 Childhood Risks for Externalizing Problems in G3
Univariate linear regression analyses indicated that G2
childhood physical abuse (B=7.27, SE(B)=2.10, Beta = .17,
t (4, 391)=3.47, p<.01), G2’s exposure to parental IPV (B=
3.40, SE(B)=.95, Beta=.19, t (4, 391)=3.60, p<.001), and
conduct disorder (B=6.52, SE(B)=1.40, Beta=.23, t (4, 391)=
4.66, p<.001) predicted G3 externalizing symptoms, control-
ling for SES, G3 age, and G3 sex. Sexual abuse and neglect
were not significantly related to G3 externalizing problems,
and were thus not included in further analyses. As shown in
Table 3, the effects of child abuse (B=4.79, SE(B)=2.12,
Beta=.11, t (5, 390)=2.27, p=.02) and G2’s exposure to
IPV remained significant (B=2.22, SE(B)=.96, Beta=.12,
t (6, 389)=2.31, p=.02) following introduction of G2’s
history of CD to the model. G2 adolescent ODD
significantly predicted G3 externalizing symptoms (B=
3.38, SE(B)=1.21, Beta = .14, t (4, 388)=2.79, p=.01), but
it did not predict G3 externalizing problems independent
of the effects of CD (B=1.75, SE(B)=1.26, Beta=.07, t (5,
387)=1.39, p=.17), and therefore was excluded from
further multivariate models.
IPV between G2 Parents and Risk for G3 Behavior
Problems
Univariate linear regression analyses, controlling for SES,
child age, and child sex, indicated that G2 reports of
injurious IPV significantly predicted G3 externalizing
scores, accounting for 11% of the variance (B=9.52, SE
(B)=1.36, Beta=.23, t (4, 391)=7.00, p<.001). Further, as
shown in Table 4, hierarchical linear regression indicates
that G2 IPV significantly predicted G3 externalizing
problems after controlling for G2’s exposure to IPV, G2’s
history of child abuse, G2’s history of adolescent CD, and
demographic characteristics, accounting for 6% of the
variance (B=7.60, SE(B)=1.46, Beta=.27, t (7, 388)=
5.20. p<.001).
Similarly, after controlling for demographics, G2’s
history of child abuse, and G2’s exposure to IPV, a
history of CD predicted G2 reports of injurious IPV
perpetration at M age 31 (B=.17, SE(B)=.05, Beta=.16, t
(6, 389)=3.44, p<.01). To test whether IPV perpetration
mediated between G2 history of adolescent CD and G3
externalizing behaviors, we conducted a hierarchical linear
regression controlling for demographics, G2’s history of
child abuse, G2’s exposure to IPV, and the proposed
mediator. The addition of IPV to the model did not
significantly decrease the effect of CD; that is, it
maintained a significant effect on G3 externalizing
behaviors, net of all other variables in the model (B=
3.66, SE(B) =1.43, Beta=.13, t (7, 388)=2.55, p=.01).
However, IPV explained approximately 6% of the vari-
ance, while CD explained 3% of the variance in G3
externalizing behaviors.

Table 3 Hierarchical linear regression analysis for parental (G2) childhood risks predicting offspring (g3) externalizing problems

Model 1: Demographics Model 2: Family violence Model 3: Adolescent CD

B SEB Beta B SEB Beta B SEB Beta

SES −.51 .32 −.08 −.24 .32 −.04 −.29 .32 −.05
Offspring Age .15 .09 .09 .12 .09 .07 .11 .09 .07
Offspring Sex 1.86 .74 .13** 1.49 .72 .10* 1.69 .71 .12*
G2 Childhood Physical Abuse 6.21 2.10 .15** 4.79 2.12 .11*
G2 Childhood IPV Exposure 2.95 .95 .16** 2.22 .96 .12**
G2 Adolescent CD 4.94 1.46 .17**
R2 Change Model .04** .05** .03**
F for R2 Change 5.65 10.98 11.46

Analyses control for all variables in prior steps. G3 Generation 3; G2 Generation 2; SES Socioeconomic Status; CD Conduct Disorder. IPV
Intimate Partner Violence
*p<.05. **p<.01
378 Prev Sci (2012) 13:370–383

Table 4 Hierarchical linear regression of offspring (G3) externalizing problems on G2 childhood risks, IPV, adult alcohol use disorder, and
parenting practices

Model 1: Childhood risks Model 2: IPV Model 3: G2 Disorder Model 4: Parenting

age 33 age 33

B SEB Beta B SEB Beta B SEB Beta B SEB Beta

Child IPV Exposure 2.22 .96 .12* 1.40 .94 .08 1.72 .93 .09+ 1.07 .87 .06
G2 Childhood Physical Abuse 4.79 2.12 .11* 2.10 2.11 .05 2.62 2.07 .06 2.62 1.94 .06
G2 Adolescent CD 4.94 1.46 .17** 3.66 1.43 .13** 2.58 1.42 .09+ 2.75 1.33 .10*
G2 IPV Age 31 Years 7.60 1.46 .27** 7.87 1.43 .28** 6.55 1.34 .23**
G2 Alcohol Use Disorder Age 33 Years 4.90 1.15 .20** 3.78 1.08 .15**
Discipline of Child .41 .14 .13**
Satisfaction with Child −.68 .16 −.22**
Child Identification with Parent −.50 .16 −.15**
R2 Change Model .08** .06** .04* .12**
F for R2 Change 11.34 27.03 18.17 21.92

G2 Generation 2; G2 Generation 3; SES Socioeconomic Status; CD Conduct disorder; IPV Intimate Partner Violence.
