1.3.3.»)..31‘W ....... . 1",“qu '; LIBRARY Michigan State University This is to certify that the thesis entitled Alcohol Involvement and Violence: Relationships Among Alcoholic And Nonalcoholic Families presented by Eve Ellen Reider has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for - M . A. degree in PsYchology Ma , Date y 27 1987 0-7639 MS U is an Affirmarive Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 3 1293 00061 1 Milliiiili‘lniinmgiiii L. IV1ESI_J RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to LJBRARJES remove this checkout from .‘nunzs-I-L. your record. FINES will ——e be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. T’M’ . I _- . '11: 9"}:‘y ALCOHOL INVOLVEMENT AND VIOLENCE: RELATIONSHIPS AMONG ALCOHOLIC AND NONALCOHOLIC FAMILIES By Eve Ellen Reider A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Psychology 1987 ABSTRACT ALCOHOL INJOLVBiENT AND VIOLENCE: RELAT I (NSHI PS MING ALCOHOLIC AND NONALCOHOLIC FAMILIES 87 Eve Ellen Reider This study examined the relationships between alcohol use and violence among family members in a systematically drawn, nonclinical sample of intact families with young male children. Fathers in the families varied in extent to which they had a prior history of severe alcohol related trouble, and both parents varied in the extent to which heavy drinking was currently being carried on. Families with long term alcohol related difficulties were found to have higher rates of antisocial activity, greater family conflict, and higher rates of marital separation in the lifetimes of the parents. Families with long term alcohol involvement also had higher rates of violence among family members. However, families with greater current alcohol consumption were found to have lower rates of aggression between parents and children, and no relationships were found between spousal aggression and parent current drinking. TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE LIST OF TABLES............................................... iv LIST OF FIGURES.............................................. vi CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM AND REVle OF THE LITERATURE...................................... 1. lntroduction................................. 2. Literature Review............................ 2.1 Effects of Alcohol upon Aggression....... 2.2 The Alcoholic Family..................... 2.2.1 The Male Alcoholic.................. 2.2.2 The wife of the Alcoholic........... 2.2.3 The Alcoholic Marriage.............. 2.3 A Comprehensive View of Alcoholic Families................................. 11 2.4 Family Violence Research................. 12 Epidemiology........................ 12 Definitions of Violence and Abuse... 14 Methodological Problems in the Research............................ 15 2.4.4 Research Findings................... 16 3. Statement of the Problem..................... 19 4. Formal Predictions........................... 23 ‘OGb-DQUHO‘ CON” .4. .4. 04' NNN 11. METHOD.............................................. 25 1. Subjects..................................... 25 1.1 Rationale................................ 25 1.2 Selection................................ 25 2. Data Collection Procedures................... 27 . Measures..................................... 30 .1 The Conflict Tactics Scale-Revised....... 30 The Moos Family Environment Scale (FES).. 32 The Antisocial Behavior Checklist........ 32 Measures of Long Term Alcohol Involvement and Current Drinking Behaviors........... 33 (003030) JBOJN III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION.............................. 34 1. Analysis..................................... 34 2. Relationship between historical antisocial behavior and drinking density................ 37 ii Relationship between family conflict and drinking density......................... Family violence and alcohol involvement...... Family violence and individual alcohol use... 5.1 Father aggresion......................... 5.1.1 Spousal Aggression............ 5.1.1a Husband aggression to wife and husband drinking......... 5.1.1b Husband aggression to wife and wife drinking.......... . 5.1.2 Father aggression to child.... 5.2 Mother aggression......................... 5.2.1 Spousal Aggression............ 5.2.1a Uife aggression to husband and husband drinking......... 5.2.1b Uife aggression to husband and wife drinking............ 5.2.2 Mother aggression to child.... 5.3 Child aggression to parent................ 5.3.1 Child aggression to father.... 5.3.2 Child aggression to mother.... Family violence and family drinking.......... 6.1 Spousal aggression....................... 6.1.1 Husband aggression to wife.... 6.1.2 wife aggression to husband.... 6.2 Parent aggression to child............... 6.3 Child aggression to parent............... Family violence and current drinking......... 7.1 Spousal aggression....................... 7.1.1 Husband aggression to wife.... 7.1.2 wife aggression to husband.... 7.2 Parent Aggression to child............... 7.3 Child aggression to parent............... Models of Prediction......................... 8.1 Husband violence toward wife............. 8.2 Parent violence toward child............. 1v. GWERAL DISCUSSIWIIOODIIO...OOOOODOOIIBIOOOCOOIIOOI APPENDICESI.OIOOIOIIUOIIIIOIII00.0.0000...OIIOOIOOIIOOOOOOOI. A. Conflict Tactics Scale-Revised....................... 81. Relationship of wife current drinking to husband aggression to wife........................... 82. Relationship of wife current drinking to wife aggression to husband........................... REFERENCES..... 