Flia de Origen y Violencia en Hombres 2004 PDF

Clinical Psychology Review 24 (2004) 99 122
The role of family-of-origin violence in

mens marital violence perpetration
Catherine Delsol *, Gayla Margolin
Department of Psychology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1061, USA
Received 10 February 2003; received in revised form 16 July 2003; accepted 3 December 2003
Abstract
This paper presents overall transmission rates between family-of-origin violence and marital violence, as well as
theoretical and empirical work on possible mechanisms of transmission. In identified samples, approximately 60%
of the maritally violent men report family-of-origin violence, whereas slightly over 20% of the comparison group
of maritally nonviolent men report family-of-origin violence. Modest associations between experiencing violence
in the family of origin and marital violence are found in community samples and in studies with prospective and
longitudinal designs. Variables that intervene in the association between family-of-origin violence and marital
violence are reviewed, with a focus on personal characteristics such as antisocial personality, psychological
distress, and attitudes condoning violence, as well as on contextual factors, such as marital problems and conflict
resolution style. Variables associated with nonviolence in men who grew up in violent families also are identified,
including strong interpersonal connections and the ability to create psychological distance from the family-of-
origin violence. Continued empirical investigation of variables that potentiate or mitigate the association between
family-of-origin violence and marital violence at different developmental stages is needed to identify explanatory
mechanisms and, ultimately, to interrupt the intergenerational transmission of marital violence.
D 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Family-of-origin violence; Marital violence perpetration; Husband-to-wife aggression
1. Introduction
One of the most consistent findings in the family violence literature is the relationship between
exposure to violence in the family of origin and marital violence. This finding indicates that men who
* Corresponding author. 4305 Alla Road, #2 Marina del Rey, CA 90292, USA. Tel.: +1-213-485-4627.
E-mail address: catherinedelsol@earthlink.net (C. Delsol).
0272-7358/$ - see front matter D 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2003.12.001
100 C. Delsol, G. Margolin / Clinical Psychology Review 24 (2004) 99122
grow up in violent homes are more likely to engage in spousal aggression than men who do not grow up
in violent homes (e.g., Holtzworth-Munroe, Bates, Smutzler, & Sandlin, 1997; Hotaling & Sugarman,
1986; OLeary & Curley, 1986; Rosenbaum & OLeary, 1981). Family-of-origin influences on
husbands violence toward women is one example of the intergenerational transmission of violence.
With respect to intergenerational effects on child abuse, the review by Kaufman and Zigler (1987)
suggests a transmission rate of approximately 30%. Summary transmission rates have not yet been
published for husbands aggression toward their wives. Although the percentage of maritally violent
men who have a history of exposure to violence in the family of origin is fairly high in some studies,
there is considerable variability across studies. What is clear, however, is that not all men who
experience violence in the home engage in marital violence and not all violent men have been exposed to
violence in their families of origin.
The present review addresses two important questions regarding the intergenerational transmission of
violence and husband-to-wife aggression. First, what is the likelihood of intergenerational transmission
of violence with respect to husband-to-wife violence and how does this differ in identified versus
community samples? Second, what factors potentiate or buffer that transmission? Although previous
reviews (Feldman, 1997; Holtzworth-Munroe et al., 1997; Hotaling & Sugarman, 1986) identify
experiencing family-of-origin violence as an important risk factor in the etiology of husband-to-wife
aggression, overall rates of transmission have not been identified. In their meta-analysis of the
intergenerational transmission of spouse abuse, Stith et al. (2000) found small to moderate effect sizes
for the relationship between family-of-origin violence and marital violence perpetration. Values ranged
from .10 to .35, depending on the type of sample or violence exposure examined. The present article
summarizes percentages in relevant studies to generate an overall transmission range. Given the
widespread and sometimes uncritical acceptance of a connection between family-of-origin violence
and marital violence in the scientific and lay press, a detailed look at actual transmission rates is
warranted. The present article also identifies and reviews factors that interact with family-of-origin
violence to strengthen or weaken its link to marital aggression. Attention to these other variables may
help identify explanatory pathways in the intergenerational transmission and, ultimately, may have
intervention as well as social policy implications.
What is meant by family-of-origin violence in the literature? Most often, people assess whether
someone has witnessed interparental violence as a child, and whether someone has been the victim of
physical violence at the hand of one or both parents. Because terminologies used in different studies can
vary quite a bit, the term witnessing interparental violence will be used here to refer to interparental
violence that a child actually may have seen or may have been aware of, even if not directly seen or heard.
With respect to victimization, the definition often is not clear and encompasses wide-ranging
behavior. In some studies, spanking, which is still a common method of discipline albeit controversial,
is included in what is considered victimization. However, studies that specifically assessed only
spanking were not included in the present review, as it is still not clear whether and to what extent
mild forms corporal punishment are associated with negative outcomes (Baumrind, Lazerle, & Cowan,
2002; Benjet & Kazdin, 2003; Gershoff, 2002). Furthermore, spanking is such a common practice
among parents in the United States that it may be a weak predictor of future violence (Gortner, Gollan, &
Jacobson, 1997). As many as 94% of parents of young children use corporal punishment as a form of
discipline (Straus & Stewart, 1999). Nevertheless, some studies include any report of having been hit by
a parent in their measure of victimization, whereas other studies limit themselves to more severe forms of
child abuse in their conceptualization of victimization. Therefore, the term victimization will be used
C. Delsol, G. Margolin / Clinical Psychology Review 24 (2004) 99122 101
here to refer to any kind of physically violent act perpetrated by a parent towards the child that is not
labeled specifically as spanking, unless the spanking is said to be abusive.
Not all studies examine witnessing and victimization separately in their analyses, as they are often
combined to make a single family-of-origin violence dimension. Others, however, consider it important
to measure the relative effects of each form of violence exposure. When no distinction on the type of
violence is made, the terms experiencing family-of-origin violence or being exposed to family-of-origin
violence are used.
Variations across studies also exist with respect to husband-to-wife aggression. Study samples often
include couples who are married or living together, but sometimes include any dating, engaged, or
intimate partners. In addition, some studies include maritally violent men from identified clinical
samples (e.g., men referred to batterer treatment programs by a court, or maritally violent men who are
self-referred to couples therapy), whereas other studies are based on community samples, in which the
violent men have not been identified by any external source. Along with these variations in sample
source, severity and frequency of marital aggression can be quite different across studies. The time frame
of the violence is also an important dimension because violence is not necessarily consistent and does
not necessarily persist (Margolin & Fernandez, 1987; OLeary, 1999). Some studies identify violent men
by the presence of violence ever in the relationship, whereas others identify violent men by the
presence of violence in the past year.
The present review focuses on studies published after the Hotaling and Sugarman (1986) review of
risk markers for husband-to-wife aggression. That review identified witnessing interparental violence as
the most consistent risk factor for husbands aggression. Fourteen out of sixteen studies showed a
relationship between witnessing interparental aggression and later marital violence; nine out of thirteen
studies show a relationship between childhood victimization and, later, marital aggression. The current
review is limited to studies that use the husbands self-reports of family-of-origin violence due to the
questionable reliability and validity of the wifes reports of the husbands history of exposure to violence
in his family of origin. Studies were identified via PsycInfo searches using search words such as marital
violence, marital aggression, batterers, family of origin, child abuse, risk factor, interparental violence,
witnessing, and victimization. In the first part of this review, when we derive transmission rates, we are
restricted to those studies that provide percentages of overlap between family-of-origin violence and
marital violence or else provide correlations between the two variables. Studies that report mean scores
for family-of-origin violence or marital violence are discussed later because the methods for scoring and/
or counting incidences of family-of-origin violence are unique to each study. Determining how many
men in each group experienced violence is not possible from these mean scores.
2. Data on family-of-origin violence and marital violence
To determine whether there is such a thing as an intergenerational transmission of violence, studies

