BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS AMONG CHILDREN EXPOSED TO INTIMATE PARTNER
VIOLENCE:
THE EFFECTS OF IPV TYPE AND GENDER ROLE ADHERENCE
By
Kathryn E. Smagur

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirement
for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
Psychology
2012

1

ABSTRACT
BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS AMONG CHILDREN EXPOSED TO INTIMATE PARTNER
VIOLENCE: THE EFFECTS OF IPV TYPE AND GENDER ROLE ADHERENCE
By
Kathryn E. Smagur
Children exposed to intimate partner violence (IPV) are likely to develop behavior
problems, but findings are mixed regarding whether girls and boys are differentially affected.
The present study proposes that gender interacts with gender role adherence and type of IPV to
which they are exposed to influence behavior problems. Behavior problems were examined
among (N=177) 4-year-old children exposed to IPV. It was hypothesized that children exposed
to coercive controlling violence (CCV), a type of IPV characterized by male psychological
control over a female, would be more likely to develop traditional gender role adherence than
children exposed to situational couple violence (SCV), a type of IPV that is situation-specific, or
children not exposed to IPV. Research suggests that individuals with traditional gender role
adherence are more likely to develop negative psychological outcomes than those with nontraditional gender role adherence. Thus, it was hypothesized that children exposed to CCV with
traditional gender role adherence would have more behavior problems than other children.
Results found that children develop gender role adherence related to the type of IPV to which
they are exposed. Furthermore, girls with non-traditional gender role adherence had fewer
behavior problems than girls with traditional gender role adherence, but the opposite pattern was
observed in boys. These findings suggest that gender cannot fully explain how IPV exposure
influences child outcomes, as gender groups are heterogeneous and gender interacts with other
factors (e.g., gender role adherence) to influence children’s behavior problems.
2

TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of tables………………………………………………………………………………………iv
Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………..1
Method…………………………………………………………………………………………...14
Results……………………………………………………………………………………………19
Discussion………………………………………………………………………………………..22
Appendices……………………………………………………………………………………….31
References………………………………………………………………………………………..37

iii

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Descriptive statistics on maternal demographics……………………………….……….35
Table 2 Frequencies of children in IPV, gender role adherence, and gender groups……………36
Table 3 Correlations between variables…………………………………………………….……37
Table 4 ANOVA for overall behavior problems by IPV group………………………………….38
Table 5 ANOVA for overall behavior problems by gender and gender role adherence group…39
Table 6 ANOVA for externalizing behavior problems by gender and gender role adherence
group…………………..…………………………………………………………………………40

iv

Introduction
Exposure to intimate partner violence (IPV) has consistently been related to higher rates
of behavioral and psychological problems in children (e.g., Graham-Bermann & Levendosky,
1998; Kitzmann, Gaylord, Holt, & Kenny, 2003; Martinez-Torteya, Bogat, von Eye, &
Levendosky, 2009; Sternberg, Baradaran, Abbott, Lamb, & Guterman, 2006). However, findings
are mixed regarding whether boys and girls are differentially affected (Evans, Davies, & DiLillo,
2008; Kerig, 1998; Stagg, Wills, & Howell, 1989; Wolfe et al., 2003). The mixed findings
indicate that gender groups are likely heterogeneous and other variables may also influence child
outcomes. The present study proposes that gender should be examined in the context of gender
role adherence and the type of IPV to which children are exposed.
Children may be exposed to two broad types of violence. Coercive controlling violence
(CCV) is characterized by a pattern of power and control, most commonly perpetrated by males
(Johnson, 1995). Situational couple violence (SCV) occurs when a conflict gets out of control
and escalates to violence; it is perpetrated equally by males and females (Johnson, 1995).
Research suggests that women exposed to CCV experience poorer psychological outcomes than
those exposed to SCV, but research has failed to examine whether children’s outcomes differ
according to the type of IPV to which they are exposed (Johnson & Leone, 2005; Kelly &
Johnson, 2008). As CCV is a type of IPV characterized by male power and control over a female
partner, it is a demonstration of traditional gender role adherence. Due to the salient role parents
play in the development of children’s gender role adherence, children exposed to CCV may be
more likely to internalize these gender roles and develop traditional gender role adherence than
those exposed to SCV or no IPV. Research indicates that gender role adherence, rather than the
child’s biological sex, may account for behavior problems (e.g., Ginsburg & Silverman, 2000).
1

The present study examined whether type of IPV, gender role adherence, and gender predicted
whether a child exposed to IPV will exhibit behavior problems.
IPV Exposure and Its Negative Effects on Children
Research has consistently shown the negative effects of IPV exposure on children’s
behavioral, social, and emotional functioning (e.g., Fantuzzo et al., 1991; Zerk, Mertin, &
Proeve, 2009). Exposure to IPV disrupts children’s abilities to regulate their emotions effectively
and makes children approximately twice as likely to exhibit internalizing and externalizing
problems (Cole, Zahn-Waxler, Fox, Usher, & Welsh, 1996; Sternberg et al., 2006).
Even though IPV-exposed children are at an elevated risk of experiencing internalizing
and externalizing problems, there is a discrepancy in the literature about whether girls or boys
are more likely to experience these problems. Some evidence suggests that boys and girls may
respond differently to IPV exposure, with boys experiencing more externalizing problems and
girls experiencing more internalizing problems (Baldry, 2007; Evans et al., 2008). Other studies
have found no gender differences (Fantuzzo et al., 1991; Kerig, 1998; Litrownik, Newton,
Hunter, English, & Everson, 2003; Thompson, 2007; Zerk et al., 2009). Furthermore, some
studies report that girls experience both externalizing and internalizing problems more frequently
(Cummings et al., 1999; Davis & Carlson, 1987; Sternberg, Lamb, Guterman, & Abbott, 2006),
and others conclude that boys experience both types of behavior problems more frequently
(Stagg et al., 1989).
It is difficult to draw conclusions about the differential effect of IPV exposure on boys
and girls due to these inconsistent findings and the methodological limitations of this research.
For example, the samples in these studies often encompass participants of a wide age range (e.g.,
children five years apart from one another); such methods ignore developmental differences in
2

behavior problems. Also, conclusions about early childhood behavior problems are limited, as
the bulk of the literature has focused on older children. Lastly, the mixed findings regarding
gender and IPV may reflect that gender groups are heterogeneous, and factors unrelated to
gender, such as the type of IPV to which children are exposed, may influence outcomes.
Differentiating between Types of IPV
There are two major theories of IPV: Family Violence Theory (Lawson, 1989) posits that
IPV is due to stress and the cultural norms that accept violence within the family context,
whereas Feminist Theory (Bograd, 1984) states that IPV is the result of patriarchal traditions and
the social construction of gender roles. A major debate between proponents of these theories is
the extent to which women perpetrate violence against their partners (Johnson, 1995). Instead of
providing support for one theory over the other, Johnson (1995) argues that Family Violence
Theory and Feminist Theory are describing two separate types of IPV—those noted earlier—
SCV, which is relatively gender balanced, and CCV, which primarily involves men’s violence
against women. Johnson & Ferraro (2000) argue that every research question related to IPV is
virtually meaningless unless it distinguishes these two types of violence.
SCV, as its name implies, is situation-specific and is not part of a relationship-wide
attempt to control one’s partner (Johnson & Leone, 2005). Family Violence theorists propose
that violence has become acceptable in American culture; as conflict is inherent in all romantic
relationships, it is likely that some of these conflicts will lead to violence (Johnson, 1995;
Johnson & Leone, 2005). Since conflict is just as likely in marriages as it is in cohabiting or
dating relationships, SCV is prevalent in each of these relationship types (Johnson & Leone,
2005). Research has found the perpetration of this type of violence to be nearly equal for men
and women (Johnson, 1995). On average, the violence in SCV is less frequent, less severe, and
3

less likely to escalate over time compared to the violence in CCV, although there is some
variability within this group (Johnson, 1995; Johnson & Leone, 2005).
On the other hand, CCV is an intentional and systematic pattern of violence and control
used to exert power over one’s partner. CCV is not defined solely by frequent rates of physical
violence, as the perpetrator does not need to use violence often in order to terrorize his partner
(Johnson & Leone, 2005) Instead, he uses psychological control tactics, such as emotional abuse,
isolation, economic control, threats, intimidation, and blaming (Pence & Paymar, 1993). When
the perpetrator’s control is threatened, either within the relationship or elsewhere in his life, he
becomes more controlling of his partner in order to compensate for this threat (Johnson &
Ferraro, 2000). This is one reason why CCV is more likely than SCV to escalate to severe
violence (Johnson, 2005).
On average, physical violence occurs more frequently in CCV than in SCV, and CCV is
more likely to lead victims to seek help from public agencies, such as shelters, hospitals, and the
police (Johnson, 2005). However, it is common for women experiencing CCV to report that the
psychological impact of the abuse is worse than the physical impact (Kelly & Johnson, 2008).
Because of this, women experiencing CCV, compared to those experiencing SCV, experience
more post-traumatic stress symptoms, lower self-esteem, and more days of missed work as a
result of the violence (Johnson & Leone, 2005; Kelly & Johnson, 2008). Although there is a
limited body of research on the differential impact of CCV and SCV on women, research has yet
to examine how these two types of violence might affect children.
What some research has examined is the influence of mother- and/or father-perpetrated
IPV on children’s behavior problems, a factor which is necessary, but not sufficient, to
differentiate CCV and SCV. Unfortunately, the findings of this research have not been
4

