Family
Advocacy
Research
Digests

RESEARCH REVIEWCURRENT RESEARCH FOR FAMILY ADVOCACY PROGRAMS • Volume 3, Issue 2 • Fall 2018
In this Issue

We present the Research Review (RR), a publication of the Joining Forces Joining Families (JFJF)
group. RR consists of summaries of research of interest to family advocacy, medical, and social service
providers. These summaries include articles on child maltreatment and intimate partner violence(IPV) issues that may not be commonly encountered in research and practice. We present articles
on how intimate partner violence (IPV) can affect a victim in the workplace, animal abuse and its
association with IPV, how providers can inquire about the welfare of a pet, parental burnout and its
association with child maltreatment, challenges of working with batterers, and controlling behavior as
IPV and child maltreatment. Other summaries of articles on child maltreatment include the misattribution of infants’ personalities by parents and caretakers and its relation to the risk of child maltreatment, and the risk of violence to child protection workers.
IN T I MATE PARTNER VIOLENCE

Intimate Partner Violence is an Occupational Issue
as Well as a Personal One
Intimate partner violence (IPV) is not limited to thehome. As a public health issue, it can involve many others
including coworkers. IPV in the workplace is frequently an
economic issue for victims in terms of employment status(forced victim to quit work or not look for work, lost wages,
and limits on lifetime earnings), health care costs, criminaland civil justice expenses, as well as the risk of homicide.
A Canadian study of the relationships of IPV, work, andhealth was conducted via an online survey between December 2013-June 2014 (Wathen, MacGregor, & MacQuarrie,
2015; 2018). The survey was available to anyone 15 years orolder regardless of IPV experience or work status. A total of
8,429 persons completed the survey (78.4% women). Measures were demographic characteristics, employment status,
IPV status, impact of IPV on work, quality of life, and health.

Contents

Intimate Partner Violence is an Occupational Issue
as Well as a Personal One…………………………………1
Animal Abuse is Associated with IPV…………………………2
Maltreatment and Animal Abuse: When Should You be
Concerned? ………………………………………………3
Challenges of Working with Batterers…………………………4

The great majority (95.4%) were working in some way. Workstatus was defined as permanent, temporary/fixed term
contract, casual/seasonal, unemployed, and other. IPV status
was current, 6.5%; past 12 months, 3.3%; more than past 12
months, 31.5%. The total lifetime IPV was 33.6%.
Respondents reported the following impacts of IPV at ornear work: ability to get to work (abuser hiding keys, madelate or missed work), job loss and time off, and impact on coworkers (coworkers stressed or concerned for victim). For allthese outcomes, men were much less affected than women.
IPV at multiple time points was associated with poorer
general health, mental health and quality of life. Respondents
with lifetime IPV experience and not currently working had
the lowest quality of life.
Continued on page 4

Risks of Violence for Child Protection Workers………………5
Parental Burnout and Child Neglect and Abuse………………6
Controlling Behavior and Intimate Partner Violence……………6
Parental Misattributions of Infants’ Personality May Be
Predictors of Child Maltreatment…………………………8

IN T I MATE PARTNER VIOLENCE

Animal Abuse is Associated with IPV
In most families with pet animals, the welfare of theanimal is important. However, that is not always the case,particularly when intimate partner violence (IPV) occurs.
Pet abuse is often used as a means of control over the partner. In order to understand relationships between IPV andpet welfare, a study was conducted in a battered women’s
shelter in Canada (Barrett, Fitzgerald, Stevenson, & Cheung,2017). Participants took the Partner’s Treatment of Animals
Scale (PTAS) (Fitzgerald, Barrett, Shwom, Stevenson, &Chernyak, 2016), the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2)(Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996), and the
Checklist of Controlling Behaviors (CCB) (Lehmann, Simmons, & Pillai, 2012). The PTAS is a 21-item scale measuring
five types of acts of commission and omission perpetrated
to cause physical or emotional harm to animals (see Table).
The CTS2 has 78 items measuring the type and severity ofconflict tactics of perpetrators and victims in an intimate relationship. The CCB is an 84-item instrument that addresses
violence and coercive control in violent relationships. It has
10 subscales: physical abuse, sexual abuse, male privilege,isolation, minimizing and denying, blaming, intimidation,
threats, emotional abuse, and economic abuse.
Participant women were divided into three groups:
women with no pets (n=31), women with pets who reported
little or no animal maltreatment (n=21), and women withpets who reported frequent or severe animal maltreatment(n=34). The most common form of animal maltreatment