have looked at the association between family-of-origin violence and marital violence in several different
ways. Some studies compare maritally violent men versus nonviolent men and see how many report
violence in their family of origin. Others compare men with and without family-of-origin violence and
compare the percentages that exhibit partner violence. A third way of looking at the association is by
reporting correlation coefficients between family-of-origin violence and marital violence. Stith et al.
(2000) highlight the importance of distinguishing between identified samples and community samples
when examining rates of transmission, as they found important differences in effect sizes according to
sample type in their meta-analysis. The relationship between family-of-origin violence and marital
violence was stronger in identified samples than in community samples. The following studies are
therefore also broken down by type of sample.
Tables 13 review studies and summarize data on the question: Are maritally violent men more likely
than nonmaritally violent men to have experienced family-of-origin violence? Table 1 summarizes
studies with data on the percentages of maritally violent men from identified samples as well as
nonviolent controls who report witnessing violence and/or victimization in the family of origin. Among
identified samples, maritally violent men from batterer treatment programs are the typical group
sampled, but some studies have also looked at prison inmates. The maritally nonviolent men represented
in Table 1 either come from the same identified sample (e.g., prison inmates), are men in couples
therapy, or are recruited in the community. The percentage of men from identified samples who report
any family-of-origin violence varies across studies, ranging from 5570% for maritally violent men
Table 1
Percentages of maritally violent (MV) from identified samples and nonviolent (NV) controls reporting family-of-origin violence
(FOV)
Study FOV assessment Sample (n) Any Witnessed Victimized
FOV (%) (%)
(%)
Caesar (1988) Interview questions: Did parents MV: Men in therapy for 62 50 38
physically fight and was physical marital violence (26).
discipline unduly harsh, NV: Men in couple 28 17 11
excessive, or abusive. therapy (18).
Dutton and Reviews of prison inmates MV: Inmates with a 55 20 41
Hart (1992) institutional files for mentions history of MV (174).
of FOV and MV. NV: Inmates with no history 20 5 15
of violence (74).
Hamberger and Two questions about being MV: Men from batterer 30 33
Hastings (1991) abused as a child or treatment program (99).
witnessing interparental abuse. NV: Men in marital therapy 9 8
with no history of MV (64).
Hanson, Cadsky, Frequency of interparental MV: 619 men from a forensic 76
Harris, and violence and physical child outpatient program for MV;
Lalonde (1997) abuse.a 119 MV men from a community
employment center (813).
NV: Men from same samples (184). 59
Hastings and Two questions about child MV: Men in batterer treatment 31 22
Hamberger abuse and interparental abuse. program (64).
(1988) NV: Men from marital and family 11 3
therapy clinics (64).
Murphy, Meyer, Interview: Witnessing violence MV: Men from batterer treatment 70 54 50
and OLeary against mother by a male program (24).
(1993) partner; childhood discipline. NV: Men from community 21 6
Severe abuse only. advertisements (48).
a
Physical abuse: slapped at least once a week; ever hit with a belt or stick, kicked or punched; ever injured so badly he took
time off school or needed medical assistance. Samples from these studies were included in the percentages in Table 2.
compared with 2028% for maritally nonviolent men. Comparable rates for witnessing were 2054%
for maritally violent men and 521% for maritally nonviolent men and, for victimization, were 2276%
for maritally violent men and 359% for maritally nonviolent men.
Table 2 summarizes the data from Table 1 by type of sample and type of victimization. To obtain an
overall approximation of the rate of intergenerational transmission of violence, two kinds of summary
percentages were calculated from the studies that used identified samples of maritally violent men. First,
we report a median percentage of maritally violent men who report exposure to violence in their family
of origin. Second, we report a weighted overall percentage that was obtained by adding up the number of
men in each sample who report violence in their family of origin and dividing by the total number of
maritally violent men in all samples. For comparison purposes, these same statistics are available for the
nonviolent control groups in these studies. From Table 2, we can see that approximately 60% of
maritally violent men report exposure to some type of violence in their family of origin. Conversely,
slightly over 20% of nonviolent men report such violence.
Table 3 summarizes data from community samples that compare percentages of maritally violent
and maritally nonviolent men who report family-of-origin violence. In these studies, both the violent
and nonviolent men are drawn from the same samples. These samples were obtained through marital
and family therapists or advertisements in the community. The range in findings across these three
studies is substantial. Aldarondo and Sugarman (1996) report victimization in over half of their sample
of maritally violent men, whereas Hamberger and Hastings (1991) report 11% as their highest score
for witnessing among maritally violent men. Margolin, Gordis, Medina and Oliver (2003) report that
slightly over one third of the maritally violent men report family-of-origin violence. Family-of-origin
violence reported by community men who are maritally nonviolent tends to be relatively low, with the
exception of victimization in the Aldarondo and Sugarman (1996) sample. In general, important
distinctions are found between clinical and identified samples versus community samples. For
example, Hamberger and Hastings (1991) found that maritally violent men from their identified
sample, but not from their community sample, were more likely to have a history of family-of-origin
violence than nonviolent men. In Table 3, as in Table 1, most studies limit their assessment of family-
of-origin violence to two questions: one about witnessing interparental violence and one about being
abused as a child.
Table 4 summarizes studies that address the question of intergenerational transmission from a
different perspective: Are men who experience family-of-origin violence, versus men who do not
Table 2
Median and weighted percentages of maritally violent men from identified samples reporting exposure to family-of-origin
violence (FOV)
Type of FOV Number of studies Median percentage Weighted percentage
MV samples NV samples MV men NV men MV men NV men
Any FOV 3 2 62 24 57 22
Witnessing 6 5 35 11 29 11
Victimization 7 6 38 10 35 9
Weighted percentages were obtained by combining the samples from all studies examining identified samples of maritally
violent men and by calculating the overall percentage of people from this combined sample who report family-of-origin
violence. MV=maritally violent, NV=nonviolent.
Table 3
Percentages of maritally violent (MV) from community samples and nonviolent (NV) controls reporting family-of-origin
violence (FOV)
Study FOV assessment Sample (n) Any FOV Witnessed Victimized
(%) (%) (%)
Aldarondo and Frequency of physical MV: Men from a subsample 18 mother 54 father
Sugarman (1996) punishment and of the National Family 43 father 68 mother
interparental violence Violence Survey (28).
during adolescence. NV: Men from the same 6 father 43 mother
Results by perpetrator. sample (202). 7 mother 46 father
Hamberger and Two questions about MV: Men in marital/family 11 4
Hastings (1991) being abused as a therapy with history of MV (28).
child or witnessing NV: Men in marital therapy 9 8
interparental abuse. with no history of MV (64).
Margolin, Gordis, Two questions: Frequency MV: Men from the community 37
Medina, and of physical abused as a with a child age 8 11 (60).
Oliver (2003) child and interparental NV: Men from same sample (121). 16
violence.
experience family-of-origin violence, more likely to be violent in their own intimate relationships? Here,
again, the findings vary greatly, but are nonoverlapping for men who have experienced family-of-origin
violence versus men who have not experienced family-of-origin violence. Of the men reporting family-
of-origin violence, 3454% engage in marital violence. Approximately 827% of men without a history
of family-of-origin violence engage in marital violence.
Table 5 presents studies examining the strength of the association between family-of-origin violence
and marital physical violence. Family-of-origin violence and marital violence appear to be more strongly
related in identified samples than in the community samples. Among identified samples of maritally
violent men, the correlations between marital violence and any violence in the family of origin,
Table 4
Percentages of men with a history of family-of-origin violence (or no FOV) who engage in marital violence (MV)
Study Sample Total n FOV assessment History of % Who
FOV (n) are MV
Margolin, Gordis, Married men from community 181 Two questions: Any FOV (41) 54a
Medina, et al. with 8- to 11-year-old child. Frequency of physical No FOV (140) 27a
(2003) abuse as a child and
interparental abuse.
Mihalic and Married or cohabitating 374 Ever seen parents Witnessing FOV 34 minor MV
Elliott (1997) men from National Youth physically hurt each 15 severe MV
Survey community sample. other in an argument. Victimization 44 minor MV
Ever been abused. 22 severe MV
No FOV 8
OHearn and Men from a temporary 47 Conflict Tactics Scale Victimization (29) 49
Margolin (2000) employment agency. severe violence only. No FOV (18) 12
a
Rates of marital violence are based on both husbands and wives reports.
Table 5
Correlations between marital violence (MV) and family-of-origin violence (FOV)
Study Sample (n) Measure of FOV Any Witnessed Victimized
FOV
Dutton, Starzomski, Identified140 MV men from Conflict Tactics Scale .37
and Ryan (1996) a batterers treatment program
and 45 NV controls from
university employees union (185).
Margolin et al. (1998) CommunityMarried men from Four questions: frequency .16
the community with an 8- to of physical or verbal abuse
11-year-old child (175). as a child and interparental
physical or verbal abuse.
OLeary et al. (1994) CommunityMen from Frequency of father hitting .21
community recruited 1 month mother and vice versa.
before marriage and still Victimization: being hit,
married after 30 months (272). beaten, or obtained cuts
or bruises.
Corvo and IdentifiedMV men from a Conflict Tactics Scale .39 .39
Carpenter (2000) domestic violence treatment
program (74).
Doumas, Margolin, CommunityMarried men Four questions: Frequency .14 .21
and John (1994) from the community with an of parent-to-child and
8- to 11-year-old child (181). interparental physical or
verbal abuse.
Langhinrichsen-Rohling IdentifiedMV men in the Four questions: Ever seen .16
et al. (1995) military mandated for a father hit mother, mother
batterer treatment program hit father, ever been beaten
(191). by a parent, ever been abused.
MacEwen and Community Men recruited Four subscales from .17 .23
Barling (1988) 1 month before marriage and Rosenbaum and OLearys
still married after 18 months (1981) scale assessing
(275). victimization and witnessing.
Murphy et al. (1993) Identified24 MV men in a Interview: Witnessing violence .49 .57
batterers treatment against mother by a male
program and 48 NV controls partner and childhood
from community (72). discipline. Severe abuse only.
OHearn and CommunityMen from Conflict Tactics Scale, .35
Margolin (2000) a temporary employment severe violence items only.
agency (47).
victimization, and witnessing violence in the family of origin range from .16 to .57. Among community
samples, these correlations range from .14 to .35.
3. Summary and methodological issues in the study of family-of-origin violence and marital
violence
Overall, results in Tables 15 show that exposure to violence in the family of origin is associated with
marital violence, but is neither a sufficient nor a necessary condition for men to engage in marital
violence. Other variables have to be taken into account, and some of the ones that have been examined in
multivariate studies are reviewed later in this paper. In addition, the recent trend to establish typologies
of maritally violent men also could help explain the disparities in findings, as it is possible that family-
of-origin violence is a factor contributing to marital violence for some men, but not for others. There is a
growing consensus that marital violence is multiply determined and that maritally violent men are a
heterogeneous group of people (Holtzworth-Munroe & Stuart, 1994). Types of batterers have been found
to differ with respect to rates of childhood abuse (Holtzworth-Munroe, Meehan, Herron, Rehman, &
Stuart, 2000; Jacobson, Gottman, & Shortt, 1995; Saunders, 1992; Waltz, Babcock, Jacobson, &
Gottman, 2000). However, data are mixed, in that some studies find differences in rates of exposure to
family-of-origin violence across types of maritally violent men, whereas others do not (Delsol, Margolin,
& John, 2003; Holtzworth-Munroe et al., 2000; Waltz et al., 2000).
Results presented in Tables 15 show considerable variability in the extent of the association between
family-of-origin violence and husband-to-wife aggression. Such variability appears, at least partially,
attributable to the type of sample studied, with identified samples showing stronger intergenerational
links compared with community samples. Differences in the definition and measurement of violence are
another source of variance (Widom, 1989). Some studies assess only severe abuse, whereas others
include any form of physical aggression. A related issue is that violence in the family of origin often is
assessed through 2 4 questions, asking whether the respondent has witnessed physical and/or
psychological abuse between his parents or has been the victim of such abuse. With such questions,
the definition of abuse is left to the respondent to determine. An alternative strategy is to assess violence
through itemized lists of aggressive behaviors, as found in the Conflict Tactics Scales (Straus, 1979). The
specific behavioral refers for aggressive behavior circumvent the problem of individualized interpreta-
tions of abuse. That instrument, however, still overlooks some important features of violence such as the
severity of impact of the violence, the duration of the violence, and how old the respondent was when
the violence started and stopped.
A key consideration in the studies reviewed thus far is that they are based on retrospective reports,
which are subject to biases due to forgetting or to changing interpretations of events over time. A
behavior not perceived as abusive when it occurred might be labeled as abusive at a later time or, vice
versa, a behavior previously considered abusive may no longer be viewed as such. In fact, Fergusson,
Horwood, and Woodward (2000) found reports of child abuse histories among young adults to be
unstable, with low testretest reliability. Among those reported earlier to have been abused as children,
there was close to a 50% probability of false negative response. Widom and Shepard (1996) also found
that about 40% of adults with a documented history of childhood physical abuse do not report such
abuse on self-report measures. Both Widom and Shepard, and Fergusson et al. report that people who
were not abused as children do not tend to report a history of abuse as adults. However, Fergusson et al.
report that these reporting errors do not appear to affect estimates of the risk of adjustment problems as a
result of child abuse. In general, when two measurements are obtained at the same time, it is possible that
the association between them may be inflated due to a response bias on the part of the research
participants. Men who admit to engaging in marital violence also may be likely to report having
experienced violence in their family of origin. Or, a social desirability bias may reduce the likelihood of
endorsing any type of family violence.
Leaving the definition of abuse to the respondent brings up cultural considerations in addition to
social desirability issues. What is considered abusive is largely a cultural issue, and the definition of
abuse tends to vary across cultures as well as within one culture over time (Levesque, 2001). Cultural
issues also affect who is included in identified samples. In general, little attention has been paid to
cultural issues in the examination of intergenerational transmission of violence.
4. Prospective and longitudinal studies
Several studies have improved upon previous methodologies by employing a semiprospective design,
in which family-of-origin violence is still assessed retrospectively, but marital violence is assessed at a
later point in time. This method reduces the inflation of correlation coefficients due to reporting on
different constructs at the same point in time. In one such study, OLeary, Malone, and Tyree (1994)
assessed couples histories of family-of-origin violence 1 month before they were getting married and
then assessed marital discord and verbal aggression 18 months postmarriage and marital violence at 30
months postmarriage. Although reports of family-of-origin violence were still retrospective self-reports
and subject to recall bias, history of family-of-origin violence assessed before marriage was used to
predict subsequent marital violence, assessed at 30 months postmarriage. Although these variables were
significantly correlated, only 17% of the variance in mens marital aggression was accounted for by a
combination of family-of-origin violence, marital discord, and verbal aggression. Family-of-origin
violence had a relationship to marital violence (r=.15), but to none of the other aspects of the marital
relationship.
Leonard and Senchak (1996) employed a similar prospective design and found that family-of-origin
violence, assessed premaritally, significantly, but modestly, predicted premarital aggression (DR2=.015,
P<.001), as well as marital aggression at 1-year postmarriage (DR2=.021, P<.001), even when
controlling for premarital aggression. Although family-of-origin violence was related to later marital
aggression, the relationship was mediated by marital conflict style, which, in turn, was influenced by
husband hostility, gender identity and perceived power inequity.
A longitudinal design by McNeal and Amato (1998) incorporated reports of different reporters.
Parents reports of ongoing family conflict and violence were measured between 1980 and 1988, and
their offsprings reports on their own marital problems were assessed when they were young adults
(1931 years old) in 1992. Interparental violence was significantly, but moderately, related to
offspring marital violence (r=.13). Parents marital violence increased the odds of offspring
relationship violence by 189%, which the authors consider a large estimated effect. In contrast, parents
reports of abusive behavior towards their children were not associated with offspring relationship
violence.
Mihalic and Elliott (1997) followed participants in the National Youth Survey sample for several
years. The participants were between 11 and 17 years old at the first assessment. Here, family-of-origin
violence victimization was not assessed retrospectively, but witnessing violence was. In later assess-
ments, when the youths were young adults, they reported on their own marital violence at several points
during the next 5 to 10 years. The reporters were the subsample of people in married or cohabitating
relationships at those later times. Mihalic and Elliott found that 34% of men who had witnessed violence
in the family of origin and 34% of men who have not witnessed violence in the family of origin later
engaged in minor marital violence. Forty-four percent of men who had been abused as children and 33%
who have not been abused later engaged in minor marital violence. Severe marital violence was reported
by 15% of men who have witnessed family-of-origin violence versus 8% who have not witnessed
family-of-origin violence, and by 22% of men who have been abused as children versus 9% who have
not been abused. Thus, for severe marital violence, results of this prospective study support results
obtained from retrospective studies: Men who experienced violence in the family of origin were more
likely to engage in marital violence than men who have not experienced such violence. Overall however,
results of this study show that less than half of the men who experienced violence in the family of origin
later engage in marital violence.
Taken together, these prospective and longitudinal studies lend support to findings from retrospective
studies that there is a link between exposure to family-of-origin violence and marital violence, but that
the relationship is fairly modest. A history of family-of-origin violence does appear to be a risk factor for
marital violence, but it is likely to be one of several risk factors. Some of these longitudinal studies
suggest several variables that interact with exposure to violence in the family of origin, and these
variables will be examined in more detail within the context of other multivariate studies.
5. What are the mechanisms of transmission across generations?
5.1. Social learning theory
Social learning theory is the most common theoretical explanation for intergenerational transmission
hypotheses. The social learning theory of Bandura (1973, 1977) points to observational learning and
reinforced performance as two important factors causing people to behave aggressively. How parents
behave toward each other and toward their children can become part of a schema about family
relationships and can influence how the children later behave in their own families of procreation. The
observation of positive consequences for observed aggression increases the likelihood that the behavior
will be imitated. The more the child identifies with the perpetrator and thus anticipates the same positive
consequences, the more likely he is to exhibit the same behavior. Applying social learning theory
specifically to domestic violence, Ganley (1989) posits that performance of aggression in intimate
relationships depends on the aggressors perceived instigators of aggression, for example, a belief
system that the spouses action is deserving of physical punishment. Performance of aggression also is
regulated through its consequences, for example, reinforcement obtained by maintaining control of the
spouse.
Many studies on the intergenerational transmission of family violence invoke social learning theory as
the foundation for the link between family-of-origin violence and wife abuse. The majority of these
studies, however, do not actually test the theory by examining conditions surrounding the observed
family-of-origin violence, such as the consequences of the violence or the degree of identification with
the perpetrator. For the most part, these studies also do not examine the processes that trigger and
maintain the aggression. A question inherent in the social learning perspective is what type of aggressive
model in the family of origin contributes to schemas in adulthood that aggression is an acceptable and
effective behavior in intimate relationships. Although observation of father-to-mother aggression, more
than child victimization, might be considered a more direct model, the relative effects of witnessing
interparental aggression versus victimization by parents are still quite mixed (Feldman, 1997; Holtz-
worth-Munroe et al., 1997; Hotaling & Sugarman, 1986). Some studies find a stronger relationship
between victimization in the family of origin and marital violence than between witnessing interparental
violence and marital violence (Corvo & Carpenter, 2000; Mihalic & Elliott, 1997). Others find
witnessing to be a stronger predictor of marital violence than victimization (Aldarondo & Sugarman,
1996; Carter, Stacey, & Shupe, 1988; Doumas et al., 1994; Kalmuss, 1984; MacEwen & Barling, 1988;
McNeal & Amato, 1998). Theoretical reasons for identifying the unique effects of each type of family-
of-origin notwithstanding, high rates of co-occurrence between witnessing and victimization make such
distinctions difficult (Margolin & Gordis, 2000).
5.1.1. Legitimacy of violence