consistent (Baldry, 2003; Baldry, 2007; McDonald, Jouriles, Norwood, Ware, & Ezell, 2000;
McDonald, Jouriles, Tart, & Minze, 2009). Specifically, several studies found that motherperpetrated IPV predicted child’s externalizing problems when controlling for father-perpetrated
IPV; yet another study found no significant relationship between mother-perpetrated IPV and
children’s behavior problems. However, some of these studies did not include psychological
abuse in their definitions of IPV, and none of them divided their samples into CCV and SCV
groups, although one or both types of violence might have been present. The present research
posits that exposure to CCV and SCV may differentially influence children’s outcomes. As CCV
is characterized by male power and control, it is a demonstration of traditional gender role
adherence. However, as SCV does not include coercive control, it is not a pattern of traditional
gender role adherence. The pattern of IPV to which children are exposed is likely to influence
their gender role adherence as well as their subsequent behavior.
Early Childhood Gender Role Development
Gender role orientation includes knowledge of gender stereotypes and gender role
adherence. Knowledge of gender stereotypes is the understanding of what behaviors, traits, and
activities are socially appropriate for each gender. Gender role adherence is the extent to which
an individual adheres to the behaviors, traits, and activities that are socially appropriate for males
and females. Traditional gender role adherence can be consistent with one’s gender, such as a
female adhering to feminine gender roles, or inconsistent with one’s gender, such as a female
adhering to masculine gender roles. Non-traditional gender role adherence is a lack of adherence
to one type of traditional gender role and often involves an adherence to both masculine and
feminine gender roles. Although gender stereotypes and gender role adherence are separate

5

constructs, knowledge of gender stereotypes often predicts gender role adherence (Bradbard &
Endsley, 1983), although findings have been mixed (Campbell et al., 2002; Zosuls et al., 2009).
The first five years of life is a crucial period in the development of gender role orientation
(Ruble et al., 2007; Zosuls et al., 2009). Early gender role development has 3 components:
recognizing there are two sexes, identifying the self and others as male or female, and learning
what behaviors and traits are appropriate or inappropriate for each gender (e.g., gender
stereotypes, gender role adherence; Bussey, 1983). The first component, recognizing there are
two sexes, is present in children as young as 6 months, when infants are able to discriminate
between male and female voices and habituate to one category of faces (Miller, 1983; Younger
& Fearing, 1999). The second component develops in two parts: the ability to identify oneself as
male or female emerges between 18 and 24 months of age, and identifying others as male or
female emerges between 24 and 30 months (Leinbach & Fagot, 1986; Stipek, Gralinski, & Kopp,
1990; Weinraub et al., 1984; Zosuls et al., 2009). The third component, knowledge of and
adherence to gender stereotypes, begins between 17 and 20 months of age for girls and at about
24 months of age for boys (Eichstadt, Serbin, Poulin-Dubois, & Sen, 2002; O’Brien & Huston,
1985; Poulin-Dubois, Serbin, Eichstedt, Sen, & Beissel, 2002; Serbin, Poulin-Dubois, Colburne,
Sen, & Eichstedt, 2001). Boys continue to gain this ability at a slower rate than girls, as 31
month old boys have gender stereotype knowledge regarding their own gender but not the
opposite gender, while girls have more gender stereotype knowledge overall at this age
(Edelbrock & Sugawara, 1978; O’Brien et al., 2000; Poulin-Dubois et al., 2002). A rapid
increase in gender stereotype knowledge and behavior is seen between ages 3 and 5 (Ruble,
Martin, & Berenbaum, 2006; Ruble et al., 2007). Finally, boys adhere to gender roles more
rigidly, evidenced by a lack of change over time, whereas girls are more flexible in their
6

adherence to gender roles, as seen by greater change over time and greater change as a result of
environmental influences (Edelbrock & Sugawara, 1978; Green, Bigler, & Catherwood, 2004;
O’Brien & Huston, 1985; Wilbourn & Kee, 2010).
Several factors influence the degree to which children are aware of and adhere to gender
roles (e.g., media; Ward, Hansbrough, & Walker, 2005); however, the most important influence
is children’s parents (Doumas, Margolin, & John, 1994; Luddy & Thompson, 1999). Male and
female children are treated differently by their parents starting at birth (Birns, Cascardi, &
Meyer, 1994). For example, mothers use language differently with male and female children, an
interaction that is thought to influence children’s gender role development (Leaper & Bigler,
2004). For example, Clearfield and Nelson (2006) found that mothers engage in interaction and
conversation more often with female infants than they do with male infants. Through these
differences, mothers are reinforcing gender stereotypical behaviors in their infants; girls are
expected to be more verbally expressive and are allowed to seek help, whereas boys are expected
to explore their environments independently. Parents also reward and punish gender stereotypical
behaviors differently in male and female children. For example, a study of aggression in toddlers
found that, on average, girls’ aggressive acts were ignored and boys’ aggressive acts were
reinforced (Fagot & Hagan, 1985).
Although most of the research on gender role development has focused on maternal
influences, some studies find that fathers play an important role as well. For example, Jacklin,
DiPietro, and Maccoby (1984) found that, on average, all parents initiated more masculine
stereotyped play with male children and more feminine stereotyped play with female children.
However, fathers reinforced gender-stereotyped play more consistently than did mothers.
Similarly, Bradley & Gobbart (1989) found that fathers offered gender-stereotyped toys to their
7

children more often than did mothers. Furthermore, fathers with traditional gender role
adherence offered gender-stereotyped toys to their children more than fathers with nontraditional gender role adherence; this effect was not seen in mothers. Overall, research suggests
that both parents are responsible for the development of gender-stereotyped knowledge and
gender role adherence in children.
In addition, demographic factors are associated with the development of children’s
gender role orientations. For example, children who live in households with mothers who work
outside of the home and who are highly educated, compared to children with mothers who work
at home and who are less educated, have less knowledge of and adherence to gender roles
(Castellino, Lerner, Lerner, & von Eye, 1998; Ex & Janssens, 1998; Fulcher, Sutfin, & Patterson,
2008). Children in two-parent homes have more gender-stereotyped knowledge than children in
single-parent homes (MacKinnon, Stoneman, & Brody, 1984). Gender-stereotyped knowledge is
also related to ethnicity, as children with parents born in Asia or Africa hold more gender
stereotypes than children with parents born in Europe or North America or who are of mixed
ethnicity (Kulik, 2005).
There is some evidence that children’s understandings of gender stereotypes are affected
by exposure to IPV. Children’s beliefs about male power and superiority over women were
positively associated with the frequency of psychological and physical abuse present in the home
(Graham-Bermann & Brescoll, 2000). Also, IPV-exposed children had more gender-stereotyped
knowledge than a non-exposed group (Kerig, 1999). However, research has not yet investigated
gender role adherence in IPV-exposed children. In addition, neither study differentiated between
types of IPV nor examined whether differences in gender-stereotyped knowledge led to
differences in behavior problems.
8

Because CCV is a demonstration of traditional gender role adherence, it is likely that
gender stereotypical knowledge and adherence to traditional gender roles is greater in children
exposed to CCV. Specifically, male perpetrators of CCV exhibit control over their female
partners and tend to have more patriarchal beliefs (Holtzworth-Munroe et al., 2000; Malamuth,
Linz, Heavey, Barnes, & Acker, 1995; Malamuth, Sockloskie, Koss, & Tanaka, 1995; Telch &
Lindquist, 1984). Because of the male partners’ dominance, the agency of women experiencing
CCV may be compromised. As these women are often told what to do and closely controlled by
their male partners, they are forced into a role of submission (Johnson, 1995). These patterns of
male dominance and female submission in the home contribute to a child’s understanding of
what is appropriate behavior for males and females and, ultimately, shape the child’s
understandings of gender stereotypes (Kerig, 1999).
Gender Role Adherence and Psychological Well-Being
Gender role adherence has important implications for mental health outcomes. Research
has associated masculine gender role adherence with more externalizing problems and feminine
gender role adherence with more internalizing problems, behavior problems that are consistent
with gender roles (e.g., Cox, Mezulis, & Hyde, 2010; Renk, Robert, Klein, Rojas-Vilches, &
Sieger, 2005). Individuals with traditional gender role adherence (masculine or feminine) tend to
exhibit behavior consistent with those gender roles and suppress “inappropriate” or genderinconsistent behavior (Bem, 1974). This suppression of inappropriate behaviors limits the
individual and leads to an increase in behavior problems, and these behavior problems tend to be
consistent with one’s gender role adherence (e.g., internalizing problems consistent with
feminine gender role adherence (Bem, 1974; Bem, 1975). Bem theorizes that individuals with
non-traditional gender role adherence, especially those who adhere to both masculine and
9