All models control for SES, offspring age, and offspring sex.
*p<.05. **p<.01. + p<.10

When analyses were conducted separately by the sex of the
parent, G2 IPV predicted G3 externalizing net the effects of all
other variables included in the model (B=7.20, SE(B)=1.79,
Beta=.26, t (7, 225)=4.02, p<.001) for G2 females.
Similarly, G2 CD predicted G3 externalizing net the
effects of all other variables included in the model (B=
5.33, SE(B)=2.25, Beta=.15, t (6, 226)=2.37, p=.02) for
G2 females. For G2 males, net the effects of all other
variables included in the model, G2 IPV continued to
predict G3 externalizing (B=8.99, SE(B)=2.69, Beta=.30,
t (7, 155)=3.35, p<.01), while G2 CD was no longer
significant (B=3.32, SE(B)=1.82, Beta=.15, t (7, 155)=
1.82, p=.07). Moderation analyses indicate that for G2
females only, the interaction of G2 IPV and G2 CD
significantly predicted G3 externalizing behaviors, net
the effects of all other variables in the model (B=10.21,
SE(B)=5.19, Beta=.17, t (8, 224)=1.97, p=.05).
Models of Psychopathology, IPV, and Externalizing
IPV between G2 Parents and Risk for G2 Psychopathology
Hierarchical logistic regression of G2 PTSD at M age
33 years on G2 IPV at M age 31 years, controlling for age
and sex indicated that IPV significantly predicted the odds
of PTSD (OR=4.45, 95% CI=1.14–17.32, p<.03). The
composite of any substance use disorder was also signifi-
cantly associated with IPV at M age 31 years (OR=4.77,
95% CI=2.01–11.33, p<.001), as was alcohol use disorder
(OR=4.08, 95% CI=1.63−10.20, p<.003), and drug use
disorder (OR=5.88, 95% CI=1.69–20.39, p<.001). MDD
at age 33 years was not significantly associated with IPV at
age 31 years (OR=1.49, 95% CI=0.53–4.18, p>.10) and
was therefore excluded from additional analyses.
G2 Psychopathology as Mechanism Linking G2 IPV
with G3 Externalizing Problems
To test the hypothesis that G2 psychopathology developed
after the experience of IPV would mediate the effects of
IPV on child externalizing behavior, we first conducted a
hierarchical linear regression of G3 externalizing problems
on each disorder, controlling for G3 age, sex, and SES, to
determine its independent association with G3 externalizing
scores.
Using this approach, results suggest that this association was
not significant for PTSD, B=2.18, SE(B)=1.82, Beta=.06, t
(4, 391)=1.20, p=.23. As such, we did not pursue media-
tional models for PTSD.
Substance use disorder was associated with G3 exter-
nalizing problems (B=4.04, SE(B)=1.06, Beta = .19, t (4,
391)=3.80, p<.001), and remained significant once we
controlled for the childhood risks described in Table 3 (B=
3.57, SE(B)=1.04, Beta=.17, t (7, 388)=3.43, p<.001).
Examination by type of substance disorder revealed that
drug use disorders were unrelated to G3 externalizing. In
contrast, alcohol use disorder predicted externalizing prob-
lems on a univariate level, B=4.76, SE(B) 1.22, Beta=.19,
t (4, 391)=3.92, p<.001, and after controlling for childhood
risks, B=4.62, SE(B)=1.19, Beta=.19, t (7, 388)=3.88,
p<.001, and therefore was retained for subsequent multivar-
iate models.
Prev Sci (2012) 13:370–383
A hierarchical linear regression (Table 4), controlling for
demographic characteristics and childhood risks, followed
by IPV and then alcohol abuse, indicated that a diagnosis of
alcohol use disorder added independently to the prediction
of G3 externalizing scores, but did not significantly reduce
the influence of IPV on externalizing problems (B=7.87, SE
(B)=1.43, Beta=.28, t (8, 387)=5.50, p<.001). That is, no
evidence of mediation was obtained. We lacked sufficient
statistical power to test for moderation effects of G2
psychopathology with IPV, and so did not pursue these
models.