was threatening to get rid of the pet, 65.5%. The most frequently reported severe abuse was injury of a pet, 20%. Morethan half the sample stated that the abuse had never beenreported to the authorities. Eighty-nine percent of women
who had pets reported that their partner had mistreatedthem. In general, women whose pets were more frequently
and severely abused reported greater levels of violence andcoercive control directed at them.
Women with pets who want to leave an abusive relationship are often concerned about the safety of their animals.
Fifty-six percent of women with pets who lived in a shelter
for battered women reported that they had delayed leaving
the relationship due to concern for their pet (Barrett, Fitzgerald, Stevenson, & Cheung, 2017). Animal welfare (n=32) andTable. Types of Animal Abuse and Examples inPartner’s Treatment of Animals Scale
Emotional abuse
Threats to harm
Physical neglect
Physical abuse
Severe physical abuse

Five items, e.g., Leaving a pet outside
longer than safe
Four items, e.g., Threatening to get rid
of a petThree items, e.g., Refusing to feed apetFive items, e.g., Kicking a pet
Four items, e.g., Breaking a pet’sbonesContinued on page 3

The welfare of a family pet is often in jeopardy when there is intimate partner violence (IPV).
Pet abuse is often used as a means of control over the partner.

JOINING FORCES
Joining Families

RESEARCH REVIEW
Editor-in-Chief
James E. McCarroll, PhD
e-mail to James.McCarroll.ctr@usuhs.mil(301) 377-9479

Editorial Consultant
Joshua C. Morganstein, MD
Captain, U.S. Public Health Service
Associate Professor/Assistant Chair and Scientist
Center for the Study of Traumatic Stress
Department of Psychiatry, Uniformed Services University

Joining Forces Joining Families—Research Review is a publication of the Family Violence andTrauma Project, Center for the Study of Traumatic Stress, Department of Psychiatry, Uniformed
Services University, Bethesda, Maryland 20814, and the U.S. Army Installation Management
Command, Fort Sam Houston, TX 78234.
2 • RESEARCH REVIEW | Joining Forces/Joining Families

Fall 2018

IN T IMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE

Maltreatment and Animal Abuse: When Should You be Concerned?
Abuse of animals by children and adults is not uncommon. For adults, animal abuse may be related to intimate
partner violence (IPV) as a means of controlling a partner.
For children, it may include abuse of animals by children as
well as the effects of watching pets being abused by parents
or caretakers.
There are many issues of concern about the well-beingof pets for providers and for parents when there is IPV andchild maltreatment in the family, including children who
abuse animals. [See Research Review Vol. 2, Issue 2, Summer
2017 for a review of IPV and animal abuse.] When evaluating abused children and adults it should be normal practiceby providers to inquire the welfare and safety of pets. FINISH is a mnemonic for questions that should be asked when
there is suspicion that pet animals are being abused. FINISH
provides guidelines for the safe care of pets (Lee-Kelland, &Finlay, 2018).

F
I

FOOD — Are pet animals adequately fed and watered?
INJURY — Have family animals been injured or died 		and were they taken to a vet?
N NUMBER — How many pets are there in the household
and is there a high turnover due to death or injury?
I INTIMIDATION — Is the treatment of animals ever 		
used to intimidate or control other family members?
S SHELTER — Are animals adequately housed?
H HOW — Are injuries to animals consistent with the 		mechanism given? (For example, are the injuries 		
consistent with the owner’s explanation?)
There are resources to help parents and providers learn
about ways to prevent animal abuse. The National Link
Coalition (nationallinkcoalition.org/) has resources as well asa means to report animal abuse in every US state. The UK,
National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children(nspcc.org.uk/) has information and resources for understanding the links between animal abuse, child maltreatment,
and domestic violence.
Continued on page 5