feminine gender roles, have better mental health outcomes than individuals with traditional
gender role adherence. She argues that individuals with non-traditional gender role adherence are
free to engage in both masculine and feminine behaviors and adapt to situational demands (Bem,
1974; Bem, 1975). Engaging in a wider range of behaviors allows those with non-traditional
gender role adherence freedom in developing their sense of self. This adaptability, resilience, and
ability to engage in a wider range of behaviors are why individuals with non-traditional gender
role adherence have better mental health outcomes than individuals with traditional gender role
adherence.
Research supports this theory. Individuals with non-traditional gender role adherence
have fewer depressive symptoms (Cheng, 1999; Shimonaka et al., 1997) and higher levels of
positive well-being (Lefkowitz & Zeldow, 2006; Stake, 1997), self-esteem (Buckley & Carter,
2005; Shimonaka et al., 1997), emotional intelligence (Guastello & Guastello, 2003), and
academic and social competence (Campbell, Steffen, & Langmeyer, 1981; Rose & Montemayor,
1994) compared to individuals with traditional gender role adherence. Shimonaka et al. (1997)
demonstrated the relationship between non-traditional gender role adherence and positive mental
health outcomes across much of the life span (ages 13 to 92). Furthermore, internalizing
problems have been positively associated with feminine gender role adherence and negatively
associated with masculine gender role adherence, consistent with Bem’s theory. For example,
feminine gender role adherence is positively associated with anxiety and fear (Brody, Hay, &
Vandewater, 1990; Johnson et al., 2006; Muris et al., 2005; Palapattu, Kingery, & Ginsburg,
2006; Tucker & Bond, 1997) as well as depressive symptoms (Barrett & White, 2002; Cheng,
1999; Cox et al., 2010; Priess, Lindberg, & Hyde, 2009; Tolman, Impett, Tracy, & Michael,
2006), and negatively associated with self-esteem (McHale, Kim, Whiteman, & Crouter, 2004;
10

Tolman et al., 2006). Masculine gender role adherence is negatively associated with anxiety and
fear (Ginsburg & Silverman, 2000; Palapattu, Kingery, & Ginsburg, 2006) and depressive
symptoms (Barrett & White, 2002; Cheng, 1999; Priess, Lindberg, & Hyde, 2009).
Fewer studies have examined the relationship between gender role adherence and
externalizing behaviors. However, two studies found that externalizing problems are positively
associated with masculine gender role adherence and negatively associated with feminine gender
role adherence, as Bem’s theory suggests. Specifically, Hoffmann, Powlishta, and White (2004)
found that adherence to feminine gender roles was negatively related to externalizing symptoms
in a sample of adolescents. Additionally, one retrospective study found that externalizing
behaviors in childhood were positively associated with masculine gender roles and negatively
associated with feminine gender roles in adolescence (Renk et al., 2005). In the majority of these
studies, non-traditional gender role adherence predicted fewer behavior problems for both males
and females, suggesting that the relationship between gender role adherence and behavior
problems is not influenced by gender (e.g., Cheng, 1999; Lefkowitz & Zeldow, 2006).
This literature has failed to examine the effects of gender role adherence on mental health
outcomes in childhood. The majority of the extant research focuses on adolescents and young
adults between the ages of 11 and 22. Only two studies have examined this relationship in
younger children (ages 6-12); they both found results similar to research on adolescents and
young adults (Brody et al., 1990; Ginsburg & Silverman, 2000). However, as the gender role
development literature suggests, gender role orientation begins forming well before age 6 and
sets patterns for children’s behavior early on; therefore, we would expect to see a relationship
between gender role adherence and mental health much earlier than what research has currently
examined.
11

Summary
Research has consistently shown that children exposed to IPV demonstrate elevated
behavior problems (e.g., Martinez-Torteya et al., 2009). However, it is still unclear whether boys
and girls are affected differently by IPV exposure (Evans, Davies, & DiLillo, 2008; Kerig, 1998;
Stagg, Wills, & Howell, 1989; Wolfe et al., 2003). The mixed findings suggest there is
heterogeneity within gender groups, and thus gender alone may not be the strongest predictor of
outcomes in IPV-exposed children. The current research proposes that gender role adherence and
the type of IPV to which a child is exposed may also predict children’s outcomes.
As CCV is a type of IPV characterized by male power and control over a female partner,
it is a demonstration of traditional gender role adherence. Due to the significant role parents play
in the development of children’s gender role adherence, it is likely that children exposed to CCV
will internalize these gender roles and develop traditional gender role adherence and a greater
understanding of gender stereotypes (e.g., Clearfield & Nelson, 2006; Jacklin, DiPietro, &
Maccoby, 1984). Evidence suggests that gender role adherence is a significant predictor of
behavior problems (Cheng, 1999; Palapattu et al., 1996). Traditional gender role adherence in
children exposed to CCV is likely to be exacerbated due to the gendered nature of the IPV to
which they are exposed, which is likely to result in higher levels of behavior problems.
The present study proposed the following hypotheses:
(1) Children exposed to CCV were more likely to have (a) accurate knowledge of gender
stereotypes and (b) traditional gender role adherence than children exposed to SCV or no IPV.
(2a) Children exposed to CCV would have more overall behavior problems than children
exposed to SCV. Children not exposed to IPV would have fewer overall behavior problems than
children exposed to either type of IPV.
12

(2b) Children with traditional gender role adherence, consistent or inconsistent with their
gender, would have more overall behavior problems than children with non-traditional gender
role adherence.
(2c) Traditional gender role adherence would result in more overall behavior problems
than non-traditional gender role adherence for both boys and girls.
(2d) There would be an interaction between gender role adherence and type of IPV on
overall behavior problems. Children with traditional gender role adherence who are exposed to
CCV would have the most behavior problems, and children with non-traditional gender role
adherence who are not exposed to IPV would have the fewest number of behavior problems.
(3a) Children with feminine gender role adherence, consistent or inconsistent with their
gender, would exhibit more internalizing behavior problems than children with masculine or
non-traditional gender role adherence. Children with masculine gender role adherence, consistent
or inconsistent with their gender, would exhibit more externalizing behavior problems than
children with feminine or non-traditional gender role adherence.
(3b) Feminine gender role adherence would result in more internalizing behavior
problems for both boys and girls. Masculine gender role adherence would result in more
externalizing behavior problems for both boys and girls.
(3c) There would be an interaction between gender role adherence, consistent or
inconsistent with child gender, and type of IPV for internalizing and externalizing behavior
problems. Children with feminine gender role adherence who are exposed to CCV would have
more internalizing behavior problems than children with masculine or non-traditional gender role
adherence that are exposed to CCV and all children exposed to SCV or no IPV. Children with
masculine gender role adherence who are exposed to CCV would have more externalizing
13

behavior problems than children with feminine or non-traditional gender role adherence that are
exposed to CCV and all children exposed to SCV or no IPV.
Method
Participants
The current research was part of a larger, longitudinal study that examines the effects of
IPV on women and their children (Bogat, Levendosky, & Davidson, 1999; Levendosky, Bogat,
Davidson, & von Eye, 2000). Participants in the original sample were 206 pregnant women
recruited from a tri-county area in a Midwestern state. The study recruited participants so that
approximately one-half of the women experienced IPV during pregnancy and the other half did
not. Inclusion criteria for the original study were: women had to be between 18 and 40 years of
age, they had to have proficiency in English sufficient to complete questionnaires, and the first
interview had to occur during their last trimester of pregnancy.
Participants were included in the current research if the mother and child participated in
at least one of the relevant time points (when the child was 2, 3, and 4 years old). Data were
imputed using maximum likelihood estimation methods for participants with missing data at 1 or
2 of the time points, yielding a sample of 177 children (87 boys, 90 girls). Data was missing at
random (MCAR statistic = 110.27, df = 95, p = 0.14), and 1.6% of the data was missing. There
were no significant differences between participants with and without missing data on any
variables used in the present study. Forty-nine percent of the children were Caucasian, 24%
African American, 23% multiracial, 2% Hispanic, 1% Native American, and 1% Asian
American. When children were age 4, the average family income was $2,556 (SD = $1,982), and
the average age of mothers was 29.47 (SD = 5.08). 81% of mothers worked outside of the home