Models of G2 Parenting, IPV, and Externalizing
Association of G2 IPV with Parenting of G3
Univariate linear regression models of G2 parenting at M
age 33 years on reports of IPV at M age 31 years found
significant associations with lower satisfaction, B=−1.47,
SE(B)=.43, Beta=−.16, t (4, 391)=−3.44, p<.01, and
marginally with greater inconsistency, B=.69, SE(B)=.36,
Beta=.10, t (4, 391)=1.91, p=.06. No associations were
found for identification with the parent, nor with rules,
authority orientation, discipline, or closeness to the child
(Beta’s ranged from <.01 to .09).
Association of G2 Parenting with G3 Externalizing
Problems
Parenting practices accounted for 18% of the variance in G3
externalizing, net SES, age, and sex. Independent effects were
found for lower satisfaction with the child, B=−.91, SE
(B)=.18, Beta=−.29, t (10, 385)=−5.08, p<.001; disci-
pline, B=.34, SE(B)=.16, Beta=.11, t (10, 385)=2.18,
p=.03; and child identification with the parent, B=−.44,
SE(B)=.18, Beta=−.14, t (10, 385)=−2.43 p=.02. These
three parenting variables were retained in future multivar-
iate models given their significant association with G3
externalizing behavior.
Parenting as a Mediator of the Association of G3
Externalizing with G2 IPV
To test the hypothesis that parenting would mediate the
association of G2 IPV with G3 externalizing problems, we
conducted a hierarchical linear regression, controlling for
demographics and G2 childhood risks, followed by IPV,
alcohol use disorder, and finally, parenting practices. As
shown in Table 4, parenting accounted for 12% of the
variance in externalizing scores, net of the effects of these
other variables (F change in R2 =21.92, p<.001).
Moreover, Table 4 (see Model 4) shows the influence
of alcohol use disorder remained significant after intro-
379
ducing parenting into the model, B=3.78, SE(B)=1.08,
Beta=.09, t (11, 384)=3.50, p<.001. However, parenting
did not mediate the effects of IPV on G3 externalizing.
That is, IPV retained a significant, independent effect on
G3 externalizing, B=6.55, SE(B)=1.34, Beta=.23, t (11,
384)=4.89, p<.001.
Models of G3 Adolescent Self-Regulation and IPV
Association of G2 Childhood Risks with G3
Self-Regulation
Adolescent aggression/hostile reactivity was unrelated to
parental history of childhood exposure to IPV (B=.11,
SE(B)=.17, Beta=.07, t (5, 111)=.66, p > .10) and CD
(B=−.16, SE(B)=.29, Beta=−.05, t (5, 111)=−.58, p>.10).
These were therefore excluded from the multivariate
models described below.
Association of G2 IPV with Subsequent G3 Adolescent
Self-Regulation Assessment
A hierarchical linear regression model indicated that G2
IPV significantly predicted Emotional Expressivity, con-
trolling for age, sex and SES, B=.57, SE(B)=.29, Beta=.16,
t (4, 107)=2.00, p<.05. On the other hand, a similar
hierarchical linear regression indicated that G3 Negative
Mood Regulation was unrelated to G2 IPV, B=1.27, SE
(B)=2.36, Beta=.08, t (4, 107)=0.54, p>.10. The same
analytic approach (controlling for age only, as SES and
sex were not related to the dependent variable) indicated
that G2 IPV predicted adolescent aggressive behavior and
hostile reactivity, B=.80, SE(B) =0.22, Beta=.34, t (1,
107)=3.69, p<.001. However, controlling for age, sex and
SES, as these again were associated with the dependent
variable, the association of depressive mood approached
but did not reach significance for IPV, B=.47, SE(B)=.31,
Beta=.14, t (3, 107)=1.52, p=.13.
Discussion
This prospective longitudinal study of men and women
(G2) sought to investigate the mechanisms by which IPV
may contribute to the intergenerational transmission of
antisocial behavior. Taking advantage of a three-genera-
tional study design, analyses controlled for prospective
measures of parents’ own childhood risks for IPV, including
official records of childhood physical abuse, childhood
exposure to violence between parents, and adolescent
history of CD. We expected that both parental history of
CD and parental IPV would subsequently predict offspring
externalizing behaviors. We hypothesized that adult G2
380
PTSD, alcohol abuse disorder, and MDD would mediate
the effects of IPV on G3 externalizing. We further expected
that parenting practices would account for the influence
of both parental psychopathology and IPV on G3
externalizing. Finally, we hypothesized that G3 IPV
childhood exposure would predict their subsequent
adolescent self-regulation.