When evaluating abused children and adults it should be normal practice toinquire about the welfare and safety of pets.
Animal Abuse is Associated with IPV, from p. 2
IPV service providers (n=47) in Canada found that many
IPV service provider agencies were unable to assist with animal safeguards to assist women attempting to leave an abusive partner (Wuerch, Giesbrecht, Jeffrey, Knutson, & Wach,2018). Thirty-five percent did not ask participants if they had
animals. However, 47% reported that their agency works withanimal welfare agencies. Eighty-four percent of animal welfare agencies reported that they were able to accommodate
animals for short periods of time, a few days to a week.
The inability to create safe plans for pets poses safetyissues for some women, leaving them feeling trapped in an
abusive relationship. Policies and procedures that enhancecollaboration between IPV services and animal welfare agencies could help reduce these barriers. When IPV is suspected
or confirmed, social welfare and healthcare personnel shouldinquire about animal abuse as part of a comprehensive evaluation of potential barriers a victim may face in efforts to leavea harmful relationship.

http://www.CSTSonline.org

References

Barrett BJ, Fitzgerald A, Stevenson R, & Cheung CH. (2017).
Animal maltreatment as a risk marker of more frequentand severe forms of intimate partner violence. Journal ofInterpersonal Violence; doi:10.177/0886260517719542.
Fitzgerald A, Barrett B, Shwom R, Stevenson R, & Chernyak
E. (2016). Development of the partner’s treatment of animals scale. Anthrozoos; 29(4): 611–625.
Lehmann P, Simmons CA, & Pillai VK. (2012). The validation of the checklist of controlling behaviors (CCB): Assessing coercive control in abusive relationships. Violence
Against Women; 18(8): 913–933.
Straus MA, Hamby SL, Boney-McCoy S, & Sugarman DB.
(1996). The Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2). Journalof Family Issues; 17: 283–316.
Wuerch MA, Giesbrecht C, Jeffrey N, Knutson T, & Wach
F. (2018). Intimate partner violence and concern foranimal care and safekeeping: Experiences of service
providers in Canada. Journal of Interpersonal Violence.
doi.10.1177/0886260518795503.
RESEARCH REVIEW | Joining Forces/Joining Families • 3

IPV is an Occupational Issue, from p. 1
There are complex interactions between IPV, work, andhealth. This research indicates that IPV is not just a domestic
issue, but is one that affects victims’ work lives as well as the
lives of their coworkers. Among participants with a history
of IPV, for the three health outcomes (general health, mental
health, and quality of life), those who were currently working had a better outcome than those who were not working,suggesting the protective effect of employment on well-being.
Thus employment status moderated the relationship between
IPV exposure and health status.
IPV that extends to the workplace may indicate theseverity of violence as well as the presence of harassment andstalking. Providers assisting IPV clients should inquire about
their current work status, work history, and their ability toparticipate in and maintain employment. This information

can help a provider assess the occupational effects of IPV
as well as the victim’s safety at home and away from home.
Resources and support to assist victims in establishing andmaintaining employment may have protective effects on
health and quality of life.

References

Wathen CN, MacGregor JCD, & MacQuarrie BJ. (2015). The
impact of domestic violence in the workplace. Journal of
Occupational and Environmental Medicine; 57(7): e65–e71.
Wathen CN, MacGregor JCD, & MacQuarrie BJ. (2018).
Relationships among intimate partner violence, work, andhealth. Journal of Interpersonal Violence; 33(14); 2268–
2290.

There are complex interactions between IPV, work, and health. IPV is not just a domestic issue,
but is one that affects victims’ work lives as well as the lives of their coworkers
IN T I MATE PARTNER VIOLENCE