Social learning models are not just concerned with performance of aggressive behavior but also with
the messages that children are taught through their exposure to violence at the hands of loved ones
(Simons & Johnson, 1998; Straus & Smith, 1990). It is expected that exposure to multiple forms of
violence in the family of origin would provide more extensive learning opportunities for violent
behavior, as well as diminished opportunities to learn positive alternatives for coping with conflict. Thus,
growing up with multiple forms of family violence may lead to distorted views about legitimacy of
violence such that violence is viewed as an accepted, even necessary, part of family life.
As anticipated, effects of experiencing both forms of family-of-origin violence appear to be more
serious than exposure to one or the other form of violence alone. MacEwen (1994) found that the
interaction between witnessing violence and victimization in the family of origin explained 12% of
the variance in current relationship aggression over and above the 16% of variance explained by the
combination of their of separate effects. Kalmuss (1984) found that the probability of severe marital
violence was greatest when the husband had experienced both forms of violence in the family of
origin, with the probability of marital violence ranging from 1% for no family-of-origin violence to
12% for both forms of family-of-origin violence. Similarly, Caesar (1988) found that of men who
had experienced violence in the family of origin, maritally violent men were more likely to have
experienced both witnessing and victimization than nonviolent men. Among maritally violent men,
27% had experienced both forms of family-of-origin violence, compared with 0% of the nonviolent
men.
5.2. Attachment disruption
A third theoretical framework for the intergenerational transmission is attachment disruption