111 37 41 43 43 46 46 49 51 53 53 53 57 57 59 61 61 64 64 64 66 69 69 75 76 76 78 7B 80 83 85 87 92 112 112 120 121 122 TABLE 10 11 12 13 14 LIST OF TABLES Sociodemographic characteristics of the study sample.... Relationship of parent prior antisocial activity to own drinking density score- Pearson R’s (N=30).............. Relationship of parent perception of family environment (Moos FES) to family drinking density scores- Pearson R’s ($30)IOIIIOU-CID...IIIOOIOOIOOOIIIIIOOOI'I. Relationship of parent separations in marriage (number) to individual and family drinking density score- Pearson R’s (#30)...IOOIIOIIIOOIOOIIOIOIIIOOOOIOIOII... Types of family violence examined via the Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (violence that occurred during the past year).BOOOOIIIIIOIIIOIIIOOII.IIOOOIIIOIIIOOOOIB Violence subscales and items............................ Relationship of husband report of aggression to wife in comparison to wife report of husband aggression- Pear‘son R’s (*30)llI'll...II.IOICIIOOOIIOIIIOIOIBIOIBOO Relationship of husband drinking density score to aggression to wife- Pearson R’s (N=30).................. Relationship of wife drinking density score to husband aggPeSSIOO IO WIIQ- Pearson R’S (*30)eeeeeeeeeeeaeeeeea Relationship of father and mother drinking density score to father aggression to child- Pearson R’s (N=30)....... Relationship of wife report of aggression to husband in comparison to husband report of wife aggression- Pearson R’s ($30)OIOIOOI.IIIOIIIOOOI'IIIIIIIOIOIOIOIIO. Relationship of husband drinking density score to wife aggression to husband- Pearson R’s (N=30)............... Relationship of wife drinking density score to wife aggression to husband- Pearson R’s (N=30)............... Relationship of father and mother drinking density scores to mother aggression to child- Pearson R’s (N=30)....... iv PAGE 28 38 4O 42 44 45 47 48 50 52 54 56 58 6O 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Relationship of father and mother drinking density score to child aggression to father- Pearson R’s (N=30)....... Relationship of father and mother drinking density score to child aggression to mother- Pearson R’s (N=30)....... Relationship of family drinking density score to husband iggI‘OSSIOO to WHO" Pearson R" (N=30)oeaeeeeeeeeeeeeeoe Relationship of family drinking density score to wife aggression to husband- Pearson R’s (N=30)............... Relationship of family drinking density score to father and mother individual aggression to child- Pearson R’s (N=29 for fathers and N=30 for mothers)................. Relationship of family drinking density score to combined parent aggression to child- Pearson R’s (N=29).......... Relationship of family drinking density score to child separate aggression to father and mother- Pearson R’s (N=29 for fathers and N=30 for mothers)................. Relationship of family drinking density score to combined reports of child aggression to parents- Pearson R’s (N=29)OIIIIOIIIIIIOIIIICOIOIOOOIICOOIIOI0.0. Relationship of husband current drinking to husband aggl‘eSSIOl‘l IO “Ife- Pearson R’S (M30)eeeeeeeeeeeaeeeeee Relationship of husband current drinking to wife aggression to husband- Pearson R’s (N=30)............... Relationship of parent current drinking to own and spouse’s aggression to child- Pearson R’s (N=29 for Tithers and $30 for motherS)IIOOOIIOI.OIOIOOIIIIIIOO... Relationship of parent current drinking to child aggression to self and spouse- Pearson R’s (N=29 for fathers and N=30 for mothers)........................... Hierarchic regression analysis of husband physical violence to wife........................................ Hierarchic regression analysis of father physical UIOIence to ChildllIIIOCIII'lllI0.0IIIOIIIOIIOIOOIIIIIOI Hierarchic regression analysis of mother physical UiOlence to Child.-III-IIIOIIIIIIIIOIOOIOIIIOOIIIIOOIIOO Family violence tallies: Number of significant results. 62 63 65 67 7O 71 72 74 77 79 81 B2 86 89 9O 97 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE 1 Drinking density distribution of the study sample....... 36 2 Hierarchic model of husband violence to wife............ 84 3 Hierarchic model of parent aggression to child.......... 84 vi CMPT ER I R TI T T R0 T l-W During the past several years there has been a growing interest in the subject of violence in alcoholic families (Morgan, 1982). Little systematic evidence exists to support an empirical link between violence and alcoholism in families, although clinical reports bind the two rather substantially.[:ihere has also been a growing interest in research on family violence during the past twenty years, beginning first with child abuse and then later examining spouse abuse. More recently, the focus has been to examine the entire family’s role in the process.[:§§me of the family violence literature has shown that a large portion of assaulters are alcohol abusers (Byles, 197B; Belles, 1974). However, this information, although suggestive, cannot be used as confirmation for higher rates of violence in alcoholic families because of inconsistencies and methodological problems that constrain drawing causal inferences from the family violence literature (Coleman & Straus, 1983). [There are many reasons to believe that an increased incidence of violence does occur in alcoholic famili€§:][fiale alcoholics more often exhibit antisocial behavior than do comparable nonalcoholics (Barnes, 1979; Uilliams, 1976):] The literature also 2 [Suggests that under certain conditions the use of alcohol may lead to aggression (Gottheil, Druley, Skoloda, & Uaxman, 1983). Also, the alcoholic marriage has been shown to be conflictual, with rigid levels of communication existing between husband and wife (Ablon, 1976; Orford, 197g Em alcoholic family is a multi-problem, dysfunctional family, which seemingly has a great capacity and likelihood for violenEE::F Because rates of alcoholism are higher in males than females, special attention has been given in the literature to the male alcoholic and his family. Research illustrating that the sons of male alcoholics are at increased risk for becoming alcoholic (Cotton, 1979) heightens the need for determining etiology, treatment, and prevention of alcoholism. The focus of this literature review and the proposed research that flows from it will be on the male alcoholic and his family. The present research examines the relationship between higher rates of family violence and higher rates of drinking. The literature that follows, on alcoholism and alcohol abuse and family violence, documents the high probability for the occurrence of violence in alcoholic families. 