Personal Relationships, 13 (2006), 375–386. Printed in the United States of America.

Copyright Ó 2006 IARR. 1350-4126=06

Childhood trauma and marital outcomes

in adulthood

MARK A. WHISMAN
University of Colorado at Boulder

Abstract
Although existing research suggests that certain childhood traumas such as childhood sexual abuse are associated
with interpersonal (e.g., marital) difficulties in adulthood, there has been limited research on interpersonal sequelae
of other types of traumas. In addition, the association between childhood traumas and interpersonal outcomes has
often been limited to a particular outcome such as divorce, and existing studies have rarely controlled for the
co-occurrence of other traumas when evaluating interpersonal outcomes. The current study sought to evaluate the
associations between 7 childhood traumas and 2 marital outcomes—marital disruption (i.e., divorce and separation)
and marital satisfaction—in a large, national probability sample. Results from univariate and multivariate analyses
indicated that (a) probability of marital disruption was higher among people who during childhood had experienced
physical abuse, rape, or serious physical attack or assault; and (b) current marital satisfaction was lower among
people who during childhood had experienced rape or sexual molestation. Results support the importance of
childhood traumas in predicting 2 important marital outcomes.

‘‘It may be unfair, but what happens in
a few days, sometimes even a single day,
can change the course of a whole lifetime.’’
The Kite Runner
Khaled Hosseini
Most research on the correlates and deter-
minants of marital disruption and marital
satisfaction has focused on characteristics of
each partner (e.g., personality and attachment
security) or characteristics of the relationship
(e.g., communication and similarity), with
Preparation of this article was supported by grant 54732
from the National Institute of Mental Health. The National
Comorbidity Survey was funded by the National Institute
of Mental Health (grants R01 MH/DA46376 and R01
MH49098), the National Institute of Drug Abuse (through
a supplement to R01 MH/DA46376), and the W. T. Grant
Foundation (grant 90135190).
Correspondence should be addressed to Mark A.
Whisman, University of Colorado at Boulder, Department of
Psychology, Boulder, CO 80309-0345, e-mail: whisman@
colorado.edu.
comparatively little focus on environmental
influences. However, a complete understand-
ing of marital relationships involves consider-
ation of broad contextual factors, including the
role of stress (Bradbury, Fincham, & Beach,
2000). In support of this perspective, prior
studies have found that the occurrence of
stressful life events is associated with lower
marital satisfaction (e.g., Cohan & Bradbury,
1997; Katz, Monnier, Libet, Shaw, & Beach,
2000; Whiffen & Gotlib, 1989). Furthermore,
daily fluctuations in stress (e.g., hassles) or
workload levels have also been associated with
daily fluctuations in marital satisfaction and
functioning (e.g., Bolger, DeLongis, Kessler, &
Wethington, 1989; Harper, Schaalje, & Sandberg,
2000; Repetti, 1989).
As discussed in greater detail by Wheaton
(1994), the stress universe is composed of
different kinds of adversities, including life
events (i.e., discrete adversities), daily hassles
(i.e., minor annoyances of day-to-day life),
chronic stress (i.e., ongoing life difficulties),

375
376
nonevents (i.e., events that are desired but do
not occur), and traumas (i.e., overwhelming
or particularly serious adversities). Whereas
most of the literature on marital satisfaction
and stress has focused on life events and has-
sles, there has been little research on traumas,
defined by Wheaton as ‘‘spectacular, horrify-
ing, or just deeply disturbing experiences of
life’’ (p. 89). Furthermore, Wheaton argues
that in addition to varying in terms of discrete-
ness and seriousness, the stress universe varies
on a life-course dimension, as stress can occur,
for example, during childhood or adulthood.
The current study was conducted to evalu-
ate one domain of the stress universe—childhood
traumas—and its association with marital dis-
ruption and marital satisfaction in adulthood.
There are a number of possible pathways by
which childhood traumas could impact adult
relationship outcomes, including marital satis-
faction and disruption. For example, as reviewed
elsewhere (e.g., Briere, 1992; Compton & Fol-
lette, 1998), childhood traumas can result in
intimacy disturbance (e.g., fearing, distrusting,
and experiencing ambivalence about inter-
personal closeness; impaired ability to trust),
difficulties with sexual relating, increased
probability of physical violence and revictim-
ization, problems with emotional expressive-
ness and intimacy, and emotional avoidance,
which may in turn interfere with effective rela-
tionship functioning.
In a review that specifically focused on the
relationship between trauma (occurring during
childhood or adulthood) and marital function-
ing, Whiffen and Oliver (2004) proposed two
likely mechanisms by which trauma may
impact marital functioning. First, they hypoth-
esized that this association could be mediated
by post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in
general and by the central aspects of avoidance
and hyperarousal in particular. Specifically, it
was proposed that ‘‘[t]he avoidance features of
PTSD that could influence intimacy include
diminished interest in activities, feelings of
detachment from others, and restricted affect,
while hyperarousal could have an impact
through preoccupation with the trauma, irrita-
bility, and anger’’ (pp. 152–153). Second, it
was hypothesized that the association between
childhood trauma and marital outcomes could
M. A. Whisman
be mediated by the ability to form secure
attachments with others.
Whereas these theories have discussed how
traumas in general could impact interpersonal
functioning, other theories have focused on the
potential mechanisms by which specific trau-
mas could impact these outcomes. The trauma
that has generated the most extensive discus-
sion is childhood sexual abuse, and several
theories have been advanced to account for
the association between childhood sexual
abuse and interpersonal outcomes. For exam-
ple, Finkelhor and Browne (1985) proposed
several pathways by which childhood sexual
abuse could impact interpersonal functioning.