14

in the past year. Additional demographic information from when the children were 4 years-old is
presented in Table 1.
Measures
Demographics. A questionnaire was administered to obtain basic demographic
information such as maternal race (white versus non-white), mother’s education, work outside of
the home, income, and age when the children were 4 years old. These measures were controlled
for in the analyses if a significant association was shown between them and IPV type, gender,
gender role adherence, or behavior problems. Income was used as a proxy for maternal education
levels. A one-way ANOVA was conducted to examine differences in income among education
levels. Education level was divided into three groups: (1) some high school, high school
diploma, or GED, (2) some college, trade school, or associate’s degree, and (3) bachelor’s
degree, some graduate school, or graduate degree. The ANOVA showed significant differences
in income between all three groups, F(2,174) = 27.25, p < 0.05, validating the use of income as a
proxy for education level. Women in education group 1 had the lowest income levels ( =
$1,716, SD = $1,242), followed by group 2 ( = $2,398, SD = $1,610) and group 3 ( = $4,507,
SD = $2,636).
Physical Violence. The Severity of Violence Against Women Scale was administered to
assess acts of physical violence a woman might experience from her partners (SVAWS;
Marhsall, 1992). Respondents note the frequency with which each of the 46 events occurred, on
a 4-point scale ranging from “never” to “many times.” Marshall (1992) reported high internal
reliability for a community sample. Coefficient α for this sample was .95. At each time point,
when children were ages 2, 3, and 4, mothers reported whether they experienced any of the
events in the previous year. Exposure to IPV in the child’s first year of life was not included in
15

the current study, as research suggests gender role orientation does not begin developing until
about 18 months. The present study used the sum of scores from items 1 through 46.
Psychological Abuse. The Psychological Maltreatment of Women Inventory was used to
assess psychological abuse and control a woman might experience from her partners (PMWI;
Tolman, 1989). Respondents note the frequency with which each of the 14 events occurred on a
5 point scale: “never,” “rarely,” “sometimes,” “frequently,” and “very frequently.” At each time
point, when children were ages 2, 3, and 4, mothers reported whether they have experienced any
of the events in the previous year. An 11-item subset of the questionnaire was used in order to
remove items that are not unique to IPV.
IPV Type. The CCV and SCV groups were defined using physical violence items from
the SVAWS and psychological abuse items from the PMWI. Women experienced CCV if they
endorsed any physical violence on the SVAWS and high psychological abuse, defined as 3 or
more items on the PMWI experienced “frequently” or “very frequently.” Women experienced
SCV if they endorsed any physical violence on the SVAWS and low or no psychological abuse
on the PMWI, defined as less than 3 items experienced “frequently” or “very frequently.” The
control group consisted of women who experienced no physical violence. If a woman
experienced CCV at any one of the time points, she was in the CCV group. If a woman
experienced SCV at any of the time points and experienced no CCV, she was in the SCV group.
A woman was in the control group if she experienced no CCV or SCV at any of the time points.
Gender Role Orientation. The Sex Role Learning Index was used to assess gender role
orientation in children at age 4 (SERLI; Edelbrock & Sugawara, 1978). Two of the 3 parts of the
SERLI were used in the present research: (1) Sex role discrimination (SRD) is a child’s
knowledge of gender role stereotypes, defined as the degree to which a child’s classification of
16

an item agrees with gender role stereotypes associated with that item. Children were presented
with a series of 20 black and white line drawings of common objects, half of which are
stereotyped as masculine and half as feminine. Children were asked to verbally classify the
objects as “for boys or for girls.” Children were assigned a SRD score for stereotype knowledge
of their own sex and a score for stereotype knowledge of the opposite sex. Scores, ranging from
0 to 100, were the percent agreement of the child’s correct classification of items with the
appropriate gender stereotype. A score of 100 indicated perfect agreement between the child’s
classifications and the gender stereotypes. The own and opposite SRD scores were summed to
create an overall SRD score, ranging from 0 to 200.
(2) Sex role preference (SRP) is a child’s desire to adhere to gender roles. Children were
presented with two arrays of 10 line drawings of children or adults engaged in activities that are
stereotypically masculine (e.g., car play, firefighter) or feminine (e.g., sewing, feeding a baby).
Children were asked to remove the picture of the activity they would most like to do or be and
then to continued selecting activities until all pictures have been removed. The SRP score was
based on the order in which the child chose items considered appropriate for the child’s sex and
the probabilities of making those choices. Separate SRP scores were calculated for the child and
adult drawings; child and adult scores were averaged to create an overall SRP score. Scores
ranged from 20 to 80, where a score of 80 represented maximum masculine gender role
adherence for boys and maximum feminine gender role adherence for girls, a score of 50
represented adherence to both masculine and feminine gender roles, and a score of 20
represented maximum masculine gender role adherence for girls and maximum feminine gender
role adherence for boys. Children were in the non-traditional gender role adherence group if their

17

SRP scores were above 45 and below 55. Children with scores outside of this range were in the
traditional gender role adherence group.
In order to reduce scoring error, 2 coders scored each child’s SERLI data. When there
was a disagreement in scores, the coders discussed the disagreement to determine where the error
occurred and resolve their differences. Edelbrock & Sugawara (1978) report test-retest
reliabilities over three weeks ranging from .61 to .69 for the SRD and .43 to .90 for the SRP and
significant correlations with other measures of gender role orientation.
Child Behavior Problems. The Child Behavior Checklist was used to assess emotional
and behavior problems in children (CBCL; Achenbach, 1991). In addition to an overall behavior
problems t-score, t-scores for two broad subscales, internalizing and externalizing behaviors,
were used in the present study. Internalizing behaviors included withdrawal, anxiety, and
depression. Externalizing behaviors included aggression and delinquency. Mothers completed
the CBCL when their children were age 4. These scales demonstrate high reliability, ranging
from .81 to .87 (Achenbach, 1991).
Procedure
The women in the original sample were first interviewed during their last trimester of
pregnancy. For the current study, interviews were held at the child’s second, third, and fourth
birthdays. Mother and child were interviewed at the project offices. Mothers completed the
demographics, IPV, and behavior problems questionnaires. Children were administered the
gender role orientation measure and completed the videotaped task. Interviews were conducted
by graduate student project staff members and trained undergraduate research assistants. The
IPV questionnaires were administered last, to ensure that interviewers were blind to the woman’s
IPV status as long as possible. Women were paid for their participation.
18

Results
Correlations were examined between IPV group, behavior problems, gender role
adherence, gender stereotype knowledge, gender, and the related demographic variables. Income
was positively related to stereotype knowledge and negatively related to externalizing and
overall behavior problems. Income was also correlated with child gender; boys were more likely
to be in families with higher income. Maternal age was correlated with gender role adherence
group, such that traditional gender role adherence was stronger in children of older mothers.
Maternal ethnicity and work outside of the home were not related to any variables. Chi square
analyses were conducted among the categorical variables. The chi square between gender and
gender role adherence group was significant, χ2 = 5.52, df = 1, p < 0.05, such that boys were
more likely to have traditional gender role adherence and girls were more likely to have nontraditional gender role adherence. When gender role adherence groups were further separated
into feminine, masculine, and non-traditional, the chi square was also significant, χ2 = 26.22, df
= 2, p < 0.05, such that girls were more likely to have feminine or non-traditional gender role
adherence and boys were more likely to have masculine gender role adherence. Income and age
were the only demographic variables significantly correlated with IPV group, behavior problems,
gender role adherence, and gender, so they were entered into the analyses as covariates. Income
was entered as a covariate in analyses including stereotype knowledge, externalizing or overall
behavior problems, and child gender. Maternal age was entered as a covariate in analyses
including gender role adherence group. The number of children that fall in each category is
presented in Table 2, and all correlations are presented in Table 3.
A one-way between-subjects ANOVA was used to test whether gender stereotype
knowledge differed between IPV groups, controlling for income (Hypothesis 1a). The ANOVA
19

showed no difference among the three groups, F(2,173) = 0.39, p = ns. Chi-square analyses
examined whether gender role adherence groups differed as a function of IPV group (Hypothesis
1b); the results were significant, χ2 = 12.98, df = 2, p < 0.05. The adjusted residual method,
which calculates the adjusted residual statistic for the observed and expected frequencies in each
cell (MacDonald & Gardner, 2000), indicated that children in the CCV group were more likely
to have traditional gender role adherence, a strong adherence to masculine or feminine gender
role norms no matter the child’s gender. Children in the SCV group were more likely to have
non-traditional gender role adherence, a strong adherence to both masculine and feminine gender
role norms. Furthermore, children not exposed to IPV were equally likely to have traditional or
non-traditional gender role adherence.
To assess differences in behavior problems among IPV groups (Hypothesis 2a), a oneway between-subjects ANOVA, controlling for income, was conducted. The ANOVA indicated
a significant difference between the three groups on overall behavior problems, F(2, 173) = 3.14,
p < 0.05 (see Table 4). Children in the CCV group had the most behavior problems ( = 22.93,
SD = 15.19), followed by children in the SCV group ( = 21.53, SD = 11.53), and children in the
no IPV group ( = 15.33, SD = 14.28). Games-Howell post-hoc analyses indicated a significant
difference between the SCV and no IPV groups, p < 0.05. There were no significant differences
between the CCV group and the other groups.
A one-way between-subjects ANOVA for overall behavior problems was conducted to
determine if behavior problems differed as a function of gender role adherence (Hypothesis 2b).
The ANOVA indicated no significant difference in overall behavior problems across the two
groups, F(1,173) = 0.05. The interaction between IPV group and gender on overall behavior