Challenges of Working with Batterers
Batterer intervention programs (BIPs) are frequently required by states for treatment of (largely male) batterers who
have been charged or convicted of intimate partner violence(IPV) offenses. Morrison et al. (2018) briefly reviewed the
purposes and methods of BIPs with the conclusion that these
programs are generally not effective in reducing recidivism.
They conducted a 2-year ethnographic study between 20132015 of two community-based BIPs for male IPV perpetrators in a U.S. urban area investigating factors that promoted
or impeded change among the clients. Their methodology
including observing BIP groups, conducting debriefing interviews with facilitators, and semi-structured interviews withfacilitators and other professionals who had contact withperpetrators. Topics addressed in the interviews were barriers to program success in changing the batterers’ behavior,means of facilitation, best practices, factors contributing to
IPV perpetration, and suggestions for improving BIPs.
Six themes emerged from the interviews as barriers to
behavior change (see table).
1. Social acceptance of violence. This theme described that,in general, society was permissive of violence toward
women, which made it difficult for clients to understand
why their behavior was problematic.
2. Hypermasculine attitudes. This barrier was expressed as
men needing to be strong and not show sensitivity, whichmight be seen as signs of weakness.
3. Emotional issues. Perpetrators were often unable toidentify any emotions other than anger. This barrier was
the difficulty of promoting emotional knowledge and4 • RESEARCH REVIEW | Joining Forces/Joining Families

awareness.
4. History of exposure to violence. Many batterers were
exposed to violence as children and had been the victimsof violence themselves. One of the issues often left unaddressed in this barrier was that batterers often have theirown unaddressed trauma. Another barrier was that basedon their history of trauma; batterers are often desensitized to abusive behavior.
5. Mental health and substance abuse problems. These issues are often untreated in BIP clients. This barrier limits
intervention when clients are unable to address theircomorbid mental health or substance abuse problems
6. Denial, minimization, and blame. These are complex,
interactive factors that make it difficult for BIP clients totake responsibility for their behavior.
The challenges and barriers addressed in this study
involve individual, interpersonal, and societal issues facedby BIP clients and group facilitators. Each of the six factors
described is a candidate for intervention to aid in preventionof IPV perpetration. Reducing recidivism is difficult whenclients do not accept their accountability or address their
cognitive distortions displayed in denial of their behaviors.
An awareness of the barriers identified may help family
advocacy, healthcare and social services personnel to better
understand and prepare for the complex challenges inherent in working with batterers in the context of IPV and to
think of specific interventions for the specific barriers of anindividual perpetrator.
Continued on page 5
Fall 2018

CHILD MALTREATMENT

Risks of Violence for Child Protection Workers
Experiences of violence can be encountered in many
human services occupations and settings. Child protection
workers (CPWs) can function in a particularly risky environment. They often work with involuntary clients and theconsequences of their work can have unwanted adverse impacts for their clients and their families. The study reviewed
here documented CPWs experiences of physical and psychological violence in communities and in residential settings(Lamothe et al, 2018).
Thirty CPWs in Montreal, Canada, described theirexperiences of violence via semi-structured interviews that
occurred between November 2013 and July 2014. Fourteen
worked in community settings where they were tasked withperforming investigations and outreach treatment services.
The remaining 16 worked in residential settings performing
treatment. Eighteen were female and 12 were male. The interviews resulted in four broad categories: descriptions of theviolence, how the violence was perceived including attributions, consequences, and impacts.
Psychological violence was described as ranging from
relatively minor, such as sarcasm, to more severe actions, suchas destroying property. Physical violence included intentionalharm and intentions to do so such as throwing things andthreats of violence. While violence was found to be a recurring and pervasive problem, CPWs perceived it differently.
Some saw client violence as a part of their job while others saw it as a cry for help. Violence as part of the job wasdescribed as unpredictable and quickly escalating to a violent
state resulting in fear for safety and emotional reactions of

the CPW, such as crying after the event. Violence as a cry forhelp involved attributions of client violence as expressions ofpain and suffering as well as possible mental health issues.
Consequences experienced by CPWs were psychologicaland organizational. Psychological impacts included emotional reactions as well as effects on their families. Organizational
impacts were feeling less motivated, high use of sick leave,and strained relationships with clients. The most common
coping strategies were reaching out to co-workers, teamwork,and training. However, lack of support or feedback from supervisors often left workers to self-evaluate, to feel neglected,
and that their concerns were ignored.
While this study was conducted on a small number ofparticipants, there are lessons for many who work with involuntary clients. Maintaining a stable, reliable, and well-trained
work force are important for helping families. Particularly
important is the maintenance of regular and supportive
supervision as well as an organizational atmosphere of teamwork and lack of blaming, both for the individual and for theorganization.