First, they hypothesized that childhood sexual
abuse can impact sexualization, which can
result in oversexualization of all relationships
and increased likelihood of sexual revictimiza-
tion. Second, it was hypothesized that child-
hood sexual abuse can contribute to a feeling
of betrayal in the trust and security children
were taught to expect from adults; in later
years, this betrayal can contribute to anger
and suspiciousness of intimate relationships.
Third, they hypothesized that childhood sexual
abuse can contribute to powerlessness, which
in turn can contribute to revictimization.
Finally, it was hypothesized that childhood
sexual abuse can contribute to stigmatization,
in which negative connotations regarding the
abuse are incorporated into the person’s self-
image (e.g., viewing oneself as damaged). Other
theories of the impact of childhood sexual abuse
on interpersonal functioning have emphasized
different potential mechanisms, such as emo-
tional avoidance (Polusny & Follette, 1995)
or impaired intimacy functioning (Davis &
Petretic-Jackson, 2000).
The research conducted to date suggests
that childhood traumas are indeed associated
with marital outcomes in adulthood. For exam-
ple, evidence from both clinical (Nelson &
Wampler, 2000) and community (Finkelhor,
Hotaling, Lewis, & Smith, 1989) samples sug-
gests that childhood sexual abuse is associated
with increased likelihood of experiencing rela-
tionship problems (for reviews, see DiLillo,
2001; Rumstein-McKean & Hunsley, 2001).
In addition, a lifetime history of physical
attack has been associated with lower marital
Childhood trauma and marital outcomes
harmony and lower marital satisfaction in
a national, population-based sample (Broman,
Riba, & Trahan, 1996). However, although the
evidence is suggestive that the occurrence of
childhood trauma is associated with marital
outcomes during adulthood, most existing
studies have looked at only one or a few child-
hood traumas and only one type of marital out-
come (e.g., marital disruption or marital
satisfaction). Therefore, based on available
research, it is difficult to know whether the
results obtained from the traumatic events
evaluated in existing studies would be found
for other traumatic events, and whether spe-
cific traumas would be associated with multi-
ple marital outcomes. Similarly, insofar as
people who experience one trauma are at ele-
vated risk for experiencing other traumas, it is
unknown whether the interpersonal conse-
quences that are attributed to a particular
trauma are independently associated with that
trauma, or are secondary, due to their shared
association with the co-occurring trauma.
Finally, as with many studies in the area of
marital functioning, samples used in some
prior studies are small and not representative
of the population of married couples, insofar
as they are often based on people in treatment
or convenience samples recruited from local
communities, which thereby restricts the
external validity of studies on childhood
trauma and marital outcomes (DiLillo).
The purpose of the current study was to
expand upon prior research on stress and
marital functioning by evaluating, in a large,
population-based sample, the associations
between a range of traumatic life events occur-
ring during childhood and marital outcomes in
adulthood. Specifically, the traumas included
in the current study involve actual or threat-
ened death or serious injury, which is consis-
tent with conceptualizations of trauma used in
the assessment of PTSD (American Psychiat-
ric Association, 1994). Data for this study
come from the National Comorbidity Survey
(NCS; Kessler et al., 1994), which was con-
ducted to examine the risk factors and preva-
lence estimates of psychiatric disorders using
a structured psychiatric interview in a large,
national probability sample in the United
States. Included in the interview were ques-
377
tions regarding marital history, current marital
satisfaction, and traumatic events. It was
hypothesized that compared to people without
childhood traumas, those who had experienced
traumatic events during childhood would be
more likely to experience marital disruption
(i.e., divorce or separation) and would report
lower marital satisfaction. Furthermore, com-
pared to traumas such as accidents or natural
disasters, it was hypothesized that traumas
involving violence (e.g., physical abuse) would
be more strongly associated with marital out-
comes because such events involve assault and
interpersonal violation from another person,
which is believed to have a bigger impact on
a person’s views of self and others (e.g., basic
beliefs about trust, safety, and control). More-
over, sexual molestation and forced sexual
intercourse were hypothesized to have the
strongest impact on marital outcomes, because
in addition to their cognitive, behavioral, and
affective consequences, the sexual nature of
these traumas likely impacts a person’s inti-
macy and sexuality (Davis & Petretic-Jackson,
2000), which are important in establishing last-
ing and healthy relationships.
Method
Participants
The NCS is a nationally representative survey
based on a stratified, multistage area probabil-
ity sample of persons aged 15 years–54 years
in the noninstitutionalized civilian population
of the 48 coterminous states plus a representa-
tive supplemental sample of students living in
campus group housing. As described in detail
elsewhere (Kessler et al., 1994), the sample
included 8,098 respondents who completed
face-to-face, in-home interviews, between
September 1990 and February 1992. The
response rate was 82.4%. In the second phase,
a Part II risk factor interview was administered
to a probability subsample of 5,877 respon-
dents consisting of (a) all Part I respondents
aged 15 years–24 years (99% of whom com-
pleted Part II), (b) all Part I respondents who
were positive on initial questions in one or
more psychiatric diagnostic sections of the
interview (98% of whom completed Part II),
378
and (c) a one-in-six random subsample of all
remaining Part I respondents (99% of whom
completed Part II). Cases were weighted to
adjust for differential probabilities of selection
into the survey, differential nonresponse, and
for the one-in-six subsampling of Part I respon-
dents into Part II. The distributions of socio-
demographic variables for the sample compare
very favorably with those of the total popula-
tion of the United States (Kessler et al.).