(Dutton, 2003), which posits that the risk for husband-to-wife aggression is related to the intersection
of several developmental events. According to this theory, childhood exposure to violence in the
family disrupts the childs attachment to parental figures, leading to insecure adult attachment styles. In
addition, family-of-origin violence is also a direct contributor to the development of symptoms of
posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), such as impulsive behavior, somatic complaints, shame and
guilt, hostility, social withdrawal, and constant feelings of threat. Furthermore, exposure to family-of-
origin violence is also associated with development of a borderline personality organization,
characterized by an unstable sense of self, affect dysregulation, separation and abandonment anxiety,
and interpersonal dependency. The combination of unmet attachment needs in childhood, PTSD
symptoms, and borderline personality organization results in what Dutton (2003) calls a fearful
attachment style in adulthood. This attachment style is characterized by hypersensitivity to abandon-
ment and rejection, jealousy, interpersonal distrust, high levels of anger towards intimate partners, and
affective instability. Marital violence is proposed to occur in an attempt to control the partner and as a
result of intense anger and fear of abandonment when the partners actions are perceived as threats to
leaving the relationship.
5.3. Family disruption
A fourth theoretical model to explain intergenerational transmission of marital violence is an

application of family systems theory and family disruption models (Jaffe, Wolfe, & Wilson, 1990;
Margolin, Gordis, & Oliver, 2003; Repetti, Taylor, & Seeman, 2002). These models propose both
direct and indirect pathways from violence in the family of origin to negative child outcomes. In
addition to the direct effects of family violence on emotional and behavioral problems in the child,
family violence also indirectly affects the childs adjustment through its impact on the broader family
system. Violence is thought to have deleterious effects on parents, possibly affecting involvement,
negative affect, warmth, use of coercive punishment, and emotional availability (e.g., Holden &
Ritchie, 1991; Levendosky & Graham-Bermann, 2000; Margolin, Gordis, Medina, et al., 2003).
Although these models have been used to examine the parenting environment of children, the effects
of family disruption can also extent into adulthood. Data point to aspects of the family of origin, such
as parental rejection, lack of parental care, being shamed by parents (Dutton et al., 1996; Dutton, van
Ginkel, & Starzomski, 1995), as well as parental substance abuse (Corvo & Carpenter, 2000), as
exerting independent effects, beyond the family-of-origin violence influences on male-to-female
aggression.
5.4. Continuity of antisocial behavior
A fifth theoretical framework, addressing the continuity of antisocial behavior, helps bridge the gap
between childhood externalizing problems as a result of family-of-origin violence and marital violence
perpetration. Antisocial behavior tends to emerge in children subjected to inept, coercive parenting,
(Patterson, Reid, & Dishion, 1992), and tends to be associated with marital aggression (Holtzworth-
Munroe & Stuart, 1994; Simons & Johnson, 1998). The prospective study of Capaldi and Clark (1998)
of boys at risk for antisocial behavior revealed unskilled parenting to predict antisocial behavior in
childhood, which, in turn, predicted intimate violence perpetration. Furthermore, Magdol, Moffitt, Caspi,
and Silva (1998) found childhood behavior problems to be prospectively related to partner violence. In a
prospective study that included both men and women, Ehrensaft et al. (2003) found conduct disorder to
partially mediate the relationship between exposure to child abuse and subsequent partner violence. Yet,
important direct effects of family-of-origin violence exposure still remained even after conduct disorder
was added to the model.
5.5. Genetics and heritability
A final important theoretical consideration is the extent to which genetics and heritability play a role
in the intergenerational transmission of violence. Studies on the heritability of marital aggression are
notably absent from the literature; heritability factors are rarely considered as possible explanations for
findings on the link between family-of-origin violence and marital violence (Hines & Saudino, 2002).
Research suggests a significant contribution of heredity to delinquency and violent and nonviolent
criminal behavior (DiLalla & Gottesman, 1991). In their review of the literature, Miles and Carey (1997)
found genetics to account for up to 50% of the variance in aggressive behavior in general. Relevant
questions need to be addressed that consider the both genetic and environmental variables, such as: What
genetic factors influence the way children experience family-of-origin aggression? What family
environment factors potentiate or mitigate against the role of heritability in the intergenerational
transmission of violence?
6. Vulnerability factors
Several of the theoretical models point to the importance of multivariate studies that examine the
relative contributions of several variables that interact with family-of-origin violence to explain the
mechanisms by which violence in one generation is transmitted to the next. Due to the wide-ranging
methodologies represented here, the term interaction is used in its broadest sense to refer to any way that
other variables strengthen the link between family-of-origin violence and marital violence. Such
interactions can be found in mediating and/or moderating relationships, in variables that account for
greater variance than family-of-origin aggression, and also in comparisons between subgroups of
maritally violent men that differ on certain characteristics (e.g., rates of family-of-origin violence in
alcoholic batterers vs. nonalcoholic batterers).
Two different types of variables are examined. First, personal attributes or characteristics of maritally
violent men and their influence on the link between family-of-origin violence and marital violence are
reviewed. Second, aspects of the marital relationship and current life stressors are examined as potential
triggers of a predisposition to engage in marital violence as a result of having grown up in a violent
home.
6.1. Personal characteristics
Characteristics of the husband represent a large domain of variables that have been examined with
respect to family-of-origin violence and marital violence. These variables include psychopathology and
personality disorders, substance abuse, attitudes condoning spousal violence, gender identity, sex role
egalitarianism, and hostility. The assumption being explored is that these characteristics of men interact
with a learning history of violence and make them more likely to exhibit violence in their own marriages.
These characteristics might be instigated by the family-of-origin violence or might be traits unrelated to
previous family history.
Several studies look at the role of psychopathology and personality disorders of the husband in the
intergenerational transmission of violence. Julian, McKenry, Gavazzi, and Law (1999) found mental
status/psychological distress to be a mediator between family-of-origin violence and both physical and
psychological aggression in marriage. In the separate models for verbal aggression and for physical
aggression, significant correlations were obtained between family-of-origin violence and mental status,
and between mental status and marital aggression. Although family-of-origin violence and marital
aggression were significantly related in models that did not include mental status, no significant relations
between family-of-origin violence and marital aggression were obtained once mental status was included
in the model.
Murphy et al. (1993) found that among maritally violent men, a history of family-of-origin violence
was positively associated with levels of current psychopathology. Compared to batterers who had not
experienced violence in their family of origin, those who were severely abused in childhood reported
more psychopathology and personality disorders, whereas those who witnessed violence in the family of
origin did not report higher levels of psychopathology.
Building on models of general violent behavior, Simons, Wu, Johnson, and Conger (1995) found the
relationship between family-of-origin violence and marital aggression to be mediated by antisocial
personality traits. That is, association between harsh treatment in childhood and husband-to-wife
aggression was eliminated when the analyses controlled for antisocial behavior traits. More recently
and with a 20-year longitudinal design, Ehrensaft et al. (2003) tested the model that conduct disorders
were the link between childhood maltreatment and partner violence, albeit not differentiating male and
female perpetrators of intimate aggression. As anticipated, conduct disorder mediated effects of child
abuse. However conduct disorder did not mediate the effects of exposure to violence between parents,
which remained a significant risk for perpetrating partner violence. Interestingly, two studies (Ehrensaft
et al., 2003; Murphy et al., 1993) using different methods both found that psychopathology mediated the
link between child abuse and intimate-partner abuse, but not the link between interparental violence and
intimate partner abuse.
Symptoms related to trauma, PTSD, and borderline personality disorder have been proposed by
Dutton et al. (Dutton, 1995; Dutton & Holtzworth-Munroe, 1997; Dutton et al., 1996) as important
factors in the link between family-of-origin violence and marital violence. Trauma symptoms show a
moderate correlation (.28) with physical marital violence, and maritally violent men report higher trauma
symptoms than nonviolent men (Dutton, 1995). Maritally violent men with PTSD symptoms reported
engaging in abuse more frequently than men without PTSD symptoms did. In another study along these
lines, Dutton et al. (1996) found childhood trauma to be associated with borderline personality
organization (BPO), which, in turn, was a predictor of marital violence. In sum, experiences of violence
in the family of origin may be predictive of trauma and PTSD symptoms in adulthood. In turn, trauma
and PTSD symptoms in adulthood may be associated with marital violence. Although these findings
suggest PTSD as a possible mediator between victimization in the family of origin and marital violence,
an actual mediational model has not yet been tested.
Hamberger and Hastings (1991) and Hastings and Hamberger (1988) have examined substance abuse,
as another husband characteristic possibly influencing the association between family-of-origin violence
and marital violence. In one study (Hastings & Hamberger, 1988), batterers with alcohol problems were
more likely to have witnessed and been victimized by family-of-origin violence than were nonalcoholic
batterers and nonviolent controls; batterers without alcohol problems did not differ from nonviolent
controls with respect to family-of-origin violence. In a second study, Hamberger and Hastings (1991)
compared alcoholic batterers, nonalcoholic batterers, maritally violent men from a community sample,
and nonviolent controls on witnessing violence and victimization in the family of origin. Here too,
significant group differences were obtained for witnessing interparental violence and victimization, with
the percentages of alcoholic batterers having witnessed such violence or been victimized being higher
than the percentages of the other groups. Differences between nonalcoholic batterers, community sample
batterers, and nonviolent controls were not significant. In these data, family-of-origin violence seems to
be more common among maritally violent men who also abuse alcohol than among maritally violent
men who do not abuse alcohol, suggesting that the intergenerational transmission of violence may apply
more to those maritally violent men with substance abuse problems. One comparison group that is
missing from these studies is alcoholic men who do not engage in marital violence, which would help us
examine whether, among substance abusers, the high prevalence of family-of-origin violence is specific
to those who are maritally violent.
Attitudes condoning violence against women, hostility toward women, and high masculine gender
identity are other factors interacting with family-of-origin violence. Leonard and Senchak (1996) found
history of family-of-origin violence to be a significant contributor to husbands hostility, gender identity