20

problems was also conducted. Results of the two-way between-subjects ANOVA were not
significant, F(2,170) = 1.63, p = ns.
A two-way ANOVA was conducted in order to determine the influence of gender role
adherence on overall behavior problems for boys and girls (Hypothesis 2c). The interaction
between gender and gender role adherence was significant (see Table 5). Non-traditional boys
had more behavior problems (M = 22.11, SD = 13.95) than traditional boys ( = 15.94, SD =
12.11). For girls, the opposite pattern was observed; traditional girls had more behavior problems
( = 22.50, SD = 16.31) than non-traditional girls ( = 18.24, SD = 11.84). There was no
interaction between IPV group and gender role adherence (Hypothesis 2d), F(2,169) = 0.07.
To take a more fine-grained look at how gender role adherence and IPV group influenced
behavior problems, similar analyses were run separately for internalizing and externalizing
behavior problems. For these analyses, the traditional gender role adherence group was
decomposed into masculine and feminine groups and compared to the nontraditional gender role
adherence group. One-way between-subjects ANOVAs examined differences in internalizing
and externalizing problems between gender role adherence groups (Hypothesis 3a). The results
of the ANOVAs were non-significant for internalizing, F(2,174) = 0.16, p = ns, and for
externalizing problems, F(2,173) = 1.25, p = ns.
In order to test whether gender role adherence had the same influence on internalizing
and externalizing problems for boys and girls (Hypothesis 3b), two-way ANOVAs were
conducted. For externalizing problems, the interaction between gender and gender role
adherence was significant (see Table 6). Boys with non-traditional gender role adherence had the
most externalizing problems ( = 8.79, SD = 5.78), followed by boys with masculine gender role
adherence ( = 7.13, SD = 5.15) and boys with feminine gender role adherence ( = 5.33, SD =
21

5.16). For girls, the opposite pattern was found: girls with feminine gender role adherence had
the most externalizing problems ( = 10.95, SD = 8.90), followed by girls with masculine gender
role adherence ( = 9.06, SD = 5.01) and girls with non-traditional gender role adherence ( =
7.63, SD = 5.18). The interaction for internalizing problems was not significant, F(6,170) = 1.39,
p = ns. To test the interaction between IPV group and gender role adherence on internalizing and
externalizing behavior problems (Hypothesis 3c), two-way ANOVAs were conducted. The
interactions were non-significant for both internalizing, F(4,167) = 0.13, p = ns, and
externalizing problems, F(4,167) = 0.19, p = ns.
Discussion
Although IPV research has commonly focused on comparing outcomes for boys and
girls, the present study suggests that examining gender differences alone may not be useful in
understanding the influence of IPV on children. Not only are gender groups heterogeneous, but
gender also interacts with other variables (e.g., gender role adherence) to influence child
outcomes. Gender must be examined in conjunction with these other factors in order to explicate
the effects of IPV on children. Findings from the present research suggest that the type of IPV to
which children are exposed influences their gender role adherence, as children display gender
role adherence that matches the pattern of behaviors that define the IPV type present in their
household. However, gender role adherence affected behavior problems differently for boys and
girls; non-traditional gender role adherence was a risk factor for boys and a protective factor for
girls. Findings also indicate that IPV type does not influence mean levels of behavior problems;
instead, differences in behavior problems appeared between IPV-exposed and non-exposed
children.

22

As hypothesized, children exposed to CCV were more likely to have traditional gender
role adherence. This type of violence, theorized to be the result of patriarchal traditions and the
social construction of gender, is a way for males to exert dominance over their female partners
(Johnson, 1995). The pattern of physical violence and psychological control exerted by a male
over his female partner in CCV, as well as the female partner being forced into submission,
demonstrates traditional gender roles. The present findings indicate that children in these
households are learning this pattern of traditional gender roles and developing more traditional
gender role adherence. However, an unexpected result was that children exposed to SCV were
more likely to have non-traditional gender roles. SCV is more likely to be bi-directional physical
violence between males and females; thus, violence, a stereotypically masculine behavior, is
perpetrated by both the male and female partner. This pattern of violence demonstrates to the
child that violent behaviors are not specific to one gender and indicates a pattern of nontraditional gender roles. These findings suggest that SCV and CCV each demonstrate a specific
pattern of gender roles, which young children in the household are learning and exhibiting.
Although IPV type influenced children’s gender role adherence, children exposed to
CCV were no more likely to have gender stereotype knowledge than were children exposed to
SCV or no IPV. All children are exposed to gender stereotypes to some extent, whether from
family, peers, or media (Ward, Hansbrough, & Walker, 2005), and therefore develop knowledge
of these stereotypes. However, not all children are likely to develop adherence to these gender
roles, as children not exposed to IPV were just as likely to have traditional as well as nontraditional gender role adherence. However, as discussed before, children exposed to the pattern
of traditional gender roles inherent in CCV are more likely to develop traditional gender role
adherence. Thus, the present findings suggest it is not knowledge of gender stereotypes, but
23

observing the demonstration of gender roles, that leads to the development of specific gender
role adherence. The findings from the present study suggest that knowledge of gender
stereotypes does not necessarily imply having adherence to traditional gender roles, which is
consistent with previous findings (Campbell, Shirley, & Caygill, 2002).
In order to understand how children’s gender role adherence interacted with IPV type to
influence behavior problems, it was necessary to first understand how IPV type directly
influenced behavior problems. Children exposed to CCV and SCV did not differ on overall
behavior problems. However, children exposed to SCV had more behavior problems than those
not exposed to IPV. The sample size of children exposed to CCV was likely too small to
produce a significant result, as the mean level of behavior problems for this group was higher
than for children exposed to SCV. Thus, the differences in mean levels of behavior problems
appeared to be between children exposed to IPV and children not exposed to IPV, a pattern
which has been found consistently in the literature (e.g., Sternberg, Baradaran, Abbott, Lamb, &
Guterman, 2006).
Bem’s theory of psychological androgyny was partially supported by the present study.
The theory posits that individuals with non-traditional gender role adherence have better mental
health outcomes because they do not suppress gender-inconsistent behaviors and are free to
engage in both masculine and feminine behaviors in order to adapt to situational demands (Bem,
1974; Bem, 1975). Furthermore, research has demonstrated that gender role adherence is a
stronger predictor of mental health than is gender; thus, non-traditional gender role adherence
results in better psychological outcomes regardless of an individual’s gender (e.g., Cox et al.,
2010). In the current study, non-traditional gender role adherence was a protective factor for girls

24

and a risk factor for boys. Thus, Bem’s theory applied to girls in this sample, as flexibility in
their gender role adherence was associated with more positive outcomes.
Socialization factors may explain why non-traditional gender role adherence was a risk
factor for boys. Specifically, it is more acceptable for girls to be flexible in gender role adherence
than it is for boys (Wilbourn & Kee, 2010). Girls demonstrate more variability in their adherence
to sex-typed behaviors, whereas boys display masculine gender role adherence more consistently
(Edelbrock & Sugawara, 1978; Green, Bigler, & Catherwood, 2004; O’Brien & Huston, 1985;
Wilbourn & Kee, 2010). These findings imply a behavioral expectation that boys will act
according to masculine stereotypes, an expectation that does not exist in parallel form for girls.
One study found that gender nonconformity in boys was perceived as more problematic than
gender nonconformity in girls (Page, 1987). Due to this social expectation, boys with masculine
gender role adherence experience fewer behavior problems, as their behavior aligns with
expectations. Boys with non-traditional gender role adherence do not meet social expectations.
The discordance between their gender role adherence and social expectations leads to an increase
in victimization by peers (Song, 2004), which may cause an increase in behavior problems.
Another possible explanation for higher levels of behavior problems among non-traditional boys
is that parents may perceive their children as having more behavior problems because their
behavior is inconsistent with the previously mentioned social expectations. As noted earlier,
parents reinforce behaviors that are considered socially acceptable for the child’s gender, such as
reinforcing aggression in boys and ignoring it in girls (Fagot & Hagan, 1985). When there is
discordance between parental expectations and children’s behavior, it may lead to an increase in
maternal-reported children’s behavior problems. Prior research, which suggests that nontraditional gender role adherence is a protective factor regardless of an individual’s gender, has
25

not examined the relationship of gender role adherence and behavior problems in children
younger than 11 years old. Results from the current study suggest non-traditional gender role
adherence may be a risk factor for boys when they are younger, perhaps because the social
expectations for boys to act in accordance with masculine gender roles is stronger when children
are younger than when they reach adolescence. The present findings suggest it is important to
examine both gender and gender role adherence in preschool-aged children as they relate to
behavior problems.
When analyses separated gender role adherence into three groups, masculine, feminine,
and non-traditional, a gender by gender role interaction emerged for externalizing problems.
Non-traditional gender role adherence remained a risk factor for boys and a protective factor for
girls. Surprisingly, boys with feminine gender role adherence had lower externalizing problems
than those with masculine gender role adherence, although the small number of children in this
group (n = 6) makes this finding difficult to interpret. Girls with feminine gender role adherence
had more externalizing problems than those with masculine gender role adherence. This pattern
may suggest that girls with feminine gender role adherence are at risk to have behavior problems,
despite whether the behavior problems are consistent with their gender role adherence. Another
explanation may be related to the children’s developmental level, as externalizing problems are
more commonly seen in this age group than are internalizing problems (e.g., Cole et al., 1996).
This finding lends partial support to the Masculinity Hypothesis, which suggests that masculine
gender role adherence is associated with better psychological adjustment than feminine gender
role adherence (Whitley, 1984). Girls with feminine gender role adherence may be at higher risk
of behavior problems due to their passivity and submissiveness.