Of the 5,877 respondents who completed
Part II of the NCS, there were 3,519 individu-
als who reported that they had been married at
least once and were at least 16 years old at the
time they were (first) married. Age of marriage
was an inclusion criterion to ensure that the
childhood traumas (described later) occurred
prior to marriage. Of these, the (first) mar-
riages of 30 people ended in death of their
spouse, which made them inappropriate for
the current study. Of the remaining 3,489,
3,428 respondents (98.3% of the eligible sam-
ple) completed the questions asking about the
timing of marriage and, if applicable, timing
of divorce or separation and were therefore
included in the analyses involving marital
disruption. The marital status composition of
this (unweighted) sample was 1,894 continu-
ously married, 163 currently separated, 560
currently divorced, and 811 whose first mar-
riage ended in divorce and who subsequently
remarried. The sample consisted of 1,868
(54.5%) women and 1,560 men, and partici-
pants had a mean age of 36.82 (SD ¼ 8.77)
years. The racial/ethnic distribution of the
sample was 82.1% White, 8.2% African
American, 7.3% Hispanic, and 2.5% other.
Of the 5,877 respondents who completed
Part II of the NCS, there were 2,526 individu-
als who reported that they were currently mar-
ried and were at least 16 years old at the time
they were married. Of these, 2,517 respon-
dents (99.6% of the eligible sample) com-
pleted the marital satisfaction items and were
included in the analyses involving marital sat-
isfaction. This (unweighted) sample consisted
of 1,351 (53.7%) women and 1,166 men, and
participants had a mean age of 36.42 (SD ¼
8.82) years. The racial/ethnic distribution of
the sample was 83.6% White, 6.1% African
American, 7.7% Hispanic, and 2.6% other.
M. A. Whisman
Participants had been married for an average
of 11.45 (SD ¼ 9.17) years and had an average
of 2.15 (SD ¼ 1.67) children. This was the first
marriage for the majority (74.9%) of the
participants.
Measures
Marital status and other demographic variables.
Marital status was determined from standard
demographic questions asking about current
marital status, number of times married, and
number of times divorced. The ever-married
sample was identified as those people who
reported at least one marriage. The ever-mar-
ried group was further coded as to whether they
had experienced a marital disruption, defined as
having ever been divorced or currently sepa-
rated (0 ¼ no, 1 ¼ yes). Gender, age, race/eth-
nicity, and age at and length of marriage were
based on standard demographic questions.
Marital satisfaction. The assessment of
marital satisfaction was based on two items:
‘‘All in all, how satisfied are you with your
relationship – very satisfied, somewhat satis-
fied, not very satisfied, or not at all satisfied?’’
and ‘‘Overall, would you rate your relationship
as excellent, good, fair, or poor?’’ Items were
reverse scored, so that higher scores indicate
greater satisfaction. Prior research with the
NCS data has shown that these two items cor-
relate with multi-item scales of positive and
negative interactions with spouse (Forthofer,
Markman, Cox, Stanley, & Kessler, 1996).
The 2-item scale had good internal consistency
(a ¼ .81).
Childhood traumatic events. There were
seven childhood traumatic events, which were
divided into two classes of traumas. First, there
were five assaultive violence (Breslau et al.,
1998) events, defined as events in which
another person directly harmed the respon-
dent. Assaultive violence events included
physical abuse; rape (someone had sexual
intercourse with you when you did not want
to by threatening you or using some degree of
force); sexual molestation (someone touched
or felt your genitals when you did not want
them to); threatened with a weapon, held
Childhood trauma and marital outcomes 379

captive, or kidnapped; and seriously physi-
cally attacked or assaulted. Second, there were
two other injurious events, namely, being
involved in a life-threatening accident and
being involved in a fire, flood, or natural disas-
ter. As discussed in greater detail elsewhere
(e.g., Kessler, Sonnega, Bromet, Hughes, &
Nelson, 1995), the traumatic events included
in the NCS were taken from the PTSD module
of the Diagnostic Interview Schedule (Robins,
Helzer, Cottler, & Goldring, 1988). Events
were visually presented, listed one by one,
and referred to by number rather than by name.
These procedures allowed respondents and
interviewers to avoid directly speaking about
sometimes embarrassing and stigmatizing
traumas, such as rape and sexual molestation.
Age of occurrence (or age of first occurrence
for traumas that were experienced more than
once) was assessed for each of the traumas
except physical abuse, the time frame for
which was during childhood. Events were
coded as being childhood traumas if they
occurred before the age of 16.
Data analyses
Because of the complex weighting and post-
stratification of the NCS data, analyses were
conducted using the Taylor series linearization
methods in the SUDAAN software package
(Research Triangle Institute, 2001), which is
a program that incorporates the sample design
into the data analysis, thus rendering accept-
able standard errors of the parameter estimates.
Results
Prevalence of childhood traumas
Prevalence rates for each of the seven child-
hood traumatic events are provided in Table 1.
In the ever-married sample, 79.6% of the
sample had experienced zero events, 14.8%
one event, and 5.7% two or more events; in
the currently married sample, these numbers
were 80.4%, 14.4%, and 5.2%, respectively.
Childhood trauma and probability of marital
disruption
Approximately one third (37.4%) of the
(weighted) sample of ever-married individuals
had experienced (at least one) marital disrup-
tion (i.e., current marital separation or current
or past divorce). The associations between
childhood traumatic events and marital dis-
ruption were evaluated using discrete-time sur-
vival analysis (Singer & Willett, 1991, 2003),
with person-years as the unit of analysis.