(masculinity), perceived power, and marital conflict styles. In turn, these variables were found to be
predictive of marital aggression. A history of family-of-origin violence assessed premaritally was
prospectively related to marital aggression measured at 1-year postmarriage. This relationship was
mediated by marital conflict styles, which, in turn, were influenced by husbands hostility, gender
identity, and perceived power inequity.
Attitudes approving marital violence may be an important pathway between witnessing violence in
the family of origin and marital violence. Stith and Farley (1993) report that observation of interparental
violence as a child predicted approval of marital aggression, but did not directly predict marital violence
in the past year. Attitudes approving marital violence, however, did predict severe marital violence.
Along similar lines, OHearn and Margolin (2000) found attitudes condoning marital violence to be a
moderator in the relationship between family-of-origin victimization and marital violence in a
community sample. Family-of-origin victimization was highly correlated with marital violence
(r=.62) only for those men who condoned marital violence, but was not correlated (r=.02) for men
who do not hold such attitudes. The interaction between family-of-origin victimization and attitudes
condoning spousal violence uniquely accounted for 16.3% of the variance in marital physical violence.
However, as a separate variable, attitudes condoning marital violence were not significantly related to
family-of-origin victimization or to marital physical abuse. Together, these studies suggest that
transmission of violence from childhood to adulthood is strengthened when accompanied by attitudes
approving violence toward intimate partners.
Other variables reflecting patriarchal viewpoints, such as gender identity, perceived power inequity,
and traditional sex roles also appear to play a role in the relationship between family-of-origin violence
and marital violence. For a cross-cultural perspective, a study by Haj-Yahia (1997) examined beliefs
about marital violence in Arab men in Israel engaged to be married. Rather than studying marital
violence per se, this study examined mens attitudes condoning wife beating (justifications of wife
beating, beliefs that wives benefit from beating, and beliefs against helping battered wives). The study
reported that a combination of predictors, including witnessing violence and victimization in the family
of origin, nonegalitarian and patriarchal marital role expectations, poor communication skills, negative
attitudes towards women, and sex role stereotyping together accounted for 3034% of the variance in
beliefs about wife beating. These results suggest that, in Arab culture, patriarchal attitudes are one of
several variables that explain the acceptance of wife beating.
In sum, among the characteristics of maritally violent men, several mediating factors have emerged,
namely psychopathology, antisocial personality, hostility, and approval of marital violence. In addition to
being a mediator, attitudes condoning violence against a spouse have also been found to moderate the
relationship between family-of-origin violence and marital violence. Although not specifically tested as
mediators, other variables seemingly involved in the link between family-of-origin violence and marital
violence are trauma or PTSD symptoms, gender identity, perceived power inequity, and sex role
egalitarianism. Studies on substance abuse suggest that the intergenerational transmission of violence
may be particularly pertinent to those maritally violent men who also abuse alcohol. Although these
findings suggest some form of interaction between family-of-origin violence and trauma and substance
abuse, actual mediating or moderating models of trauma symptoms and substance abuse have not yet
been tested. Overall, a number of characteristics of the husband, either individually or, more likely, in
combination, appear to increase the likelihood of a connection between violence in the family of origin
and marital violence.
6.2. Contextual factors
Contextual factors, with a specific focus on marital problems and overall life stress, have been
examined as variables that might partially explain the connections between family-of-origin violence and
marital violence. A mediating model would suggest that family-of-origin violence might lead to marital
discord, which then is connected to marital violence. Or, a moderating model would be that family-of-
origin violence alone may not predict marital violence, but, in combination with high stress levels, may
increase the likelihood of marital violence. The underlying assumption behind these models is that a
context of high marital stress or life stress strengthens the association between previous experience with
family-of-origin violence and current marital violence.
The data with respect to marital discord have shown mixed findings. OLeary et al. (1994) found that
although a history of family-of-origin violence was significantly related to marital discord, such violence
still had a direct influence on physical aggression. Marital discord was not directly related to marital
physical violence, but indirectly through verbal aggression. They thus concluded that family-of-origin
violence still appears to be a model for marital violence even after considering marital discord and verbal
aggression. In contrast, Choice, Lamke, and Pittman (1995) found that the relationship between
witnessing family-of-origin violence and marital violence was partially mediated by ineffective conflict
resolution strategies and marital distress. Together, these variables accounted for 20% of the variance in
marital violence. Although there was still a significant direct link between family-of-origin violence and
marital violence, ineffective conflict resolution strategies and marital distress were more strongly related
to marital violence than was witnessing family-of-origin violence.
Other studies also show that marital discord contributes more variance than family-of-origin violence
exposure in the prediction of husband-to-wife aggression. Margolin, John, and Foo (1998), for example,
found that factors associated with the current life situation, such as marital satisfaction, life stress in the
past year, and current attitudes condoning violence against women each accounted for unique variance in
the husband-to-wife aggression. Family-of-origin violence, in contrast, did not account for unique
variance above these contemporaneous variables, but did differentiate severe levels of physical and
emotional abuse from emotional abuse only and from no abuse. Similarly, according to Mihalic and
Elliott (1997), witnessing violence did not seem related to adolescent or adult violence. Experiences with
prior violence also had no apparent impact on stress or marital satisfaction. They conclude that males
appear to be more affected by circumstances occurring concurrently with the marital violence, such as
marital satisfaction and stress, than by historical factors.
With respect to socioeconomic stressors, Howell and Pugliesi (1988) examined the effects of age,
occupational status, economic strain, and family-of-origin violence on marital violence in the national
family violence study sample. The only variable that did not significantly contribute to the likelihood of
marital violence was economic strain. Age, occupational status, and family-of-origin violence all
independently affected the likelihood of marital violence, but none of these variables interacted with
family-of-origin violence to increase the risk of spousal aggression. The men who had experienced
violence in the family of origin were 2.52 times more likely to be maritally violent than the men who had
not experienced such violence. The authors concluded that family-of-origin violence is an important
factor in marital violence regardless of the presence of stressors or other conditions. MacEwen and
Barling (1988) also tested the hypothesis that violence in the family of origin may predispose men to
engage in marital violence when exposed to work and life stress. Correlations between family-of-origin
violence and marital violence were significant, but the interaction between stress and family-of-origin
violence was not significant. In addition, life stress was not a significant predictor of marital violence.
Available data thus suggest that life stress may contribute to marital violence but, as yet, data have not
shown life stress to strengthen linkages between family-of-origin violence and marital violence.
Proximal interpersonal variables, such as conflict resolution strategies, marital satisfaction, and
marital discord, thus appear to play a role in understanding marital violence. These findings may be
particularly applicable to the type of domestic violence that Johnson and Ferraro (2000) describe as
common couple violence, that is, when physical aggression arises in the context of marital arguments. In
some cases, these marital variables are related to a history of violence in the family of origin (OLeary et
al., 1994) or partially mediate the association between family-of-origin violence and marital violence
(Choice et al., 1995). Other studies that examine family-of-origin violence, along with current factors
such as marital satisfaction, communication style, and stressful life events in the past year, find that
family-of-origin violence is not related to many of these current factors. Instead, current life situation
factors appear to independently predict levels of marital violence, and they seem to be better predictors
of marital violence than the more distal family-of-origin violence (Margolin et al., 1998). Alternatively,
still, other studies report that the existing associations between violence in the family of origin and
marital violence are not influenced by socioeconomic or work stresses (Howell and Pugliesi, 1988;
MacEwen & Barling, 1988). One possibility is that proximal variables that pertain to the marital
relationship itself, such as marital discord and conflict resolution strategies, may be involved in the
intergenerational transmission of violence whereas other proximal variables may not be as relevant to
intergenerational transmission.
In sum, this examination of multivariate studies across domains suggests that variables pertaining to
the personal characteristics of the husband, or intrapersonal factors, tend to interact with family-of-origin
violence. For some of these variables, an interactive model has been established and may need to be
replicated. For others, there is the possibility of an interaction that still needs to be examined directly.
Some aspects of the marital relationship seem at least to partially mediate the relationship between
family-of-origin violence and marital violence. Current life stressors and other proximal extramarital
factors, although sometimes more powerful predictors of marital violence than family-of-origin violence,
do not appear to be play a role in the intergenerational transmission of violence. Interpretation of these
interacting variables is tempered by the potential for bi-directional effects. On the one hand, marital
discord, life stresses, psychological distress, substance abuse, and so on may increase the likelihood of
marital violence. On the other hand, marital violence may increase the likelihood of all of these
variables. Spiraling effects between these ongoing variables and marital violence must be taken into
account when considering how the variables interact with a historical variable such as family-of-origin
violence.
7. Protective factors
A different approach to understanding the intergenerational transmission of violence is to try to