26

This study has several limitations, the most prominent of which is its small sample size.
Because CCV occurs in a smaller percentage of the population than SCV (Johnson, 1995), it is
not surprising that only 15% of children in this sample were exposed to CCV during early
childhood (n = 27). However, this small number made it difficult to conduct analyses examining
differences in gender and gender role adherence within children exposed to CCV. Without being
able to enter IPV type, gender role adherence, and gender as predictors into an analysis, it is
difficult to interpret how the relationship between gender and gender role adherence may differ
depending on type of IPV exposure. Future studies could examine whether the importance of the
child’s gender differs for exposure to SCV or CCV.
Another limitation of the present study is that, although this was a longitudinal study, and
information about exposure to IPV occurred yearly, gender role orientation data was only
available when children were 4 years old. This limits the ability to examine these patterns
longitudinally, to see how gender role adherence and IPV type influence these children over time
or whether these patterns predict greater risk at older ages. Future research could determine
whether the interaction of IPV type and gender role adherence at a certain developmental period
is a greater risk factor than exposure during other periods. It may be the case that exposure to
IPV during the critical stages of gender role orientation development, from ages 1 to 5, would
influence gender role adherence and behavior problems more than it does at other stages of
development. Furthermore, studies should focus on whether the same pattern would be observed
in older children exposed to IPV.
Another limitation of this study was the IPV groups were not created according to the
same criteria as Johnson, so it is unclear if the groups in the present study represent those
measured in Johnson’s studies. Johnson and Leone (2005) used 12 items from the Conflict
27

Tactics Scale (Straus, 1990) to measure physical violence and 7 items from the National
Violence Against Women Survey (NVAWS), which resembles the PMWI, to measure
psychological control. Because the groups were categorized according to different criteria,
further validation is necessary to ensure the IPV typologies measured in the current study
resemble those measured by Johnson. Furthermore, the present study attempted to improve the
measurement of the IPV groups by making them more closely resemble the theory of IPV
typologies. Johnson and Leone (2005) defined high psychological control as the perpetration of 3
or more control tactics, but did not measure the frequency of the acts. As CCV is defined as a
pattern of psychological abuse, it is important for the measurement of this group to include the
frequency of these acts. As such, the present study defined high psychological control as 3 or
more control tactics experienced frequently or very frequently.
IPV typology validation is also necessary to determine whether the measurement of these
groups accurately reflects the theory Johnson originally described (1995). One way this could be
done is by including a direct measure of the parents’ gender role adherence, as the patterns of
gender roles demonstrated in CCV and SCV were used as proxies for parental gender role
adherence. There is some evidence suggesting that male perpetrators of psychological violence
hold more patriarchal beliefs (e.g., Holtzworth-Munroe et al., 2000). However, these studies did
not measure CCV directly, nor have studies examined how SCV and CCV relate to a female
victim’s gender role adherence. The inclusion of this measure could support the use of IPV
typology as a proxy for parental gender role adherence and validate that the categorization of
these IPV groups represents a meaningful difference of parental gender role adherence. The IPV
groups could be further validated using better measurement of physical and psychological IPV.
Specifically, the measure of psychological violence in the current study provides limited
28

information about the patterned nature of psychological violence, as it only includes a limited
range of psychological violence tactics and its scale does not clearly define a pattern of
psychological abuse. Specifically, the frequency scale (“never,” “rarely,” “sometimes,”
“frequently,” and “very frequently”) does not provide enough information to determine whether
these acts represent a pervasive pattern of psychological control. Furthermore, although SCV is
more likely to be bi-directional, female violence perpetrated toward the male was not collected
during the waves of data used in the present study. Further validation of these IPV typologies
would allow for more accurate conclusions about the influence each IPV type has on victims and
children who are exposed. Furthermore, it would provide guidance as to whether future research
needs to include these categorizations in order to conduct meaningful IPV research, as suggested
by Johnson & Ferraro (2000).
In summary, the present study contributes to the understanding of the pathways through
which IPV-exposed children develop behavior problems as well as protective factors that
demonstrate resilience in children. Specifically, findings indicate that examining gender
differences is a simplistic way to understand the influence of IPV on child outcomes. Research
frequently addresses this question, and the present study suggests it is not the question we should
be asking. As gender is only one of many factors that predict child outcomes, it should be
examined in the context of other relevant variables, such as gender role adherence and IPV type.
An increased understanding of factors that predict resilience in children exposed to IPV can lead
to intervention programs that promote these positive adaptation factors. However, more specific
information regarding the influence of these protective factors is needed. For example, in the
present research, non-traditional gender role adherence was a protective factor for girls, but a risk
factor for children exposed to SCV. Due to sample size limitations of the present study, it is
29

unclear how exposure to SCV influences girls with non-traditional gender role adherence.
Important directions of future research include examining the interaction between IPV type,
gender role and adherence, and gender on child outcomes.
Finally, the present research has implications for the intergenerational transmission of
IPV. Young boys exposed to CCV are likely to develop traditional gender role adherence, and
male perpetrators of CCV display traditional gender role behaviors by perpetrating violence in
order to control their female partner. Because of these associations, gender role adherence may
be a factor that leads children exposed to CCV to perpetrate IPV as adults. However, gender role
adherence may only serve as a pathway to future perpetration of IPV for children exposed during
sensitive periods of gender role development. Specifically, gender role adherence develops
between the ages of 1 and 5 (Ruble et al., 2007; Zosuls et al., 2009), and gender stereotyped
attitudes intensify during early adolescence (Galambos, Almeida, & Petersen, 1990). Thus,
exposure to CCV may only influence future IPV perpetration if exposure to IPV occurs during
one of these critical periods in gender role development. In order to examine how gender role
adherence may influence the intergenerational transmission of IPV, future research should
examine longitudinal associations between IPV exposure during childhood and adolescence,
gender role adherence, and IPV perpetration in adulthood.

30

Table 1
Descriptive Statistics on Maternal Demographics
Variable
%
Education Level
Less than 12th Grade
11.3
GED
6.8
High School Diploma
14.7
Some College
36.2
Trade School
7.3
Associate's Degree
5.6
Bachelor's Degree
9.6
Some Graduate School
0.6
Graduate Degree
7.9
Relationship Status
Single
39.6
Married
48.0
Separated
2.8
Divorced
9.0
Widowed
0.6

31

Table 2
Frequencies of children in IPV, gender role adherence, and gender groups
Feminine
Masculine
Non-Traditional
Total
No IPV
9
6
18
33
Girls
SCV
5
6
29
40
CCV
8
6
3
17
Total
22
18
50
90
No IPV
5
22
12
39
Boys
SCV
1
19
18
38
CCV
0
7
3
10
Total
6
48
33
87

32

Table 3
Correlations between variables
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1. Child gender
2. Maternal age
0.14
3. Maternal ethnicity
N/A
0.16 *
4. Work outside the home N/A
0.01
N/A
5. Monthly income
0.15 * 0.32 * 0.12
-0.11
6. Internalizing problems -0.07
0.02
-0.03
-0.10
-0.10
7. Externalizing problems -0.09
0.01
-0.01
-0.09
-0.26 * 0.61 *
8. Stereotype knowledge -0.17 * 0.10
0.03
-0.14
0.30 * -0.14
-0.11
9. Gender role adherence N/A
0.19 * -0.04
N/A
0.14
-0.01
0.02
0.06
Note . * p < 0.05. Point biserial correlations were conducted for dichotomous variables.
For child gender, 1 = male, 0 = female. For maternal ethnicity, 1 = white, 0 = non-white.
For work outside the home, 1 = yes, 0 = no. For gender role adherence, 1 = traditional, 0 = non-traditional.