Specifically, dummy-coded variables for each
traumatic event were entered as predictors of

Table 1. Prevalence of childhood traumas and their association with marital disruption and
marital satisfaction

Marital disruption Marital satisfaction

Childhood trauma % b Wald v2 OR 95% CI % b
Physical abuse 4.6 .68 24.46* 1.97 1.51–2.58 4.4 2.12
Rape 1.5 .69 12.85* 2.00 1.37–2.92 1.2 2.50*
Sexual molestation 6.4 .04 .07 1.04 0.80–1.34 6.3 2.19*
Serious physical 2.2 .83 16.59* 2.29 1.54–3.42 2.0 2.15
attack or assault
Threatened with a weapon, 2.4 .35 2.12 1.42 0.89–2.26 2.2 2.20
held captive, or kidnapped
Life-threatening accident 4.6 .08 .21 1.09 0.77–1.54 4.6 2.01
Fire, flood, or natural disaster 6.7 .15 .88 1.16 0.85–1.58 6.3 2.02

Note. OR ¼ odds ratio; CI ¼ confidence interval.

*p , .01.
380
marital disruption in separate equations; each
equation also included control variables for the
length of relationship represented by person-
year. The coefficients obtained from these
analyses are presented in Table 1. For ease
of interpretation, the exponent of each coeffi-
cient was computed and interpreted as an odds
ratio (OR); 95% confidence intervals (95%
CIs) were calculated for each OR. As can be
seen in Table 1, compared to those individuals
who had not experienced the traumatic event,
the probability of marital disruption was
greater for people who had experienced phys-
ical abuse, rape, or serious physical attack or
assault. The ORs presented in Table 1 indicate
that compared to people who did not experi-
ence the trauma, the odds of marital disruption
were approximately two times more likely for
people who had experienced any of these
traumas.
Because 28% of people who had experi-
enced at least one trauma had experienced
two or more traumas, it is possible that the
association between a particular trauma and
probability of marital disruption is secondary
and that the primary association is due to
a co-occurring trauma. To evaluate the unique
association between each trauma and marital
disruption, the seven traumas were entered
simultaneously into a logistic regression pre-
dicting marital disruption. Results from this
analysis indicated that controlling for the other
traumas, probability of marital disruption was
uniquely related to physical abuse, b ¼ .57,
Wald v2 ¼ 12.37, p , .01, OR ¼ 1.77, 95%
CI ¼ 1.29–2.44; rape, b ¼ .49, Wald v2 ¼
5.18, p , .05, OR ¼ 1.63, 95% CI ¼ 1.07–
2.48; and serious physical attack or assault,
b ¼ .66, Wald v2 ¼ 9.12, p , .01, OR ¼
1.94, 95% CI ¼ 1.26–2.97.
Childhood trauma and marital satisfaction
The associations between childhood traumatic
events and marital satisfaction were evaluated
using linear regression analyses. Specifically,
dummy-coded variables for each traumatic
event were entered as predictors of marital sat-
isfaction in separate regression equations. The
regression coefficients from these analyses are
presented in Table 1. Results from the regres-
M. A. Whisman
sion analyses indicated that compared to those
people who did not experience the childhood
traumatic event, individuals with a childhood
history of rape or sexual molestation reported
lower marital satisfaction. Because the trau-
matic events are dichotomous variables, the
regression coefficients represent the difference
between the mean levels of satisfaction for
those who had not experienced the trauma ver-
sus those who had. Consequently, dividing the
value for the regression coefficient (i.e., the
difference in means) by the standard deviation
of the measure of marital satisfaction (.55)
results in a measure of effect size—Cohen’s
(1988) d. The resulting effect sizes for the
two significant associations between child-
hood traumas and marital satisfaction were
.91 for rape and .35 for sexual molestation.
Because of the co-occurrence of traumas
occurring during childhood, analyses were
conducted to evaluate the unique association
between each trauma and marital satisfaction,
controlling for the other traumas. To evaluate
their unique association with marital satisfac-
tion, the seven traumas were entered simulta-
neously into a linear regression predicting
marital satisfaction. Results from this analysis
indicated that controlling for the other trau-
mas, marital satisfaction was uniquely related
to rape, b ¼ 2.40, p , .05, and sexual
molestation, b ¼ 2.14, p , .05.1
1. In addition to controlling for co-occurring traumas, I
was interested in controlling for (i.e., ruling out) other
adverse circumstances occurring during childhood that
could account for the association between childhood
traumas and marital outcomes. In doing so, it is impor-
tant to make sure that covariates are themselves not
a consequence of childhood traumas (DiLillo, 2001).
One family adversity that could contribute to marital
outcomes that is unlikely to be a consequence of child-
hood trauma is low familial socioeconomic status
(SES). There were two items included in the NCS that
asked respondents to rate how financially well-off their
families were for the period of time the person was
growing up compared to the average family in their
communities, and if worse-off, to rate how much
worse-off their families were. I constructed a 5-point
rating scale based on respondents’ answers to these
questions and entered this variable as a covariate in
the discrete-time survival analyses and regression anal-
yses. Controlling for family SES did not significantly
change the univariate and multivariate results, suggest-
ing that the effects for childhood traumas on marital
disruption and marital satisfaction are incremental to
family SES.
Childhood trauma and marital outcomes 381

Exploratory analyses for childhood rape involving actual or threatened death or serious
injury during childhood, and approximately
Childhood rape was the only trauma that was
5% had experienced two or more such traumas
related both to marital disruption and marital
during childhood. Thus, these results suggest
satisfaction. To better understand the impact
that there is a large percentage of the adult
of this particular trauma on marital outcomes,
married population who experienced one or
additional analyses were conducted to see if
more major traumatic stressors at least once
the impact of this event varied as a function
during childhood.