understand why some people who experienced family-of-origin violence do not become maritally
violent. The focus is shifted from those men growing up in violent homes who do become maritally
violent to those growing up in a violent home who do not become violent towards the spouse. Specific
protective factors may exert their beneficial effects in several ways. To a certain extent, absence or low
levels of vulnerability factors may serve as protective factors. Other factors have direct protective effects,
neutralizing the impact of family-of-origin aggression. As with vulnerability variables, the general
categories of interpersonal and personal factors apply.
7.1. Interpersonal factors
A theoretical framework that provides an explanation why people refrain from criminal and deviant
behavior is found in social bonding theory, originally proposed by Hirschi (1969), and applied to marital
violence by Lackey and Williams (1995). According to Hirschi, people with strong social bonds are less
likely to engage in deviant behavior. Hirschi specified four dimensions of the social bond: (a)
attachment, which refers to affective ties to significant others; (b) commitment, which refers to the
degree of personal investment in conventional conduct and goals; (c) involvement, which refers to the
amount of time and energy devoted to conventional activities such as keeping appointments; and (d)
moral beliefs, which refer to the degree of respect for morality and social rules.
The main question with respect to the intergenerational transmission of violence is whether men with
a history of family-of-origin violence who develop strong social bonds in adulthood are more likely to be
nonviolent with female partners than men who do not develop such social bonds. Lackey and Williams
(1995) investigated the inhibitory effects on marital violence of social bonds with the intimate partner,
friends and relatives, and the larger community. They found that, among men who grew up in violent
homes, attachment to ones spouse and to ones friends and relatives increases the probability of
nonviolence. Fear of negative consequences to social bonds (such as losing ones spouse, rejection and
disapproval from friends and relatives, and being arrested) also was predictive of nonviolence among
men who had been exposed to violence in their family of origin. The strongest predictor of nonviolence
was social bond with the intimate partner, again pointing to the importance of the marital relationship in
combination with early experiences and intrapersonal husband characteristics.
These analyses were also performed with a sample of men who had no history of family-of-origin
violence. Among these men, the social bonding variables were not predictive of nonviolence, which
suggests that developing strong social bonds in adulthood may influence the likelihood of nonviolence
primarily in men who grow up in violent homes. Strong social bonds in adulthood might therefore be
protective against the intergenerational transmission of violence in men who have been exposed to
violence in their family of origin.
7.2. Individual interpretations and reactions to childhood violence
Caesar (1988) also examined why some men with a history of family-of-origin violence do not
become physically aggressive in their marriage. In a qualitative analysis of in-depth interviews with
maritally violent and nonviolent men about their experiences in the family of origin, Caesar reports that,
with respect to parent-to-child violence, batterers were more likely to idealize and protect the violent
parent or the family. Maritally nonviolent men were more likely to admit to shortcomings of the violent
parent and were more likely to acknowledge anger towards the perpetrator, whereas batterers were more
likely to rationalize their parents violence and identify with the perpetrator. Moreover, in descriptions of
witnessing interparental violence, batterers were more likely to mention getting involved in interparental
fights and allying themselves with one or the other parent. Some of these batterers also described
verbally fighting with their mother out of loyalty to their father, whereas others allied with their mother
and were more passive. Although the majority of violent men had tried to break up a marital fight, none
of the nonviolent men had tried to intervene in an interparental fight. These findings echo data collected
from children on the negative consequences of intervening in parents marital battles. According to
OBrien, Margolin, and John (1995), children who intervene in their parents marital conflict have more
symptoms of maladjustment, whereas children who distance themselves from the conflict have fewer
symptoms. Among the men in Caesars (1998) sample who experienced family-of-origin violence, the
men who later were maritally nonviolent, compared with violent, reported being more disengaged from
the family-of-origin turmoil, more able to distance themselves from their parents, and more able to
individuate as adults.
Another domain of protective factors is suggested by OHearn and Margolins (2000), finding that
attitudes condoning violence against a spouse may be a moderator between family-of-origin violence
and marital violence. According to the results of this study, intergenerational transmission of marital
violence took place only for those men who also condoned violence against a spouse. Alternatively, for
those exposed to family-of-origin violence who do not condone violence, no intergenerational
transmission was found. It thus appears that some males exposed to family-of-origin violence adopt
attitudes that violence is unacceptable and, consequently, do not behave aggressively. These findings
suggest that attitudes about the inappropriateness of violence against women might disrupt linkages
between family-of-origin violence and engaging in spousal violence.
8. Developmental trajectories related to vulnerability and resilience
In general, our understanding of the intergenerational transmission of violence requires an examina-