Overall, findings indicated that family violence exerts a
significant influence on the transmission of antisocial
behavior across generations. G2’s childhood history of
physical abuse, as measured by prospective official records
and self-reports, G2 adolescent CD, as well as their
childhood exposure to G1 IPV were each associated with
G3 externalizing. In multivariate analyses, the effects of
G2’s exposure to their parents’ (G1) IPV and G2’s CD
independently predicted G3 externalizing behavior. Further,
IPV between G2 as parents had a modest but significant
influence on G3 externalizing, above and beyond the
effects of G2’s prior CD and G2’s own history of IPV
exposure. These findings suggest that IPV makes an
important, independent contribution to the intergenerational
transmission of antisocial behavior. Moreover, for females,
but not males, we obtained a significant interaction of their
prior CD with their IPV on offspring externalizing. That is,
for mothers, the risk conferred by CD on offspring
externalizing is moderated by the presence of IPV. For
fathers, IPV and CD each exert independent, non-interactive
effects on the risk for child externalizing. This suggests that
mothers’ IPV is at least as important as fathers’ as an
important intergenerational pathway to antisocial behavior.
On the other hand, the results may reflect differences in the
validity of mothers’ and fathers’ IPV reporting.
As expected, G2 (parent) IPV at age 31 years predicted
their subsequent PTSD and substance use disorder at age
33 years. Surprisingly, IPV did not predict an increased risk
for MDD. Prior studies suggest that young women who
experience IPV are at significant risk for developing MDD
in their mid-20s (Ehrensaft, Cohen, Chen and Johnson
2006). It is possible that the current study did not find these
effects because MDD is no longer a risk at this later
developmental period; rather, the risk is limited to the
period of the early twenties.
In multivariate models predicting G3 externalizing
behavior in middle childhood, we were surprised to find
that parental (G2) alcohol use disorders did not mediate the
influence of their earlier IPV on offspring externalizing.
Instead, IPV continued to exert an independent influence on
externalizing. Parenting, although not a mediator of IPV on
risk for offspring externalizing, was a more potent predictor
than parental psychopathology. This finding is consistent
with other work supportive of the central role of parenting
practices in youth at familial risk for externalizing behavior
(Conger et al. 2003; Ehrensaft, Wasserman, et al. 2003)
Prev Sci (2012) 13:370–383
As expected, parenting practices were significantly
related to IPV, including lower levels of parental satisfac-
tion with the child, and marginally, with higher levels of
inconsistency. In multivariate models, we found that low
satisfaction with the child was a particularly important
outcome of IPV and also a risk for child externalizing
problems. Previous studies on links between IPV and
parenting practices have focused more on discipline and
consistency (e.g., Jouriles et al. 2001), and our studies
support the influence of IPV on these parenting practices.
Our findings also suggest that parents in abusive relation-
ships may experience low levels of satisfaction with their
child, and such parental rejection appears to increase the
risk for externalizing problems in youth.
Finally, we sought to investigate the influence of
parental IPV on offspring self-regulation in a subsample
of G3 adolescents. Emotional expressivity, but not mood
regulation, was positively associated with their prior
exposure to IPV, as was a measure of aggression and
hostile reactivity. It appears that IPV between parents
increases the risk for children’s difficulties with impulsive
emotionality and aggressive personality styles in adoles-
cence, in addition to its influence on externalizing behavior
in middle childhood. These types of dysregulation are
known to be risks for perpetration of IPV in adults
(Ehrensaft, Cohen et al. 2006). Our findings indicate that
these traits appear well before adult intimate relationships
are in place.
Strengths and Limitations
The strengths of this study are its prospective longitudinal
design and inclusion of prospective measures of family
violence, psychopathology and parenting practices from
two generations of informants. Moreover, this study is one
of the few to have followed up a third generation into its
adolescent years, extending prior work linking IPV,
parenting and risk for antisocial behavior (Levendosky et
al. 2003).
Limitations include the relatively small sample size of
the third generation, particularly the data on adolescent
temperament and self-regulation. Three-generational studies
are exceptionally difficult endeavors, principally because
the sample has often migrated significantly by this time,
and the researchers must establish a new alliance with the
offspring of the study members who are well-invested in
the study after several decades of participation. A second
limitation is the lack of data on partners of G2 study
participants, such as their childhood antisocial behavior and
reports of IPV exposure. However, in view of high rates of
assortative partnering in individuals with childhood antiso-
cial behavior and high rates of concordance of IPV (Kim
and Capaldi 2004), we can assume that the risk for
Prev Sci (2012) 13:370–383
antisocial behavior would also have been higher in the
partners of our G2 participants who met criteria for CD in
adolescence, as would IPV. Lastly, although the measures
of G2 CD and G2 childhood abuse used multiple informants,
other measures used in the study (e.g., parenting practices and
self-regulation) were based on self-report. The study could
have been strengthened by utilizing a multi-informant
approach for all included measures.