of duration or perpetrator identity. With
Turning to the major findings, results indi-
regards to duration, participants who reported
cated that three of the seven childhood traumas
that they had been raped before the age of 16
were associated with greater probability of
were asked whether the rape was ‘‘an isolated
marital dissolution (i.e., currently separated or
event that happened only on one day or
currently or previously divorced). Specifically,
something that continued over several days,
compared to people who remained married,
weeks, months or years.’’ There were no dif-
people who had experienced a marital disrup-
ferences between people who reported it was
tion were more likely to report that as children,
an isolated event (coded 0) versus continuing
they had experienced physical abuse, rape, or
event (coded 1) with respect to marital dis-
serious physical attack or assault. An inspec-
ruption, b ¼ .21, Wald v2 ¼ .31, p ¼ .58,
tion of the ORs in Table 1 suggests that com-
OR ¼ 1.23, 95% CI ¼ 0.60–2.53; or marital
pared to those people who did not experience
satisfaction, t(34) ¼ 2.09, p ¼ .93. With
one of these traumas, people who had experi-
regards to perpetrator identity, participants
enced these traumas were approximately two
who reported that they had been raped were
times more likely to have their (first) marriage
asked ‘‘Who did this to you?’’ with response
end in separation or divorce. Moreover, the
options of relative, steprelative, someone else
results from the multivariate analyses indi-
you knew, or stranger. Because of the
cated that when controlling for the occurrence
small sample size per group, responses were
of the other traumas, these three traumas were
recoded as extrafamilial (i.e., someone else
each uniquely related to probability of marital
you knew, stranger) versus intrafamilial
disruption. The result from the multivariate
(i.e., relative, steprelative). There were no
analysis is particularly noteworthy because
differences between extrafamilial rape (coded
this analysis rules out co-occurring traumas
0) and intrafamilial rape (coded 1) with
as rival explanations (i.e., third variables) that
respect to marital disruption, b ¼ 2.05, Wald
could account for the observed association
v2 ¼ .02, p ¼ .90, OR ¼ 0.96, 95% CI ¼ 0.46–
between a particular trauma and marital
1.97; or marital satisfaction, t(34) ¼ 2.34,
disruption.
p ¼ .73.
Turning next to the major findings regard-
ing marital satisfaction, results indicated that
two of the seven childhood traumas were
Discussion
associated with marital satisfaction. Specifi-
The current study was conducted to evaluate, cally, compared to people who had not expe-
in a large, probability-based sample, the asso- rienced the traumatic event, lower marital
ciations between seven childhood traumas and satisfaction was reported by people who, as
the adult outcomes of marital disruption (i.e., children, were raped or sexually molested. In
divorce or separation) and satisfaction. Before interpreting the results for childhood traumas
discussing the major findings, a few comments and current marital satisfaction, it may be
regarding the prevalence of traumatic events helpful to keep in mind Cohen’s (1988) rec-
are warranted. An inspection of Table 1 indi- ommended cutoffs for defining small (.2),
cates that the occurrence of childhood traumas medium (.5), and large (.8) effect sizes using
is widespread. Across traumas, approximately d. Thus, the effect size was large for rape (.91),
20% of currently or formerly married individ- whereas the effect size for sexual molestation
uals had experienced at least one trauma (.35) fell in the small-to-medium effect size
382
range. It is worth noting that because by defi-
nition all of the events occurred before age 16,
and because the average age of the sample was
approximately 36 years old, the events had
occurred on average at least 20 years before
the assessment of marital satisfaction. The fact
that rape and sexual molestation were so
strongly associated with marital satisfaction
assessed so much later underscores the impact
that these traumas can have on interpersonal
functioning, including current marital satisfac-
tion. Results from the multivariate analysis
indicated that rape and sexual molestation
were each uniquely related to current marital
satisfaction, thereby ruling out other co-occur-
ring traumas as an alternative explanation for
these effects.
The current findings suggest that the child-
hood traumas that were predictive of marital
outcomes during adulthood were all assaultive
violence events—events in which another per-
son directly harmed the respondent (Breslau et
al., 1998). It may be that these events in par-
ticular result in intimacy disturbance (e.g.,
fearing, distrusting, and experiencing ambiva-
lence about interpersonal closeness; impaired
ability to trust), difficulties with sexual relat-
ing, increased probability of physical violence
and revictimization, problems with emotional
expressiveness and intimacy, and emotional
avoidance, which are characteristic features
of trauma survivors that may interfere with
effective relationship functioning (Briere,
1992; Compton & Follette, 1998). Further-
more, it may be that traumas involving assaul-
tive violence are more likely than other types
of childhood trauma to contribute to attach-
ment insecurity or avoidance and hyperarousal
features associated with PTSD, which in turn
may negatively impact marital functioning
(Whiffen & Oliver, 2004).
The only childhood trauma that was related
to both marital disruption and marital satisfac-
tion was rape: Individuals who reported that
they had been forced to have sexual inter-
course during childhood had a greater proba-
bility of experiencing marital disruption and
reported lower marital satisfaction than indi-
viduals with no such history. These findings
expand upon prior studies that have found
that people who report being sexually abused
M. A. Whisman
during childhood have lower sexual (e.g., Bartoi
& Kinder, 1998) and marital satisfaction (e.g.,
Nelson & Wampler, 2000) through demon-
strating that forced sex during childhood is
associated with lower marital satisfaction and
greater probability for marital disruption in
a large, population-based sample. These find-
ings also expand upon existing research in
demonstrating that the association between
childhood sexual abuse and marital outcomes
remains significant when controlling for other
childhood traumas. As noted by DiLillo
(2001), ‘‘a significant step forward would
result from a determination that [childhood
sexual abuse] is empirically related to interper-
sonal dysfunction above and beyond the influ-
ence of third variables, particularly adverse
circumstances occurring in survivors’ families
of origin’’ (p. 571). The current finding that
childhood sexual abuse is incrementally asso-
ciated with marital outcomes, above and
beyond the influence of other childhood trau-
mas, represents a step in this direction. In com-
bination with existing studies, the current
results underscore the importance of continued
research on the adult sequelae of childhood
sexual abuse, including its impact on marital
functioning.