33

Table 4
ANOVA for overall behavior problems by IPV group
Type III Sum
of Squares
df
MSE
F
Income
872.72
1
872.72
5.06
IPV group
1084.13
2
542.06
3.14
Residual
29830.72
173
172.43

34

p
0.03
0.046

Table 5
ANOVA for overall behavior problems by gender and gender role
adherence group
Type III Sum
of Squares
df
MSE
F
Income
1500.06
1
1500.06
8.62
Age
127.91
1
127.91
0.74
Gender
23.40
1
23.40
0.14
GRA group
11.86
1
11.86
0.07
Gender x GRA group
1008.02
1
1008.02
5.80
Residual
29744.94
171
173.95

35

p
0.00
0.39
0.71
0.79
0.02

Table 6
ANOVA for externalizing behavior problems by gender and gender role
adherence group
Type III Sum
of Squares
df
MSE
F
p
Income
381.88
1
381.88
11.86
0.00
Gender
85.74
1
85.74
2.66
0.99
GRA group
0.96
2
0.48
0.02
0.11
Gender x GRA group
197.04
2
98.52
3.06
0.049
Residual
5475.35
170
32.21

36

REFERENCES

37

REFERENCES
Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist/4-18 and 1991 Profile,
Burlington: University of Vermont.
Baldry, A. C. (2003). Bullying in schools and exposure to domestic violence. Child Abuse and
Neglect, 27, 713-732.
Baldry, A. C. (2007). “It does affect me”: Disruptive behaviors in preadolescents directly and
indirectly abused at home. European Psychologist, 12, 29-35.
Bandura, A., & Huston, A. C. (1961). Identification as a process of incidental learning. Journal
of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63, 311-318.
Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. (1961). Transmission of aggression through imitation of
aggressive models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63, 575-582.
Barrett, A. E., & White, H. R. (2002). Trajectories of gender role orientations in adolescence and
early adulthood: A prospective study of the mental health effects of masculinity and
femininity. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 43, 451-468.
Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 42, 155-162.
Bem, S. L. (1975). Sex role adaptability: One consequence of psychological androgyny. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 634-643.
Birns, B., Cascardi, M., & Meyer, S. (1994). Sex-role socialization: Developmental influences
on wife abuse. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 64, 50-59.
Bogat, G. A., Levendosky, A. A., & Davidson, W. S. (1999). Understanding the
intergenerational transmission of violence: From pregnancy through the first year of life.
Rockville, MD: National Institutes of Justice.
Bograd, M. B. (1984). Family systems approaches to wife battering: A feminist critique.
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 54, 558-568.
Bradbard, M. R., & Endsley, R. C. (1983). The effects of sex-typed labeling on preschool
children’s information-seeking and retention. Sex Roles, 9, 247-260.
Bradley, B. S., & Gobbart, S. K. (1989). Determinants of gender-typed play in toddlers. Journal
of Genetic Psychology, 150, 453-455.
Brody, L. R., Hay, D. H., & Vandewater, E. (1990). Gender, gender role identity, and children’s
reported feelings toward the same and opposite sex. Sex Roles, 23, 363-387.
38

Buckley, T. R., & Carter, R. T. (2005). Black adolescent girls: Do gender role and racial identity
impact their self-esteem? Sex Roles, 53, 647-661.
Bussey, K. (1983). A social-cognitive appraisal of sex-role development. Australian Journal of
Psychology, 35, 135-143.
Campbell, A., Shirley, L., & Caygill, L. (2002). Sex-typed preferences in three domains: Do
two-year-olds need cognitive variables? British Journal of Pschology, 93, 203-217.
Campbell, M., Steffen, J. J., & Langmeyer, D. (1981). Psychological androgyny and social
competence. Psychological Reports, 48, 611-614.
Castellino, D. R., Lerner, J. V., Lerner, R. M., & von Eye, A. (1998). Maternal employment and
education: Predictors of young adolescent career trajectories. Applied Developmental
Science, 2, 114-126.
Cheng, C. (1999). Gender-role differences in susceptibility to the influence of support
availability on depression. Journal of Personality, 67, 439-467.
Clearfield, M. W., & Nelson, N. M. (2006). Sex differences in mothers’ speech and play
behavior with 6-, 9-, and 14-month-old infants. Sex Roles, 54, 127-137.
Cole, P. M., Zahn-Waxler, C., Fox, N. A., Usher, B. A., & Welsh, J. D. (1996). Individual
differences in emotion regulation and behavior problems in preschool children. Journal
of Abnormal Psychology, 105, 518-529.
Cox, S. J., Mezulis, A. H., & Hyde, J. S. (2010). The influence of child gender role and maternal
feedback to child stress on the emergence of the gender difference in depressive
rumination in adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 46, 842-852.
Cummings, J. G., Pepler, D. J., Moore, T. E. (1999). Behavior problems in children exposed to
wife abuse: Gender differences. Journal of Family Violence, 14, 133-156.
Davis, L. V., & Carlson, B. E. (1987). Observation of spouse abuse: What happens to the
children? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 2, 278-291.
Doumas, D., Margolin, G., & John, R. S. (1994). The intergenerational transmission of
aggression across three generations. Journal of Family Violence, 9, 157-175.
Edelbrock, C., Sugawara, A. I. (1978). Achievement of sex-typed preferences in preschool-aged
children. Developmental Psychology, 14, 614-623.

39

Eichstadt, J. A., Serbin, L. A., Poulin-Dubois, D., & Sen, M. G. (2002). Of bears and men:
Infants’ knowledge of conventional and metaphorical gender stereotypes. Infant Behavior
and Development, 25, 296-310.
Evans, S. E., Davies, C., & DiLillo, D. (2008). Exposure to domestic violence: A meta-analysis
of child and adolescent outcomes. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 13, 131-140.
Ex, C. T., & Janssens, J. M. (1998). Maternal influences on daughter’s gender role attitudes. Sex
Roles, 38, 171-186.
Fagot, B. I., & Hagan, R. (1985). Assertive behavior in toddlers. Sex Roles, 21, 341-351.
Fantuzzo, J. W., DePaola, L. M., Lambert, L., Martino, T., Anderson, G., Sutton, S. (1991).
Effects of interparental violence on the psychological adjustment and competencies of
young children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59, 258-265.
Fulcher, M., Sutfin, E. L., Patterson, C. J. (2008). Individual differences in gender development:
Associations with parental sexual orientation, attitudes, and division of labor. Sex Roles,
58, 330-341.
Galambos, N. L., Almeida, D. M., & Petersen, A. C. (1990). Masculinity, femininity, and sex
role attitudes in early adolescence: Exploring gender intensification. Child Development,
61, 1905-1914.
Ginsburg, G. S., & Silverman, W. K. (2000). Gender role orientation and fearfulness in children
with anxiety disorders. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 14, 57-67.
Graham-Bermann, S. A., & Brescoll, V. (2000). Gender, power, and violence: Assessing the
family stereotypes of the children of batterers. Journal of Family Psychology, 14, 600612.
Graham-Bermann, S. A., & Levendosky, A. A. (1998). Traumatic stress symptoms in children of
battered women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 13, 111-128.
Green, V. A., Bigler, R., & Catherwood, D. (2004). The variability and flexibility of gendertyped toy play: A close look at children’s behavioral responses to counterstereotypic
models. Sex Roles, 51, 371-386.
Guastello, D. D., & Guastello, S. J. (2003). Androgyny, gender role behavior, and emotional
intelligence among college students and their parents. Sex Roles, 49, 663-673.
Hoffmann, M. L., Powlishta, K. K., & White, K. J. (2004). An examination of gender differences
in adolescent adjustment: The effect of competence on gender role differences in
symptoms of psychopathology. Sex Roles, 50, 795-810.
40

Holtzworth-Munroe, A., Meehan, J. C., Herron, K., Rehman, U., & Stuart, G. L. (2000). Testing
the Holtzwroth-Munroe and Stuart (1994) batterer typology. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 68, 1000-1019.
Jacklin, C. N., DiPietro, J. A., & Maccoby, E. E. (1984). Sex-typing behavior and sex-typing
pressure in child/parent interaction. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 13, 413-425.
Johnson, H. D., McNair, R., Vojick, A., Congdon, D., Monacelli, J., & Lamont, J. (2006).
Categorical and continuous measurement of sex-role orientation: Differences in
associations with young adults’ reports of well-being. Social Behavior and Personality,
34, 59-76.
Johnson, M. P. (1995). Patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence: Two forms of
violence against women. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 283-294.
Johnson, M. P. (2005). Apples and oranges in child custody disputes: Intimate terrorism vs.
situational couple violence. Journal of Child Custody, 2, 43-52.
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.
Johnson, M. P., & Leone, J. M. (2005). The differential effects of intimate terrorism and
situational couple violence. Journal of Family Issues, 26, 322-349.
Kelly, J. B., & Johnson, M. P. (2008). Differentiation among types of intimate partner violence:
Research update and implications for interventions. Family Court Review, 46, 476-499.
Kerig, P. K. (1998). Gender and appraisals as mediators of adjustment in children exposed to
interparental violence. Journal of Family Violence, 13, 345-363.
Kerig, P. K. (1999). Gender issues in the effects of exposure to violence on children. Journal of
Emotional Abuse, 1, 87-105.
Kitzmann, K. M., Gaylord, N. K., Holt, A. R., & Kenny, E. D. (2003). Child witnesses to
domestic violence: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 71, 339-352.
Kulik, L. (2005). Predicting gender role stereotypes among adolescents in Israel: The impact of
background variables, personality traits, and parental factors. Journal of Youth Studies, 8,
111-129.
Lawson, D. M. (1989). A family systems perspective on wife battering. Journal of Mental
Health Counseling, 11, 359-374.