Prevention Implications
Two sets of findings in the present study may inform the
design of preventive interventions for families experiencing
IPV. First, our findings indicate that parents who have
experienced IPV are more likely to feel dissatisfied with
their children, and in so doing may communicate rejection
to their children. Thus, preventive efforts may be usefully
focused on improving positive parental perceptions of the
child and efficacy in the role as parent. Our findings echo
those of others suggesting that parents in violent relation-
ships need help to strengthen fractured parent–child
relationships. Although it is certainly possible that parental
dissatisfaction with the child accurately reflects that their
child is more demanding behaviorally and emotionally
during this high-stress period, changing parental cognitive
representations of the intentionality and function of misbe-
havior appears crucial. Improving parents’ sense of efficacy
in the role of parent seems equally critical.
Second, the present findings of problems in self-
regulation are a set of modifiable risks with important
developmental implications for prevention of future IPV in
exposed youth. Our findings highlight the importance of
reducing aggressive, hostile, and verbally abusive interper-
sonal styles, ideally in the context of interventions that
target overall social cognitive errors and problem-solving
skills (Lochman and Wells 2004).
From a developmental lens, these findings further
highlight the importance of multimodal strategies to prevent
the transmission of antisocial behavior in youth exposed to
family violence, with a focus on parenting strategies in the
school years, and an inclusion of direct social cognitive and
behavioral problem solving strategies in adolescence.
Moreover, although our findings have focused on psycho-
logical mechanisms of risk for IPV on child psychopathol-
ogy, we also recognize the importance of addressing basic
needs in these families, such as housing instability and
poverty (Levendosky and Graham-Bermann 2001).
In summary, this study finds that IPV exposure contrib-
utes significantly to the intergenerational transmission of
antisocial behavior. The experience of IPV is related to
parents’ subsequent risk for PTSD and substance use
disorders, over reliance on discipline, and parental dissatis-
faction with their child. Parental psychopathology does not
381
mediate the influence of IPV exposure on child externalizing
problems in middle childhood, but makes an independent
contribution. Parenting practices appear to make a greater
independent contribution and account, in part, for the
influence of alcohol use disorders. Finally, differences in
aggressive behavior, hostile reactivity, and emotional ex-
pressivity in adolescent offspring appear to relate to their
IPV exposure in middle childhood. Prevention should be
multimodal and adapt its focus to the child’s developmental
period, targeting the parent–child relationship in early to
middle childhood, and strategies to reduce emotional expres-
sivity, hostile reactivity, and aggression in adolescence.
Acknowledgments This study was funded in part by grants from the
Office of Child Development (OCD-CB-18; Dr. Leonard Kogan, P.I.),
The National Institute of Mental Health (MH-36971/MH-38916/MH-
49191/MH-60911; Dr. Patricia Cohen, P.I.; K08-MH-01913; Dr.
Miriam Ehrensaft, P.I.), and the National Institute of Justice
(1JCX0029; Dr. Patricia Cohen, P.I.).
References
Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist/4-
18 and 1991 profile. Burlington: University of Vermont,
Department of Psychiatry.
Avgar, A., Bronfenbrenner, U., & Henderson, C. R. (1977).
Socialization practices of parents, teachers, and peers in Israel:
Kibbutz, moshav, and city. Child Development, 48, 1219–1227.
Capaldi, D. M., & Clark, S. (1998). Prospective family predictors of
aggression toward female partners for at-risk young men.
Developmental Psychology, 34, 1175–1188.
Capaldi, D. M., & Rothbart, M. K. (1992). Development and
validation of an early adolescent temperament measure. Journal
of Early Adolescence, 12, 153–173.
Capaldi, D. M., Pears, K. C., Patterson, G. R., & Owen, L. D. (2003).
Continuity of parenting practices across generations in an at-risk
sample: A prospective comparison of direct and mediated associa-
tions. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 31, 127–14.
Carlson, B., McNutt, L., & Choi, D. (2003). Childhood and adult
abuse among women in primary health care: Effects on mental
health. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 924–941.
Catanzaro, S. J., & Mearns, J. (1990). Measuring generalized
expectancies for negative mood regulation: Initial scale develop-
ment and implications. Journal of Personality Assessment, 54,
546–563.
Chamberlain, P., Reid, J. B., Ray, J., Capaldi, D., & Fisher, P. (1997).
DSM-IV review for parent inadequate discipline (PID). In T. A.
Widiger (Ed.), DSM- IV Vol. 3 (pp. 569–629). Washington, DC:
American Psychiatric Association.