Given the importance that forced sexual
intercourse appears to have on probability of
marital disruption and quality of current mar-
ital relationships, exploratory analyses were
conducted to evaluate whether there were dif-
ferent outcomes for isolated versus continued
rape and extrafamilial versus intrafamilial
rape. Results from these analyses found no
significant differences in marital outcomes
for duration or perpetrator status. However,
the sample sizes for these analyses were
small, and continued research with larger
samples is needed to evaluate whether the
impact of rape varies along parameters such
as these.
Future research is needed in evaluating the
mediators of the association between child-
hood traumas and marital outcomes, such as
the general factors of PTSD and attachment
difficulties proposed by Whiffen and Oliver
(2004), as such findings may have important
implications in preventing and treating rela-
tionship problems among people who have
Childhood trauma and marital outcomes
been traumatized during childhood.2 In partic-
ular, research is needed to identify the path-
ways by which childhood sexual abuse
contributes to lower marital satisfaction and
increased probability of marital disruption.
Although there have been several theoretical
models advanced to account for the interper-
sonal sequelae of childhood sexual abuse (e.g.,
Browne & Finkelhor, 1986; Davis & Petretic-
Jackson, 2000; Polusny & Follette, 1995),
many of these theories have not been thor-
oughly evaluated. This point is underscored
by DiLillo (2001, p. 569), who proposes that
‘‘knowledge of general dissatisfaction on the
part of survivors does little to elucidate the
specific relational factors, such as intimacy,
trust, communication, power, control, and
decision making, that may be impacted by
[childhood sexual abuse].’’ However, it is also
important to note that not all individuals who
experienced childhood traumas similarly
experienced negative marital outcomes, and
that research is needed to identify the protec-
tive or resilience factors in some individuals
that serve to protect them against the negative
effects of childhood traumas.
In comparison to childhood traumas involv-
ing assaultive violence, traumatic events
involving accidents or natural disasters were
unrelated to marital disruption or marital satis-
faction. Thus, these findings suggest that it is
not childhood trauma per se that is associated
with relationship functioning in adulthood but
2. Readers familiar with the NCS may wonder why PTSD
and attachment styles were not evaluated as mediators
of the association between childhood trauma and marital
outcomes as hypothesized by Whiffen and MacIntosh
(2005), given that measures of both were included in
the survey. Regarding PTSD, the assessment of PTSD
included traumas that did not occur during childhood
(e.g., combat experience) and was limited to the trauma
that was most upsetting to the respondent from among
those traumas. Because PTSD symptomatology was not
assessed for each traumatic event included in this study,
it could not be evaluated as a mediator. Regarding
attachment styles, the assessment of attachment was
based on 4-point ratings of the measure of Hazan and
Shaver (1987), which provides little variability in pre-
dicting individual differences in attachment and does
not reflect the ongoing theoretical and empirical advan-
ces in the assessment of attachment. Because of these
limitations, it was decided that the measures included in
the NCS would not provide a strong test of the media-
tion hypothesis.
383
rather only certain kinds of trauma that are
important, namely, traumas involving violence.
It should not, however, be concluded that these
other types of traumas are unimportant for adult
functioning, as they may predict other types of
outcomes. For example, in an analysis of the
association between childhood adversities and
psychiatric disorders in the NCS, it was found
that in comparison to people who did not expe-
rience the trauma, the ORs for major depres-
sion were 2.07 for people in a life-threatening
accident and 1.40 for people involved in a fire,
flood, or natural disaster; these traumas were
also associated with increased risk for other
mood, anxiety, and substance use disorders
(Kessler, Davis, & Kendler, 1997).
It should be noted that the current study eval-
uated only two marital outcomes—disruption
and satisfaction. As such, it is possible that
childhood traumas are predictive of other types
of relationship outcomes, such as aggression in
marriage, not included in the study. For exam-
ple, a recent meta-analysis of the impact of
parental aggression during childhood on aggres-
sion in adult marital relationships found
‘‘a weak-to-moderate relationship between
growing up in an abusive family and becoming
involved in a violent marital relationship’’ (Stith
et al., 2000, p. 640). Furthermore, it should be
noted that in addition to being directly associ-
ated with childhood trauma, marital outcomes
might moderate the association between child-
hood trauma and other outcomes, such as men-
tal health outcomes (Whiffen & Oliver, 2004).
For example, the strength of the association
between childhood sexual abuse and depres-
sive symptoms has been found to be weaker
for women who perceived their marital rela-
tionship to be high versus low in intimacy
(Whiffen, Judd, & Aube, 1999).
In interpreting the results of the study, both
the strengths and the limitations of the current
sample should be considered. Strengths of the
study include the use of a national probability
sample and the evaluation of two relationship
outcomes for seven childhood traumatic
events. The major limitation of the study is
the use of retrospective reports for measuring
childhood traumas. It should be noted that the
traumas in the current study were, for the most
part, objective or factual events rather than
384
subjective or interpretative events. Prior
research has shown better test-retest reliability
and within-family corroboration for such
events (Bifulco, Brown, Lillie, & Jarvis,
1997; Finlay-Jones, Scott, Duncan-Jones,
Byrne, & Henderson, 1981; Robins et al.,
1985). However, it is also important to note
that there is considerable controversy around
the accuracy of autobiographical memory
(Hyman & Loftus, 1998), particularly as it
relates to memory for childhood abuse (Orn-
stein, Ceci, & Loftus, 1998). As such, the cur-
rent findings should be interpreted in light of
the potential limitations of retrospective
accounts of childhood traumas.