41

Leaper, C., & Bigler, R. S. (2004). Gendered language and sexist thought. Monographs of the
Society for Research in Child Development, 69, 128-142.
Lefkowitz, E. S., Zeldow, P. B. (2006). Masculinity and femininity predict optimal mental
health: A belated test of the androgyny hypothesis. Journal of Personality Assessment,
87, 95-101.
Leinbach, M. D., & Fagot, B. I. (1986). Acquisition of gender labels: A test for toddlers. Sex
Roles, 15, 655-666.
Levendosky, A. A., Bogat, G. A., Davidson, W. S., & von Eye, A. (2000). Risk and protective
factors for domestic violence. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control, Injury
Prevention Center.
Litrownik, A. J., Newton, R., Hunter, W. M., English, D., & Everson, M. D. (2003). Exposure to
family violence in young at-risk children: A longitudinal look at the effects of
victimization and witnessed physical and psychological aggression. Journal of Family
Violence, 18, 59-73.
Luddy, J. G., & Thompson, E. H. (1999). Masculinities and violence: A father-son comparison
of gender traditionality and perceptions of heterosexual rape. Journal of Family
Psychology, 11, 462-477.
MacKinnon, C. E., Stoneman, Z., & Brody, G. H. (1984). The impact of maternal employment
and family form on children’s sex-role stereotypes and mothers’ traditional attitudes.
Journal of Divorce, 8, 151-160.
Malamuth, N. M., Linz, D., Heavey, C. L., Barnes, G., & Acker, M. (1995). Using the
confluence model of sexual aggression to predict men’s conflict with women: A 10-Year
Follow-Up Study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 353-369.
Malamuth, N. M., Sockloskie, R. J., Koss, M. P., & Tanaka, J. S. (1991). Characteristics of
aggressors against women: Testing a model using a national sample of college students.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59, 670-681.
Marshall, L. L. (1992). Development of the Severity of Violence Against Women Scales.
Journal of Family Violence, 7, 103-121.
Martinez-Torteya, C., Bogat, G. A., von Eye, A., & Levendosky, A. A. (2009). Resilience among
children exposed to domestic violence: The role of risk and protective factors. Child
Development, 80, 562-577.
McDonald, R., Jouriles, E. N., Norwood, W., Ware, H. S., & Ezell, E. (2000). Husbands’ marital
violence and the adjustment problems of clinic-referred children. Behavior Therapy, 31,
649-665.
42

McDonald, R., Jouriles, E. N., Tart, C. D., Minze, L. C. (2009). Children’s adjustment problems
in families characterized by men’s severe violence toward women: Does other family
violence matter? Child Abuse and Neglect, 33, 94-101.
McHale, S. M., Kim, J., Whiteman, S., & Crouter, A. C. (2004). Links between sex-typed time
use in middle childhood and gender development in early adolescence. Developmental
Psychology, 40, 868-881.
Miller, C. L. (1983). Developmental changes in male/female voice classification by infants.
Infant Behavior and Development, 6, 313-330.
Muris, P., Meesters, C., & Knoops, M. (2005). The relation between gender role orientation and
fear and anxiety in nonclinic-referred children. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent
Psychology, 34, 326-332.
O’Brien, M., & Huston, A. C. (1985). Development of sex-typed play behavior in toddlers.
Developmental Psychology, 21, 866-871.
O’Brien, M., Peyton, V., Mistry, R., Hruda, L., Jacobs, A., Caldera, Y., … Roy, C. (2000).
Gender-role cognition in three-year-old boys and girls. Sex Roles, 42, 1007-1025.
Page, S. (1987). On gender roles and perception of maladjustment. Canadian Psychology, 28,
53-59.
Palapattu, A. G., Kingery, J. N., Ginsburg, G. S. (2006). Gender role orientation and anxiety
symptoms among African American adolescents. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology,
34, 441-449.
Pence, E., & Paymar, M. (1993). Education groups for men who batter. New York, NY:
Springer Publishing Company.
Poulin-Dubois, D., Serbin, L. A., Eichstedt, J. A., Sen, M. G., & Beissel, C. F. (2002). Men don’t
put on make-up: Toddlers’ knowledge of the gender stereotyping of household activities.
Social Development, 11, 166-181.
Priess, H. A., Lindberg, S. M., & Hyde, J. S. (2009). Adolescent gender-role identity and mental
health: Gender intensification revisited. Child Development, 80, 1531-1544.
Renk, K., Roberts, R., Klein, J., Rojas-Vilches, A., & Sieger, K. (2005). Retrospective reports of
college students’ childhood problems. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 61, 235-250.
Rose, A. J., & Montemayor, R. (1994). The relationship between gender role orientation and
perceived self-competency in male and female adolescents. Sex Roles, 31, 579-595.
43

Ruble, D. N., Martin, C. L., & Berenbaum, S. A. (2006). Gender development. In N. Eisenberg,
W. Damon, & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Social, emotional,
and personality development (pp. 858-932). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Ruble, D. N., Taylor, L. J., Cyphers, L., Greulich, F. K., Lurye, L. E., & Shrout, P. E. (2007).
The role of gender constancy in early gender development. Child Development, 78, 11211136.
Serbin, L. A., Poulin-Dubois, D., Colburne, K. A., Sen, M. G., & Eichstedt, J. A. (2001). Gender
stereotyping in infancy: Visual preferences for and knowledge of gender-stereotyped toys
in the second year. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 25, 7-15.
Shimonaka, Y., Nakazato, K., Kawaai, C., & Sato, S. (1997). Androgyny and successful
adaptation across the life span among Japanese adults. The Journal of Genetic
Psychology, 158, 389-400.
Song, P. H. (2004). Childhood gender noncomformity and peer victimization of males.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 65, 2652.
Stagg, V., Wills, G. D., & Howell, M. (1989). Psychopathology in early childhood witnesses of
family violence. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 9, 73-87.
Stake, J. E. (1997). Integrating expressiveness and instrumentality in real-life settings: A new
perspective on the benefits of androgyny. Sex Roles, 37, 541-564.
Sternberg, K. J., Baradaran, L. P., Abbott, C. B., Lamb, M. E., & Guterman, E. (2006). Type of
violence, age, and gender differences in the effects of family violence on children’s
behavior problems: A mega-analysis. Developmental Review, 26, 89-112.
Sternberg, K. J., Lamb, M. E., Guterman, E., Abbott, C. B. (2006). Effects of early and later
family violence on children’s behavior problems and depression: A longitudinal, multiinformant perspective. Child Abuse and Neglect, 30, 283-306.
Stipek, D., Gralinski, H., & Kopp, C. (1990). Self-concept development in the toddler years.
Developmental Psychology, 26, 972-977.
Telch, C. F., & Lindquist, C. U. (1984). Violent versus nonviolent couples: A comparison of
patterns. Psychotherapy, 21, 242-248.
Thompson, R. (2007). Mothers’ violence victimization and child behavior problems: Examining
the link. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 77, 306-315.
Tolman, D. L., Impett, E. A., Tracy, A. J., & Michael, A. (2006). Looking good, sounding good:
Femininity ideology and adolescent girls’ mental health. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 30, 85-95.
44

Tolman, R. M. (1989). The development of a measure of psychological maltreatment of women
by their male partners. Violence and Victims, 4, 159-177.
Tucker, M., & Bond, N. W. (1997). The roles of gender, sex role, and disgust in fear of animals.
Personality and Individual Differences, 22, 135-138.
Ward, L. M., Hansbrough, E., & Walker, E. (2005). Contributions of music video exposure to
Black adolescents’ gender and sexual schemas. Journal of Adolescent Research, 20, 143166.
Weinraub, M., Clemens, L. P., Sockloff, A., Etheridge, R., Gracely, E., & Myers, B. (1984). The
development of sex role stereotypes in the third year: Relationships to gender labeling,
gender identity, sex-typed toy preferences, and family characteristics. Child
Development, 55, 1493-1503.
Whitley, B. E. (1984). Sex-role orientation and psychological well-being: Two meta-analyses.
Sex Roles, 12, 207-225.
Wilbourn, M. P., & Kee, D. W. (2010). Henry the nurse is a doctor too: Implicitly examining
children’s gender stereotypes for male and female occupational roles. Sex Roles, 62, 670683.
Wolfe, D. A., Crooks, C. V., Lee, V., McIntyre-Smith, A., & Jaffe, P. G. (2003). The effects of
children’s exposure to domestic violence: A meta-analysis and critique. Clinical Child
and Family Psychology Review, 6, 171-187.
Younger, B. A., & Fearing, D. D. (1999). Parsing items into separate categories: Developmental
change in infant categorization. Child Development, 70, 291-303.
Zerk, D. M., Mertin, P. G., & Proeve, M. (2009). Domestic violence and maternal reports of
young children’s functioning. Journal of Family Violence, 24, 423-432.
Zosuls, K. M., Ruble, D. N., Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., Shrout, P. E., Bornstein, M. H., & Greulich,
F. K. (2009). The acquisition of gender labels in infancy: Implications for gender-typed
play. Developmental Psychology, 45, 688-701.

45