Reference

Lamothe J, Couvrette A, Lebrun G, Yale G, Roy C, Guay S, &Geoffrion. (2018). Violence against child protection workers: A study of workers’ experiences, attributions, andcoping strategies. Child Abuse & Neglect: 81: 308–321.

There are personal and organizational aspects to maintaining a stable, reliable, and well-trained
human service work force. Particularly important is the maintenance of regular and supportive
supervision as well as an atmosphere of teamwork and lack of blaming.

Challenges of Working with Batterers, from p. 4

Maltreatment and Animal Abuse, from p. 3

Reference

References

Morrison PK, Hawker L, Cluss PA, Miller E, Fleming R, Bicehouse T, … Chang JC. (2018). The challenges of working with men who perpetrate partner violence: Perspectives and observations of experts who work with batterer
intervention programs. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,
doi:10.1177/0886260518778258.

http://www.CSTSonline.org

Lee-Kelland R, & Finlay F. (2018). Children who abuse animals: when should you be concerned about child abuse? A
review of the literature. Archive of Diseases of Childhood;
103: 801–805.

RESEARCH REVIEW | Joining Forces/Joining Families • 5

C HILD MALTREATMENT

Parental Burnout and Child Neglect and Abuse
Parenting is complex and stressful and can lead toexhaustion of the parent, disturbances in family relationships, and maltreatment of children. In the study reviewed
here, parental burnout was measured by a 22-item scale that
includes three factors: (1) emotional exhaustion related toparenting, (2) emotional distancing from one’s children, and(3) a sense of one’s ineffectiveness in parenting (Roskam
Raes, & Mikoajczak, 2017). In a study of the relationship ofparental burnout to socio-demographic factors, 1,551 parents
responded to survey questionnaires on consequences for theparents (escape and suicidal ideations), consequences forthe partner/spouse (quarreling and quarreling in front ofchildren), consequences for that children (violence and neglect), addictions (alcohol, drugs, gambling, and others suchas mobile phone use), partner estrangement, sleep problems,and job burnout (Mikolajczak, Brianda, Avalosse, & Roskam,2018).
The global score of parental burnout was significantly related to all consequences studied, but the highest correlation
was with child neglect (0.55). Child neglect and other childmaltreatments have been associated with war deployment
and perhaps were related to the burden of single parenting by
the non-deployed parent (Gibbs, Martin, Kupper, & Johnson, 2007; McCarroll, Fan, Newby, & Ursano, 2008). Highcorrelations of parental burnout were also found with childabuse (0.51) and parental ideations of escapism and suicide(0.51). Lower, but still significant, correlations were foundfor partner conflicts and estrangement, sleep problems, andconsequences of addictions.
The three specific components of parental burnout emotional exhaustion, emotional distancing, and a sense of
one’s ineffectiveness in parenting - identified in this article

are concepts that providers can use to assist parents dealing
with overwhelming stress. Providers can assess for adverse
psychological and behavioral consequences, and provide
education and referrals for parents experiencing persistentor increasing difficulties.
Parental burnout is a concept of which all providers
who have contact with parents should be aware. How to
detect and intervene for specific aspects of burnout is an
important aspect of provider care. Given the range of its
adverse impacts, it is an important public health concern
to address in efforts to decrease child abuse and neglect aswell as to improve the relationships between parents andbetween parents and children.

References

Gibbs DA, Martin SL, Kupper LL, & Johnson RE. (2007).
Child maltreatment in enlisted soldiers’ families during
combat-related deployments. JAMA; 298(5): 528–535.
McCarroll JE Fan Z, Newby JH, & Ursano RJ. (2008).
Trends in US Army child maltreatment reports: 19902004. Child Abuse Review; 17: 108–118.
Mikolajczak M, Brianda ME, Avalosse H, & Roskam I.
(2018). Consequences of parental burnout: Its specificeffect on child neglect and violence. Child Abuse &Neglect; 80: 134–145.
Roskam I, Raes M-E, & Mikolajczak M. (2017). Exhausted
parents: Development and preliminary validation of theparental burnout inventory. Frontiers in Psychology; doi:
10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00163.