tion of developmental trajectories from childhood through adolescence and into adulthood. Researchers
generally do not specify the time frame between the family-of-origin violence exposure and the adult
aggression, but these events may span one or two decades. Thus, multiple developmental influences are
likely to intervene between the family-of-origin aggression and marital violence. To understand why
intergenerational transmission occurs for some but not for others, we need to examine developmental
trajectories more comprehensively, and not restrict our focus to the bivariate relations between family-of-
origin aggression and adult aggression (Margolin & Gordis, in press). For some children, family-of-
origin aggression is accompanied by emotional disregulation, cognitive difficulties, and disruptions in
important relationships with caregivers (Capaldi & Clark, 1998; Ehrensaft et al., 2003; Jaffee, Moffitt,
Caspi, Taylor, & Areseneault, 2002; Koenen, Moffitt, Caspi, Taylor, & Purcell, 2003). These disruptions
in important developmental processes then can increase the risk for academic problems, involvement
with deviant peers, substance abuse, conduct disorders, depression, or antisocial behaviors.
Specific developmental variables may prove to play important roles in the intergenerational
transmission of violence, either as mechanisms of transmission or as protective factors. For example,
exposure to domestic violence has been related to childrens delayed intellectual development (Koenen
et al., 2003), which may exacerbate a negative developmental trajectory and increase the risk for conduct
disorders and delinquency (Moffitt, 1993). Alternatively, research has identified high intelligence in
children as protective against aversive circumstances (Masten & Coatsworth, 1998), albeit not specific to
cycles of violence. Associating with a deviant peer group that reinforces coercive relationships and
hostility toward females can be a risk factor for aggression in intimate relationships (Capaldi, Dishion,
Stoolmiller, & Yoerger, 2001). On the positive side, social support has been found to be an important
buffer of the effects of community violence on children (Kliewer, Lepore, Oksin, & Johnson, 1998),
although, as yet, it has received little attention in the research on the intergenerational transmission of
violence. Childrens resilience versus vulnerability to these types of developmental disruptions is likely
to be related to their attitudes about aggression and abusive behaviors in abusive romantic relationships
and also about abusive marital relationships. Additional longitudinal studies are needed to further our
understanding of developmental factors that increase or decrease the risk of family-of-origin violence
being associated with marital aggression.
9. Conclusions and directions for further research
Although there is some truth to the notion that violence begets violence with respect to marital
aggression, mere exposure to violence in the family of origin does not necessarily mean that a man will
become maritally violent. There is a link between growing up in a violent home and engaging in
husband-to-wife abuse, but overall, this link is quite modest, particularly in studies involving
longitudinal designs and multiple reporters. Both witnessing violence and victimization in the family
of origin have been found to be associated with marital violence, with questions still unanswered on the
relative effects of witnessing violence or victimization in the family of origin. Moreover, because
violence in the family of origin often occurs within a generally unhealthy family environment (Repetti et
al., 2002), perhaps, other related aversive experiences account, at least in part, for the link between
family-of-origin violence and the risk of marital violence.
Identifying variables that potentiate or mitigate association between family-of-origin violence and
husband-to-wife violence is important for informing intervention and prevention efforts. Some of the
processes that intervene into the link between family-of-origin violence and marital violence are set into
motion in early childhood, such as childrens immediate reactions to the family-of-origin violence and
the development of antisocial behaviors. Other processes evolve through adolescence and early
adulthood, such as the impact and meaning ascribed to the earlier violent experiences, and attitudes
regarding the legitimacy of violence in intimate relationships. Still, other processes, particularly
regarding the connections established with the marital partner and other people, conflict resolution
style, and substance abuse reflect ongoing life circumstances.
Little is known about the advantages of intervening at different developmental phases. Information
about what developmental transitions are particularly vulnerable to the intergenerational transmission of
aggression are salient to efforts directed at prevention and intervention. Widom (1998), for one,
advocates interventions to prevent family-of-origin aggression, especially child victimization, when
children are very young. Her recommendations include prenatal parent education about child develop-
ment, parenting skills training, and home visits for support during infancy. In addition to interventions to
reduce childrens exposure, recommendations also include direct interventions with young children as
they start school (e.g., Koenen et al., 2003; Widom, 1998). Wolfe et al. (2003) and Wekerle & Wolfe
(1999) target adolescence as a time when the youth make sense of their violence exposure and make
decisions on how to behave in their own romantic relationships. Interventions at this stage can be
directed to influencing childrens and adolescents attitudes about violence and to building social and
conflict-resolution skills.
The data presented here indicate that, although family-of-origin violence is a risk for marital violence,
it is not an insurmountable risk and possibly can be interrupted at various developmental stages. In
understanding the transmission between family-of-origin violence and marital violence, we should direct
our attention to modifiable processes that can be the focus of intervention and prevention efforts.
Identifying ways to interrupt the risk for intergenerational transmission of violence at various
developmental stages is a direction for future research with significant individual and societal
implications.
Acknowledgements
This study was supported in part by a grant from the David and Lucile Packard Foundation awarded
to the second author. We wish to thank our USC Family Studies Center colleagues for their feedback on
earlier versions of this manuscript.
References
Aldarondo, E., & Sugarman, D. B. (1996). Risk marker analysis of the cessation and persistence of wife assault. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64, 1010 1019.
Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Baumrind, D., Lazerle, R. E., & Cowan, P. A. (2002). Ordinary physical punishment: Is it harmful? Comment on Gershoff
(2002). Psychological Bulletin, 128, 580 589.
Benjet, C., & Kazdin, A. E. (2003). Spanking children: The controversies, findings, and new directions. Clinical Psychology
Review, 23, 197 224.
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., Dishion, T. J., Stoolmiller, M., & Yoerger, K. (2001). Aggression toward female partner by at-risk young men:
The contribution of male adolescent friendships. Developmental Psychology, 37, 61 73.
Caesar, P. L. (1988). Exposure to violence in the families-of-origin among wife-abusers and maritally nonviolent men. Violence
and Victims, 3, 49 63.
Carter, J., Stacey, W. A., & Shupe, A. W. (1988). Male violence against women: Assessment of the generational transfer
hypothesis. Deviant Behavior, 9, 259 273.
Choice, P., Lamke, L. K., & Pittman, J. F. (1995). Conflict resolution strategies and marital distress as mediating factors in the
link between witnessing interparental violence and wife battering. Violence and Victims, 10, 107 119.
Corvo, K., & Carpenter, E. H. (2000). Effects of parental substance abuse on current levels of domestic violence: A possible
elaboration of intergenerational transmission process. Journal of Family Violence, 15, 123 135.
Delsol, C., Margolin, G., & John, R. S. (2003). A typology of martially violent men and correlates of violence in a community
sample. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 635 651.
DiLalla, L. F., & Gottesman, I. I. (1991). Biological and genetic contributors to violence: Widoms untold tale. Psychological
Bulletin, 109, 125 129.
Doumas, D., Margolin, G., & John, R. S. (1994). The intergenerational transmission of aggression across three generations.
Journal of Family Violence, 9, 157 175.
Dutton, D. G. (1995). Trauma symptoms and PTSD-like profiles in perpetrators of intimate abuse. Journal of Traumatic Stress,
8, 299 316.
Dutton, D. G. (2003). The abusive personality: Violence and control in intimate relationships. New York: Guilford Press.
Dutton, D. G., & Hart, S. D. (1992). Risk markers for family violence in a federally incarcerated population. International
Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 15, 101 112.
Dutton, D. G., & Holtzworth-Munroe, A. (1997). The role of early trauma in males who assault their wives. In D. Cicchetti, &
S. Toth (Eds.), Developmental perspectives on trauma: Theory, research, and intervention. Rochester, NY: University of
Rochester Press.
Dutton, D. G., Starzomski, A., & Ryan, L. (1996). Antecedents of abusive personality and abusive behavior in wife assaulters.
Journal of Family Violence, 11, 113 132.
Dutton, D. G., van Ginkel, C., & Starzomski, A. (1995). The role of shame and guilt in the intergenerational transmission of
abusiveness. Violence and Victims, 10, 121 131.
Ehrensaft, M. K., Cohen, P., Brown, J., Smailes, E., Chen, H., & Johnson, J. G. (2003). Intergenerational trans-
mission of partner violence: A 20-year prospective study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71,
741 753.
Feldman, C. M. (1997). Childhood precursors of adult interpartner violence. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 4,
307 334.
Fergusson, D. M., Horwood, L. J., & Woodward, L. J. (2000). The stability of child abuse reports: A longitudinal study of the
reporting behaviour of young adults. Psychological Medicine, 30, 529 544.
Ganley, A. (1989). Integrating feminist and social learning analyses of aggression: Creating multiple models for intervention
with men who batter. In P. L. Caesar, & L. K. Hamberger (Eds.), Treating men who batter: Theory, practice, and programs
( pp. 196 235). New York: Springer.
Gershoff, E. T. (2002). Corporal punishment by parents and associated child behaviors and experiences: A meta-analytic and
theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 539 579.
Gortner, E. T., Gollan, J. K., & Jacobson, N. S. (1997). Psychological aspects of perpetrators of domestic violence and their
relationship with the victims. Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 20, 337 352.
Haj-Yahia, M. M. (1997). Predicting beliefs about wife beating among engaged Arab men in Israel. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 12, 530 545.
Hamberger, K., & Hastings, J. E. (1991). Personality correlates of men who batter and nonviolent men: Some continuities and
discontinuities. Journal of Family Violence, 6, 131 147.
Hanson, K. R., Cadsky, O., Harris, A., & Lalonde, C. (1997). Correlates of battering among 997 men: Family history,
adjustment, and attitudinal differences. Violence and Victims, 12, 191 208.
Hastings, J. E., & Hamberger, L. K. (1988). Personality characteristics of spouse abusers: A controlled comparison. Violence
and Victims, 3, 31 47.
Hines, D. A., & Saudino, K. J. (2002). Intergenerational transmission of intimate partner violence: A behavioral genetic
perspective. Trauma, Violence, and Abuse, 3, 210 225.
Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Holden, G., & Ritchie, K. (1991). Linking extreme marital discord, child rearing, and child behavior problems: Evidence from
battered women. Child Development, 62, 311 327.
Holtzworth-Munroe, A., Bates, L., Smutzler, N., & Sandin, E. (1997). A brief review of the research on husband violence: Part
I. Maritally violent versus nonviolent men. Aggression and Violent Behaviour, 2, 65 99.
Holtzworth-Munroe, A., Meehan, J. C., Herron, K., Rehman, U., & Stuart, G. L. (2000). Testing the Holtzworth-Munroe and
Stuart (1994) batterer typology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, 1000 1019.
Holtzworth-Munroe, A., & Stuart, L. (1994). Typologies of male batterers: Three subtypes and the differences among them.
Psychological Bulletin, 116, 476 497.
Hotaling, G. T., & Sugarman, D. B. (1986). An analysis of risk markers in husband to wife violence: The current state of
knowledge. Violence and Victims, 1, 101 124.
Howell, M. J., & Pugliesi, K. L. (1988). Husbands who harm: Predicting spousal violence by men. Journal of Family Violence,
3, 15 27.
Jacobson, N. S., Gottman, J. M., & Shortt, J. W. (1995). The distinction between type 1 and type 2 batterers-further
considerations: Reply to Ornduff et al. (1995), Margolin et al. (1995), and Walker (1995). Journal of Family Psychology,
9, 272 279.
Jaffe, P., Wolfe, D., & Wilson, S. (1990). Children of battered women. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Jaffee, S. R., Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., Taylor, A., & Areseneault, L. (2002). The influence of adult domestic violence on
childrens internalizing and externalizing problems: An environmentally-informative twin study. Journal of the American
Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 41, 1095 1103.
Johnson, M. P., & Ferraro, K. J. (2000). Research on domestic violence in the 1990s: Making distinctions. Journal of Marriage
and the Family, 62, 948 963.
Julian, T. W., McKenry, P. C., Gavazzi, S. M., & Law, J. C. (1999). Test of family of origin structural models of male verbal and
physical aggression. Journal of Family Issues, 20, 397 423.
Kalmuss, D. (1984). The intergenerational transmission of marital aggression. The Journal of Marriage and the Family, 46,
11 20.
Kaufman, J., & Zigler, E. (1987). Do abused children become abusive parents? American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 57,
186 192.
Kliewer, W., Lepore, S. J., Oskin, D., & Johnson, P. D. (1998). The role of social and cognitive processes in childrens
adjustment to community violence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 199 209.
Koenen, K. C., Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., Taylor, A., & Purcell, S. (2003). Domestic violence is associated with environmental
suppression of IQ in young children. Development and Psychopathology, 15, 297 311.
Lackey, C., & Williams, K. R. (1995). Social bonding and the cessation of partner violence across generations. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 57, 295 305.
Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., Neidig, P., & Thorn, G. (1995). Violent marriages: Gender differences in levels of current violence
and past abuse. Journal of Family Violence, 10, 159 176.
Leonard, K. E., & Senchak, M. (1996). Prospective prediction of husband marital aggression within newlywed couples. Journal
of Abnormal Psychology, 105, 369 380.
Levendosky, A. A., & Graham-Bermann, S. A. (2000). Behavioral observations of parenting in battered women. Journal of
Family Psychology, 14, 80 94.
Levesque, R. J. R. (2001). Culture and family violence: Fostering change through human rights law. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
MacEwen, K. E. (1994). Refining the intergenerational transmission hypothesis. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 9, 350 365.
MacEwen, K. E., & Barling, J. (1988). Multiple stressors, violence in the family of origin, and marital aggression: A
longitudinal investigation. Journal of Family Violence, 3, 73 87.
Magdol, L., Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., & Silva, P. A. (1998). Developmental antecedents of partner abuse: A prospective-
longitudinal study. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 107, 375 389.
Margolin, G., & Fernandez, V. (1987). The spontaneous cessation of marital violence: Three case examples. Journal of
Marital and Family Therapy, 13, 77 84.
Margolin, G., & Gordis, E. (2000). The effects of family and community violence on children. Annual Review of Psychology,
51, 445 479.
Margolin, G. & Gordis, E. (in press). Childrens violence exposure in the family and community. Current Directions in
Psychology.
Margolin, G., Gordis, E. B., Medina, A. M., & Oliver, P. (2003). The co-occurrence of husband-to-wife aggression, family-of-
origin aggression, and child abuse potential in a community sample: Implications for parenting. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 413 440.
Margolin, G., Gordis, E. B., & Oliver, P. O. (2003). Linkages across marital and parent-child interactions: Family systems
perspectives. Submitted for review.
Margolin, G., John, R. S., & Foo, L. (1998). Interactive and unique risk factors for husbands emotional and physical abuse of
their wives. Journal of Family Violence, 13, 315 344.
Masten, A. S., & Coatsworth, J. D. (1998). The development of competence in favorable and unfavorable environments:
Lessons learned from research on successful children. American Psychologist, 53, 205 220.
McNeal, C., & Amato, P. R. (1998). Parents marital violence: Long-term consequences for children. Journal of Family Issues,
19, 123 139.
Mihalic, S. W., & Elliott, D. (1997). A social learning theory model of marital violence. Journal of Family Violence, 12, 21 47.
Miles, D. R., & Carey, G. (1997). Genetic and environmental architecture of human aggression. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 72, 207 217.
Moffitt, T. E. (1993). The neuropsyhologoy of conduct disorder. Development and Psychopathology, 5, 135 151.
Murphy, C. M., Meyer, S. -L., & OLeary, K. D. (1993). Family of origin violence and MCMI-II psychopathology among
partner assaultive men. Violence and Victims, 8, 165 175.
OBrien, M., Margolin, G., & John, R. S. (1995). Relation among marital conflict, child coping, and child adjustment. Journal
of Clinical Child Psychology, 24, 346 361.
OHearn, H. G., & Margolin, G. (2000). Mens attitudes condoning marital aggression: A moderator between family of origin
abuse and aggression against female partners. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 24, 159 174.
OLeary, K. D. (1999). Developmental and affective issues in assessing and treating partner aggression. Clinical Psychology:
Science and Practice, 6, 400 414.
OLeary, K. D., & Curley, A. D. (1986). Assertion and family violence: Correlates of spouse abuse. Journal of Marital and
Family Therapy, 12, 281 289.
OLeary, K. D., Malone, J., & Tyree, A. (1994). Physical aggression in early marriage: Prerelationship and relationship effects.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, 594 602.
Patterson, G. R., Reid, J. B., & Dishion, T. J. (1992). Antisocial boys. Eugene, OR: Castalia.
Repetti, R. L., Taylor, S. E., & Seeman, T. E. (2002). Risky families: Family social environments and the mental and physical
health of offspring. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 330 366.
Rosenbaum, A., & OLeary, K. D. (1981). Marital violence: Characteristics of abusive couples. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 49, 63 71.
Saunders, D. G. (1992). A typology of men who batter: Three types derived from cluster analysis. American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, 62, 264 275.
Simons, R. L., & Johnson, C. (1998). An examination of competing explanations for the intergenerational transmission of
domestic violence. In Y. Danieli (Ed.), International handbook of multigeneration legacies of trauma ( pp. 553 570). New
York: Plenum.
Simons, R. L., Wu, C., Johnson, C., & Conger, R. D. (1995). A test of various perspectives on the intergenerational
transmission of domestic violence. Criminology, 33, 141 172.
Stith, S. M., & Farley, S. C. (1993). A predictive model of male spousal violence. Journal of Family Violence, 8, 183 201.
Stith, S. M., Rosen, K. H., Middleton, K. A., Busch, A. L., Lundeberg, K., & Carlton, R. P. (2000). The intergenerational
transmission of spouse abuse: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 640 654.
Straus, M. A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The Conflict Tactics Scales. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 41, 75 88.
Straus, M. A., & Smith, C. (1990). Family patterns and child abuse. In M. A. Straus, & R. J. Gelles (Eds.), Physical violence in
American families ( pp. 245 261). New Brunswick, NY: Transaction.
Straus, M. A., & Stewart, J. H. (1999). Corporal punishment by American parents: National data on prevalence, chronicity,
severity, and duration, in relation to child and family characteristics. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 2, 55 70.
Waltz, J., Babcock, J. C., Jacobson, N. S., & Gottman, J. M. (2000). Testing a typology of batterers. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 68, 658 669.
Wekerle, C., & Wolfe, D. A. (1999). Dating violence in mid-adolescence: Theory significance, and emerging prevention
initiatives. Clinical Psychology Review, 19, 435 456.
Widom, C. S. (1989). Does violence beget violence? A critical examination of the literature. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 3 28.
Widom, C. S. (1998). Child victims: Searching for opportunities to break the cycle of violence. Applied and Preventive
Psychology, 7, 225 234.
Widom, C. S., & Shepard, R. L. (1996). Accuracy of adult recollections of childhood victimization: Part 1. Childhood physical
abuse. Psychological Assessment, 8, 412 421.
Wolfe, D. A., Wekerle, C., Scott, K., Straatman, A., Grasley, C., & Reitzel-Jaffe, D. (2003). Dating violence prevention with at-
risk youth: A controlled outcome evaluation. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71, 279 291.