A second limitation concerns the breadth of
assessment for the assessed traumas. For exam-
ple, the assessment of childhood sexual abuse
was limited to forced intercourse and genital
touching and did not include noncontact sexual
abuse (e.g., being forced to watch perpetrator
masturbate) or other forms of contact abuse
(e.g., being forced to touch perpetrator’s geni-
tals). As such, the assessment of the prevalence
and impact of some of the traumas such as sex-
ual molestation is likely to be underestimated.
Furthermore, traumas were treated as dichoto-
mous variables (i.e., the trauma was coded as
occurring or not occurring), which does not
allow for evaluating other parameters of the
trauma, such as severity, frequency, duration,
or timing. For example, a single act of minor
physical abuse may have very different inter-
personal repercussions than multiple acts of
severe physical abuse. Finally, the current
assessment of traumas did not include any
measure of participants’ appraisals or percep-
tions of the traumatic events, such as the mean-
ing attached to the trauma and the degree to
which traumas were seen as controllable, pre-
dictable, and the like.
Results from the current study may have
implications for the treatment of marital dis-
tress and the prevention of marital disruption.
For example, people may not disclose a history
of trauma to their therapists (or for that matter,
to their partners), and consequently, relation-
ship problems may be attributed to other fac-
tors, even though the problems may, in part,
have their roots in early trauma. In compari-
son, several theoretical approaches to couple
M. A. Whisman
therapy, including insight-oriented couple
therapy (Snyder & Wills, 1989) and integra-
tive couple therapy (Jacobson & Christensen,
1996), have speculated that identifying the
developmental origins of relationship difficul-
ties may have beneficial therapeutic effects.
According to these perspectives, assisting
partners to recognize developmental antece-
dents to their current difficulties may result
in changes in partners’ attributions regarding
their behavior and promote greater under-
standing and acceptance by both partners.
The current findings suggest that a therapeutic
focus on the occurrence and impact of traumas
may be particularly beneficial in this regard.
Furthermore, based on the finding that child-
hood rape was the only trauma that was related
to both marital disruption and marital satisfac-
tion, clinicians should be familiar with couple
therapy approaches specifically designed for
working with childhood sexual abuse (e.g.,
McCarthy & Sypeck, 2003).
In summary, the results of the current study
suggest that traumas occurring during child-
hood, particularly those involving physical or
sexual aggression, are associated with greater
probability of marital disruption and lower
levels of marital satisfaction in adulthood,
thereby supporting the importance of child-
hood traumatic events for a comprehensive
understanding of marital functioning. These
findings, which are consistent with prior
research that has found that other measures
of ongoing stress (i.e., life events, daily has-
sles) are associated with marital satisfaction,
support the continued investigation of contex-
tual influences on relationship functioning.
Continued investigation into the role of trau-
mas and other types of stress on marital out-
comes should shed light on environmental
factors that may be important in identifying
individuals who are at risk for negative rela-
tionship outcomes and for developing inter-
ventions for the prevention and treatment of
marital distress and disruption.
References
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and
statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Wash-
ington, DC: Author.
Childhood trauma and marital outcomes
Bartoi, M. G., & Kinder, B. N. (1998). Effects of child and
adult sexual abuse on adult sexuality. Journal of Sex
and Marital Therapy, 24, 75–90.
Bifulco, A., Brown, G. W., Lillie, A., & Jarvis, J.
(1997). Memories of childhood neglect and abuse:
Corroboration in a series of sisters. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines,
38, 365–374.
Bolger, N., DeLongis, A., Kessler, R. C., & Wethington, E.
(1989). The contagion of stress across multiple roles.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 51, 175–183.
Bradbury, T. N., Fincham, F. D., & Beach, S. R. H. (2000).
Research on the nature and determinants of marital
satisfaction: A decade in review. Journal of Marriage
and the Family, 62, 964–980.
Breslau, N., Kessler, R. C., Chilcoat, H. D., Schultz, L. R.,
Davis, G. C., & Andreski, P. (1998). Trauma and post-
traumatic stress disorder in the community: The 1996
Detroit Area Survey of Trauma. Archives of General
Psychiatry, 55, 626–632.
Briere, J. N. (1992). Child abuse trauma: Theory and
treatment of the lasting effects. Newbury Park: Sage.
Broman, C. L., Riba, M. L., & Trahan, M. R. (1996).
Traumatic events and marital well-being. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 58, 908–916.
Browne, A., & Finkelhor, D. (1986). The impact of child
sexual abuse: A review of the research. Psychological
Bulletin, 99, 66–77.
Cohan, C. L., & Bradbury, T. N. (1997). Negative life
events, marital interaction, and the longitudinal course
of newlywed marriage. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 73, 114–128.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral
sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Compton, J. S., & Follette, V. M. (1998). Couples surviv-
ing trauma: Issues and interventions. In V. M. Follette,
J. I. Ruzek & F. R. Abueg (Eds.), Cognitive-behavioral
therapies for trauma (pp. 321–352). New York: Guilford.
Davis, J. L., & Petretic-Jackson, P. A. (2000). The impact
of child sexual abuse on adult interpersonal function-
ing: A review and synthesis of the empirical literature.
Aggression and Violent Behavior, 5, 291–328.
DiLillo, D. (2001). Interpersonal functioning among
women reporting a history of childhood sexual abuse:
Empirical findings and methodological issues. Clini-
cal Psychology Review, 21, 553–576.
Finkelhor, D., & Browne, A. (1985). The traumatic impact
of child sexual abuse: A conceptualization. American
Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 55, 325–330.
Finkelhor, D., Hotaling, G. T., Lewis, I. A., & Smith, C.
(1989). Sexual abuse and its relationship to later sexual
satisfaction, marital status, religion, and attitudes.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 4, 379–399.