Emotional exhaustion, emotional distancing from one’s children, and a sense of one’s
ineffectiveness in parenting are components of parental burnout.
IN T I MATE PARTNER VIOLENCE

Controlling Behavior and Intimate Partner Violence
The types of abusive behaviors that occur in relationships
and families have broadened beyond physical, sexual, andemotional abuse and neglect. Now included among abusive
behaviors in both adult relationships and with children arecontrol and coercion. Coercive control is the use of both violent and nonviolent tactics aimed at maintaining dominanceover one’s partner. It is often associated with acts of IPV andchild adjustment difficulties. Among couples, it includes
6 • RESEARCH REVIEW | Joining Forces/Joining Families

attempts to denigrate or restrict a partner’s behavior, undermine a partner’s self-image, or both. Because of the hostile,
punitive, and threatening processes at the core of coercive
control, coercive control in the context of IPV may be especially threatening to children (Jouriles and McDonald, 2015).
In the study reported here participants in a general
population sample (n=427) in Britain responded to an online
survey measuring IPV and controlling behaviors and theContinued on page 7
Fall 2018

Controlling Behavior and IPV, from p.6
relationship between these two (Walker, Sleath, & Tramontano, 2017). IPV was measured by the Revised Conflict
Tactics Scales (CTS2), which measures conflict-resolution
tactics (Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996).
Five types of controlling behavior (economic, threatening,
intimidating, emotional, and isolating) were measured by the
Revised Controlling Behaviors Scale (CBS-R; Graham-Kevin& Archer, 2008). Both the CTR2 and the CBS-R measureboth perpetration and victimization.
On the CBS-R, a high percentage of male and female
respondents reported both perpetration of abusive controlling behavior (males, 86%; females, 84%) and victimization (males, 85%; females, 79%). Perpetration of economic
control was the most prevalent type (males, 68%; females,70%). There were no statistically significant differences for
intimidating (males, 60%; females, 54%) or emotional control(males, 61%; females, 55%). Females reported significantly
higher percentages of threating (37% vs. 26%, respectively)
and isolating (67% vs. 60%, respectively).
Cluster analysis, a statistical procedure to identify subgroups/subtypes of controlling behaviors measured by the
CBS-R, identified five different subgroups (clusters) of controlling behavior for both perpetration and victimization.
The clusters and percentages of respondents for perpetrationand victimization were:(1) Perpetration high (4.2%)
Victimization high (10.4%(2) Perpetration intermediate (19.6%) Victimization intermediate (19.3%)(3) Perpetration average (25.5%)
Victimization average (21.3%)(4) Perpetration low (30.4%)
Victimization low (28.0%)(5) Perpetration extremely low (19.6%) Victimization extremely low (16.1%)

As noted above, high perpetration and high victimization had the lowest percentages of respondents, 4% and 10%,respectively. Low perpetration and low victimization had thehighest percentage of respondents, 30.4% and 28%, respectively. In other words, only a small percentage of respondents
reported high levels of controlling behavior while the largest
percentage reported low levels.

Factor analysis of responses to identify the overall factorsthat compose IPV revealed six factors for both perpetrationand victimization of IPV: (1) negotiation, (2) minor psychological aggression, (3) severe psychological aggression, (4)minor physical assault, (5) severe physical assault, and (6)minor sexual coercion. Perpetration of minor psychologicalaggression was the most prevalent behavior (males, 70%, andfemales, 71%) and severe physical assault was the least prevalent (males, 2.7%; females, 3.2%) in the current year.
Further analysis tied together the five clusters of controlling behaviors reported on the CBS-R to the six factors found
for the IPV reported on the CTS2. When the clusters on the
CBS-R were differentiated in the respondents’ use of violence(IPV) as measured by the CTS2, the cluster with the highest
perpetration of controlling behaviors had the highest levelsof IPV perpetration. The extremely low perpetration of controlling behaviors had the lowest levels of IPV perpetration.
This study provides an additional framework for clinicians to consider in anticipating the occurrence of IPV. In
addition, addressing controlling behavior as an intervention
could lead to lower levels of IPV.