Choi, J., Jenkins, M. L., Cimino, J. J., White, T. M., & Bakken, S.
(2005). Toward semantic interoperability in home health care:
Formally representing OASIS items for integration into a
concept-oriented terminology. Journal of American Medical
Information Association, 12, 410–417.
Cicchetti, D., & Walker, E. F. (2001). Editorial: Stress and
development: Biological and psychological consequences. De-
velopment and Psychopathology, 13, 413–418.
Cohen, P., & Brook, J. (1987). Family factors related to the
persistence of psychopathology in childhood and adolescence.
Journal for the Study of Interpersonal Processes, 50, 332–345.
382
Cohen, P., & Cohen, J. (1996). Life values and adolescent mental
health. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cohen, P., Velez, C. N., Kohn, M., Schwab-Stone, M., & Johnson, J.
(1987). Child psychiatric diagnosis by computer algorithm:
Theoretical issues and empirical tests. Journal of the American
Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 26, 631–638.
Cohen, P., Cohen, J., Kasen, S., Velez, C. N., Hartmark, C., Johnson,
J., et al. (1993). An epidemiological study of disorders in late
childhood and adolescence: Age- and gender-specific prevalence.
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 34, 851–867.
Cohen, P., Brown, J., & Smailes, E. (2001). Child abuse and neglect
and the development of mental disorders in the general
population. Development and Psychopathology, 13, 981–999.
Conger, R. D., Neppl, T., Kim, K. J., & Scaramella, L. (2003). Angry
and aggressive behavior across three generations: A prospective,
longitudinal study of parents and children. Journal of Abnormal
Child Psychology, 31, 143–160.
Costello, E. J., Edelbrock, C. S., Duncan, M. K., & Kalas, R. (1984).
Testing of the NIMH Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children
(DISC) in a clinic population: Final report to the Center for
Epidemiological Studies, NIMH. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh.
Dempster, A. P., Laird, N. H., & Rubin, D. B. (1977). Maximum
likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm. Journal of
the Royal Statistical Society, B39, 1–38.
Ehrensaft, M. K. (2005). Interpersonal relationships and sex differ-
ences in the development of conduct problems. Clinical Child
and Family Psychology Review, 8, 39–63.
Ehrensaft, M. K., Cohen, P., Brown, J., Smailes, E., Chen, H., &
Johnson, J. G. (2003). Intergenerational transmission of partner
violence: A 20-year prospective study. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 71, 741–753.
Ehrensaft, M. K., Wasserman, G. A., Verdeli, L., Greenwald, S.,
Miller, L. S., & Davies, M. (2003). Maternal antisocial behavior,
parenting practices, and behavior problems in boys at risk for
antisocial behavior. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 12, 27–
40.
Ehrensaft, M. K., Cohen, P., Chen, H., & Johnson, J. G. (2006).
Development of personality disorder symptoms and the risk for
partner violence. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 14, 474–483.
Ehrensaft, M. K., Moffitt, T. E., & Caspi, A. (2006). Is domestic
violence followed by an increased risk of psychiatric disorders
among women but not among men?: A longitudinal cohort study.
The American Journal of Psychiatry, 163, 1–7.
Ellis, L. K., & Rothbart, M. K. (2001). Revision of the early
adolescent temperament questionnaire. Poster presented at the
Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Develop-
ment, Minneapolis.
Evans, S. E., Davies, C., & DiLillo, D. (2008). Exposure to domestic
violence: A meta-analysis of child and adolescent outcomes.
Aggression and Violent Behavior, 13, 131–140.
Fergusson, D. M., & Horwood, L. J. (1998). Exposure to interparental
violence in childhood and psychosocial adjustment in young
adulthood. Child Abuse & Neglect, 22, 339–357.
First, M. B., Spitzer, R. L., Gibbon, M., & Williams, J. B. W. (1996).
The Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders,
Non-Patient Version (SCID-I/NP). New York: Biometrics Re-
search, New York State Psychiatric Institute.
Gilliom, M., Shaw, D. S., Beck, J. E., Schonberg, M. A., & Lukon, J.
L. (2002). Anger regulation in disadvantaged preschool boys:
Strategies, antecedents, and the development of self-control.
Developmental Psychology, 38, 222–235.
Gould, M. S., Velting, D., Kleinman, M., Lucas, C., Thomas, J. G., &
Chung, M. (2004). Teenagers’ attitudes about coping strategies
and help-seeking behavior for suicidality. Journal of the
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 43,
1124–1133.
Prev Sci (2012) 13:370–383
Gross, J., & John, O. L. (1997). Revealing feelings: Facets of
emotional expressivity in self-reports, peer ratings and behavior.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 435–448.
Hollingshead, A. B., & Redlich, F. C. (1958). Social class and mental
illness. New York: Wiley.