Finlay-Jones, R., Scott, R., Duncan-Jones, P., Byrne, D., &
Henderson, S. (1981). The reliability of reports of early
separations. Australian and New Zealand Journal of
Psychiatry, 15, 27–31.
Forthofer, M. S., Markman, H. J., Cox, M., Stanley, S., &
Kessler, R. C. (1996). Associations between marital
distress and work loss in a national sample. Journal
of Marriage and the Family, 58, 597–605.
Harper, J. M., Schaalje, B. G., & Sandberg, J. G. (2000). Daily
hassles, intimacy, and marital quality in later life mar-
riages. American Journal of Family Therapy, 28, 1–18.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptu-
alized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 52, 511–524.
385
Hyman, I. E., Jr., & Loftus, E. F. (1998). Errors in auto-
biographical memory. Clinical Psychology Review,
18, 933–947.
Jacobson, N. S., & Christensen, A. (1996). Integrative
couple therapy: Promoting acceptance and change.
New York: W.W. Norton.
Katz, J., Monnier, J., Libet, J., Shaw, D., & Beach, S. R. H.
(2000). Individual and crossover effects of stress on
adjustment in medical student marriages. Journal of
Marital and Family Therapy, 26, 341–351.
Kessler, R. C., Davis, C. G., & Kendler, K. S. (1997).
Childhood adversity and adult psychiatric disorder in
the US National Comorbidity Survey. Psychological
Medicine, 27, 1101–1119.
Kessler, R. C., McGonagle, K. A., Zhao, S., Nelson, C. B.,
Hughes, M., Eshleman, S., et al. (1994). Lifetime and
12-month prevalence of DSM-III-R psychiatric disor-
ders in the United States: Results from the National
Comorbidity Survey. Archives of General Psychiatry,
51, 8–19.
Kessler, R. C., Sonnega, A., Bromet, E., Hughes, M., &
Nelson, C. B. (1995). Posttraumatic stress disorder in
the National Comorbidity Survey. Archives of General
Psychiatry, 52, 1048–1060.
McCarthy, B. W., & Sypeck, M. (2003). Childhood sexual
trauma. In D. K. Snyder & M. A. Whisman (Eds.),
Treating difficult couples: Helping clients with coex-
isting mental and relationship disorders (pp. 330–
349). New York: Guilford.
Nelson, B. S., & Wampler, K. S. (2000). Systemic effects
of trauma in clinic couples: An exploratory study of
secondary trauma resulting from childhood abuse.
Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 26, 171–184.
Ornstein, P. A., Ceci, S. J., & Loftus, E. F. (1998). Adult
recollections of childhood abuse: Cognitive and devel-
opmental perspectives. Psychology, Public Policy, and
Law, 4, 1025–1051.
Polusny, M. A., & Follette, V. M. (1995). Long-term cor-
relates of child sexual abuse: Theory and review of the
empirical literature. Applied and Preventive Psychol-
ogy, 4, 143–166.
Repetti, R. L. (1989). Effects of daily workload on
subsequent behavior during marital interaction: The
roles of social withdrawal and spouse support. Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 651–
659.
Research Triangle Institute. (2001). SUDAAN user’s man-
ual, release 8.0. Research Triangle Park, NC: Author.
Robins, L. N., Helzer, J. E., Cottler, L. B., & Goldring, E.
(1988). The diagnostic interview schedule, version III-
R. St. Louis, MO: Washington University School of
Medicine.
Robins, L. N., Schoenberg, S. P., Holmes, S. J., Ratcliff, K.
S., Benhamn, M. S., & Works, J. (1985). Early home
environment and retrospective recall: A test for con-
cordance between siblings with and without psychia-
tric disorder. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry,
55, 27–41.
Rumstein-McKean, O., & Hunsley, J. (2001). Interper-
sonal and family functioning of female survivors of
childhood sexual abuse. Clinical Psychology Review,
21, 471–490.
Singer, J. D., & Willett, J. B. (1991). Modeling the days
of our lives: Using survival analysis when designing
and analyzing longitudinal studies of duration and
the timing of events. Psychological Bulletin, 110,
268–290.
386
Singer, J. D., & Willett, J. B. (2003). Applied longitudinal
data analysis: Modeling change and event occurrence.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Snyder, D. K., & Wills, R. M. (1989). Behavioral versus
insight-oriented marital therapy: Effects on individual
and interpersonal functioning. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 57, 39–46.
Stith, S. M., Rosen, K. H., Middleton, K. A., Busch, A. L.,
Lundeberg, K., & Carlton, R. P. (2000). The intergen-
erational transmission of spouse abuse: A meta-analy-
sis. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 640–654.
Wheaton, B. (1994). Sampling the stress universe. In W.
R. Avison & I. H. Gotlib (Eds.), Stress and mental
health: Contemporary issues and prospects for the
future (pp. 77–114). New York: Plenum.
M. A. Whisman
Whiffen, V. E., & Gotlib, I. H. (1989). Stress and coping in
maritally distressed and nondistressed couples. Jour-
nal of Social and Personal Relationships, 6, 327–344.
Whiffen, V. E., Judd, M. E., & Aube, J. A. (1999). Intimate
relationships moderate the association between child-
hood sexual abuse and depression. Journal of Interper-
sonal Violence, 14, 940–954.
Whiffen, V. E., & MacIntosh, H. B. (2005). Mediators of
the link between childhood sexual abuse and emotional
distress: A critical review. Trauma, Violence, and
Abuse, 6, 24–39.
Whiffen, V. E., & Oliver, L. E. (2004). The relationship
between traumatic stress and marital intimacy. In D.
Catherall (Ed.), Handbook of stress, trauma and the
family (pp. 137–157). New York: CRC Press.