Flia de Origen y Violencia en Hombres 2004 PDF

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Flia de Origen y Violencia en Hombres 2004 PDF

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Clinical Psychology Review 24 (2004) 99 122

The role of family-of-origin violence in

Keywords: Family-of-origin violence; Marital violence perpetration; Husband-to-wife aggression

2. Data on family-of-origin violence and marital violence

To determine whether there is such a thing as an intergenerational transmission of violence, studies

4. Prospective and longitudinal studies

5. What are the mechanisms of transmission across generations?

5.1. Social learning theory

5.1.1. Legitimacy of violence

5.2. Attachment disruption

A third theoretical framework for the intergenerational transmission is attachment disruption

5.3. Family disruption

A fourth theoretical model to explain intergenerational transmission of marital violence is an

5.4. Continuity of antisocial behavior

5.5. Genetics and heritability

6.1. Personal characteristics

history of family-of-origin violence to be a significant contributor to husbands hostility, gender identity

6.2. Contextual factors

A different approach to understanding the intergenerational transmission of violence is to try to

7.1. Interpersonal factors

7.2. Individual interpretations and reactions to childhood violence

8. Developmental trajectories related to vulnerability and resilience

In general, our understanding of the intergenerational transmission of violence requires an examina-

9. Conclusions and directions for further research

Você também pode gostar