References

Graham-Kevan N & Archer J. (2008). Does controlling behavior predict physical aggression and violence to partners? Journal of Family Violence; 23: 539–548.
Jouriles EN, & McDonald R. (2015). Intimate partner violence, coercive control, and child adjustment problems.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence; 30(3): 459–474.
Straus MA, Hamby SL, Boney-McCoy S, & Sugarman DB.
(1996). The Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2). Journalof Family Issues; 17: 283–316.
Walker K, Sleath E, & Tramontano C. (2017). The prevalence and typologies of controlling behaviors in a general
population sample. Journal of Interpersonal Violence.
doi:10.1177/0886260517731785.

High levels of controlling behavior are associated with physical aggression.
Addressing controlling behavior in an intervention could lead to lower levels of IPV.

http://www.CSTSonline.org

RESEARCH REVIEW | Joining Forces/Joining Families • 7

CHILD MALTREATMENT

Parental Misattributions of Infants’ Personality
May Be Predictors of Child Maltreatment
Identification of risk of injury due to physical abuse iscritical for young children. They are at the highest risk forabuse including fatal abuse (U.S. Department of Health andHuman Services, 2018). Parents’ misperceptions of children’s
personality, especially infants one year old or less, may be
predictors of risks of child maltreatment (Young, et al., 2018).
This study examined whether parents’ negative or developmentally unrealistic words about their infants 12 months ofage or younger were more likely than other infants to havebeen physically abused. This age group was studied because
traits that parents may see as bothersome, such as independence or impatience, are less likely to be attributed to themwithin the first 12 months. The consensus regarding children’s development is more well-established during this early
period of life. As children age, their personality development
can complicate a parent’s expectation of what is normal andexpected.
Pediatric emergency departments and child abuse assessment teams evaluated children for bruising or skin injury. A
medical expert panel (MEP) categorized each case as clinically determined abuse (n=38) or clinically determined accident (n=147). Parents of all the children were asked (1) to
describe their child’s personality, and (2) to list three words
to describe their child. Raters who were blind to the MEP
classifications coded the parents’ responses and identified theparents’ words as positive (e.g., happy), neutral (e.g., hyperactive), or negative/unrealistic (e.g., drama-queen).
In 35 (19%) of the total 185 cases, parents used negativedescriptors of their infants. A negative descriptor by a parent
was found to be more likely for the abuse cases: 21 of the 38(55%) abuse cases compared to 14 of the 147 (10%) accident
cases. The age-adjusted odds ratio for an abuse classificationin cases in which there were one or more negative descriptors was 10.0 (95% CI=[4.0, 24.9]). In other words, parents
who used at least one negative descriptor of their child were
10 times more likely to be classified as abusing their childthan those parents who described their child with neutralor positive words. Abuse occurred at a higher rate among
infants aged 0-6 months (25 of 62, 40%) than infants of age
7-12 months (13 of 123, 11%). Negative descriptors were also
more commonly ascribed by parents toward children age 0-6
months (29%) compared to children 7-12 months (14%) ofage.
The authors suggested that their findings may moreaccurately predict the risk of child maltreatment than suchvariables as demographic and socioeconomic circumstances.
The two questions used in this study that indicate negativeor unrealistic parental attributions of infants’ personality canhelp to identify harmful parental attitudes and potentially
identify infants at increased risk for maltreatment. Being
younger parents as well as first-time parents may contributeto unrealistic, age-inappropriate expectations, and subsequent negative attitudes, toward an infant. It is importantfor family services and healthcare providers as well as others
involved in childcare to address negative parental attitudes.
What may seem like side comments could indicate thepossibility of parents treating their infant harshly based on
unrealistic expectations and distorted perceptions of theirinfant’s personality.

References

U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration on
Children, Youth and Families, Children’s Bureau. (2018).
Child maltreatment 2016. Available from https://www.acf.
hhs.gov/cb/research-data-technology/statistics-research/child-maltreatment.
Young A, Pierce MC, Kaczor K, Lorenz DJ, Hickey S, Berger
SP … Thompson R. (2018). Are negative/unrealistic parent descriptors of infant attributes associated with physical abuse? Child Abuse & Neglect, 80: 41–51.

Parents’ misperceptions of children’s personality, especially infants
one year old or less, may be predictors of risk of child maltreatment.

8 • RESEARCH REVIEW | Joining Forces/Joining Families

Fall 2018