Horwitz, A. V., Widom, C. S., McLaughlin, J., & White, H. R. (2001).
The impact of childhood abuse and neglect on adult mental
health: A prospective study. Journal of Health and Social
Behavior, 42(2), 184–201.
Jaffee, S. R., Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., Taylor, A., & Arseneault, L.
(2002). Influence of adult domestic violence on children’s
internalizing and externalizing problems: An environmentally
informative twin study. Journal of the American Academy of
Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 41, 1095–1103.
Johnson, J. G., Cohen, P., Kasen, S., Smailes, E. M., & Brook, J. S.
(2001). Association of maladaptive parental behavior with
psychiatric disorder among parents and their offspring. Archives
of General Psychiatry, 58, 453–460.
Johnson, J. G., Cohen, P., Kasen, S., & Brook, J. S. (2008).
Psychiatric disorders in adolescence and early adulthood and
risk for child-rearing difficulties during middle adulthood.
Journal of Family Issues, 29, 210–233.
Jouriles, E. N., McDonald, R., Norwood, W. D., & Ezell, E. (2001).
Issues and controversies in documenting the prevalence of
children’s exposure to domestic violence. In S. A. Graham-
Bermann & J. L. Edleson (Eds.), Domestic violence in the lives
of children: The future of research, intervention, and social
policy (pp. 12–34). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Jouriles, E. N., McDonald, R., Rosenfield, D., Stephens, N., Corbitt-
Shindler, D., & Miller, P. C. (2009). Reducing conduct problems
among children exposed to intimate partner violence: A
randomized clinical trial examining effects of Project Support.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77, 705–717.
Kaufman, J., & Charney, D. (2001). Effects of early stress on brain
structure and function: Implications for understanding the
relationship between child maltreatment and depression. Devel-
opment and Psychopathology, 13, 451–471.
Kaufman, J., Birmaher, B., Perel, J., Dahl, R. E., Moreci, P., Nelson,
B., et al. (1997). The corticotropin-releasing hormone challenge
in depressed abused, depressed nonabused, and normal control
children. Biological Psychiatry, 42, 669–679.
Kessler, R. C., & Magee, W. J. (1993). Childhood adversities and
adult depression: Basic patterns of association in a US national
survey. Psychological Medicine, 23(3), 679–690.
Kim, H. K., & Capaldi, D. M. (2004). The association of antisocial
behavior and depressive symptoms between partners and risk for
aggression in romantic relationships. Journal of Family Psychol-
ogy, 18, 82–96.
Kim, H., Capaldi, D. M., Pears, K. C., Kerr, D. C. R., & Owen, L. D.
(2009). Intergenerational transmission of internalizing and
externalizing behaviors across three generations: Gender
specific pathways. Criminal Behavior and Mental Health, 19,
125–141.
Kitzmann, K. M., Gaylord, N. K., Holt, A. R., & Kenny, E. D. (2003).
Child witnesses to domestic violence: A meta-analytic review.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71, 339–352.
Kogan, L. S., Smith, J., & Jenkins, S. (1977). Ecological validity of
indicator data as predictors of survey findings. Journal of Social
Service Research, 1, 117–132.
Kraemer, H., Kazdin, A. E., Offord, D. R., Kessler, R. C., Jensen, P.
S., & Kupfer, D. J. (1997). Coming to terms with the terms of
risk. Archives of General Psychiatry, 54, 337–343.
Levendosky, A., & Graham-Bermann, S. (2001). Parenting in battered
women: The effects of domestic violence on women and their
children. Journal of Family Violence, 16, 171–192.
Prev Sci (2012) 13:370–383
Levendosky, A. A., Huth-Bocks, A. C., Shapiro, D. L., & Semel, M.
A. (2003). The impact of domestic violence on the maternal–
child relationship and preschool age children’s functioning.
Journal of Family Psychology, 17, 275–287.
Lieberman, A. F., Van Horn, P., & Ozer, E. J. (2005). Preschooler witnesses
of marital violence: Predictors and mediators of child behavior
problems. Development and Psychopathology, 17, 385–396.
Lochman, J. E., & Wells, K. C. (2004). The Coping Power program
for preadolescent aggressive boys and their parents: Outcome
effects at the one-year follow-up. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 72, 571–578.
Loeber, R., Green, S. M., Lahey, B. B., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M.
(1990). Optimal informants on childhood disruptive disorders.
Development and Psychopathology, 1, 317–337.
Lopez-Duran, N. L., Olson, S., Hajal, N. J., Felt, B. T., & Vazquez, D.
M. (2009). Hypothalamic pituitary adrenal axis functioning in
reactive and proactive aggression in children. Journal of
Abnormal Child Psychology, 37, 169–182.
Magdol, L., Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., & Silva, P. (1998). Develop-
mental antecedents of partner abuse: A prospective-longitudinal
study. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 107, 375–389.
Mertin, P., & Mohr, P. B. (2001). A follow-up study of PTSD, anxiety,
and depression in Australian victims of domestic violence.
Violence and Victims, 16, 645–654.
Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., Rutter, M., & Silva, P. A. (2001). Sex
differences in antisocial behavior: Conduct disorder, delinquen-
cy, and violence in the Dunedin longitudinal study. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Newman, D. A. (2003). Longitudinal modeling with randomly and
systematically missing data: A simulation of ad hoc, maximum
likelihood, and multiple imputation techniques. Organizational
Research Methods, 6, 328–362.
Osofsky, J. D. (1998). Children as invisible victims of domestic and
community violence. In G. W. Holden, R. Geffner, & E. N. Jouriles
(Eds.), Children exposed to marital violence: Theory, research,
and applied issues (pp. 95–117). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Patterson, G. R., DeBaryshe, B. D., & Ramsey, E. (1989). A
developmental perspective on antisocial behavior. The American
Psychologist, 44, 329–335.
Piacentini, J., Cohen, P., & Cohen, J. (1992). Combining discrepant
diagnostic information from multiple sources: Are complex
algorithms better than simple ones? Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 20, 51–63.
Pollack, S. D., Vardi, S., Putzer Bechner, A. M., & Curtin, J. J. (2005).
Physically abused children’s regulation of attention in response
to hostility. Child Development, 76, 968–977.
Poulton, R., Caspi, A., Milne, B. J., Thomson, W. M., Taylor, A.,
Sears, M. R., et al. (2002). Association between children’s
experience of socioeconomic disadvantage and adult health: A
life-course study. The Lancet, 360(9346), 1640–1645.
383
Rohde, P., Lewinsohn, P. M., & Seeley, J. R. (1997). Comparability of
telephone and face-to-face interviews in assessing axis I and II
disorders. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 154, 1593–1598.
Schaefer, E. S. (1965). Children’s reports of parental behavior: An
inventory. Child Development, 36, 413–424.
Shaffer, D., Fisher, P., Lucas, C. P., Dulcan, M. K., & Schwab-Stone,
M. E. (2000). NIMH Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children
Version IV: Description, differences from previous versions and
reliability of some common diagnoses. Journal of the American
Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 39, 28–38.
Silva, R. R., Alpert, M., Munoz, D. M., Singh, S., Matzner, F., &
Dummit, S. (2000). Stress and vulnerability to posttraumatic
stress disorder in children and adolescents. The American
Journal of Psychiatry, 157, 1229–1235.
Stein, M. B., & Kennedy, C. (2001). Major depressive and post
traumatic stress disorder comorbidity in female victims of
intimate partner violence. Journal of Affective Disorders, 66,
133–138.
Straus, M. A. (1990). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence:
The Conflict Tactics (CT) Scales. In M. A. Straus & R. J. Gelles
(Eds.), Physical violence in American families: Risk factors and
adaptations to violence in 8,145 families (pp. 403–424). New
Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Press.
Straus, M., Gelles, R. J., & Steinmetz, S. K. (1980). Behind closed
doors: Violence in the American family. Garden City, NY:
Doubleday.
Supple, A. J., Aquilino, W. S., & Wright, D. L. (1999). Collecting
sensitive self-report data with laptop computers: Impact on the
response tendencies of adolescent in a home interview. Journal of
Research on Adolescence, 9, 467–488.
Thornberry, T. P., Freeman-Gallant, A., Lizotte, A. J., Krohn, M. D.,
& Smith, C. A. (2003). Linked lives: The intergenerational
transmission of antisocial behavior. Journal of Abnormal Child
Psychology, 31, 171–184.
Williams, J., Gibbon, M., First, M., Spitzer, R., Davies, M., Borus, J.,
et al. (1992). The Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-III-R,
II: Multisite test-retest reliability. Archives of General Psychiatry,
48, 124–130.
Wolfe, D. A., Jaffe, P., Wilson, S. K., & Zak, L. (1985). Children of
battered women: The relation of child behavior to family
violence and maternal stress. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 53, 657–665.
Wolfe, D. A., Crooks, C. V., Lee, V., McIntyre-Smith, A., & Jaffe, P.
G. (2003). The effects of children’s exposure to domestic
violence: A meta-analysis and critique. Clinical Child and
Family Psychology Review, 6(3), 171–187.
Yates, T. M., Dodds, M. F., Sroufe, L. A., & Egeland, B. (2003).
Exposure to partner violence and child behavior problems: A
prospective study controlling for child physical abuse and
neglect, child cognitive ability, socioeconomic status, and life
stress. Development and Psychopathology, 15, 199–218.