2. ' r vi 2.1 f h r A substantial amount of research has been conducted during the past ten years to gain a better understanding of the relationship between alcohol use and aggression. Although no clear understanding exists, some consensus is present. Some models evaluated in this body of literature include the physiological disinhibition model and expectancy/learned disinhibition model. Kiie ghzgiglggiggl gigighibitign model states that 'alcohol increases aggression by weakening cortisol control, thereby producing a pseudostimulation from lower, relatively primitive centers of the brain' (Taylor, 1983, p. 287). Disinhibition theory suggest that alcohol use will lead to aggressive behavior, however it has been commonly observed that aggression does not always occur following alcohol use. In the gggggjaggzglgggngg giginhibitign model, the belief that one has consumed alcohol serves as a discriminative cue permitting acting-out behaviors. Although one study supports this model, several other studies report discrepant results (Taylor, 1983). Researchers today believe that aggression is a function of the interaction of the pharmacological state induced by alcohol and contextual cues that impinge upon the intoxicated person. According to Taylor (1983), strong support exists for a model that “assumes that neither the pharmacological effects of alcohol nor the cues in the drinking situation can independently account for the aggression expressed by intoxicated persons' (p. 288). Existing evidence suggests that the relationship between alcohol use and aggression is a complex one, including biological and psychological variables, as well as contextual cues (Boyatzis, 1983; Taylor, 1983). Individuals with a history of arguments, aggressive acts, and low socialization, self-control, and responsibility scores are found to be more interpersonaliy aggressive after heavy drinking (Boyatzis, 1975). Instigative cues, perception of threat, and the ability to judge degree of being threatened are important factors in this relationihip (Taylor, 1983). Expectancy is an important variable, however, a 'massive' amount of intersubiect variability also exists (Pihl, 1983). Researchers indicate that the location and circumstances in which alcohol is consumed play an important role in the occurrence of aggression. Aggressive behavior is found to be more frequent in loosely organized groups with weak leaders than in structured groups with strong leaders (Bottheil et al., 1983). In addition to bars, many view the family as a safe place for the expression of violence. 2.2 The filgghgli; Egmilz 2-2-1 W (fit has been estimated that one-third of the population in the United States are moderate or heavy drinkers;)and that 4 to 6 percent of the U.S. population are severe problem drinkers or alcoholics (Alcoholism a Drug Addiction Research Foundation, 1978; OMB», 1978, 1983; Haglund a Schukit, 1977). The rate of male alcoholics in the population is about three times that of female alcoholics. Research indicates that the sons of male alcoholics are at increased risk for becoming alcoholic (Cotton, 1979). The remaining review, and the proposed research, will focus on male alcoholics and their sons, because of their higher risk status for alcoholism. [:59 extensive amount of research has been completed during the past twenty-five years in an attempt to derive a comprehensive understanding of the 'alcoholic personality.‘ There is consensus in the literature that a complete picture of the alcoholic personality does not exist (Barnes, 1979; Williams, 1976). However, a few characteristics have been consistently identified. Aggression, activity, antisocial behavior, and impulsivity are factors consistently noted in alcoholics, as well as in prealcoholics who later become alcoholic (Uilliams, 1976). According to Hilliams (1976), alcoholics are described as rebellious, hostile, and nonconforming. Additionally, they frequently exhibit antisocial behavior. In his extensive review of the literature, Barnes (1979) notes four characteristics which comprise a syndrome that discriminates alcoholics from normal and other clinical groups. SEEEse four characteristics are weak ego, stimulus augmenter, field dependent, and neurotic. weak ego strength traits include weak sexual identity, negative self-concept, psychopathy, hostility, immaturity, impulsiveness, low tolerance for frustration, and present orientation. Barnes (1979) found in his review that alcoholics are stimulus augmenters with weak egos. Stimulus augmenters are perceived as more likely to feel that they are 'constantly being bombarded by sensation from both internal and external sources' (p. 618). Since they often have weak egos, alcoholics will likely feel a sense of subjective discomfort as a result of receiving too«much sensation from their bodies and their environment, and alcohol can serve the function of reducing this stimulation. Barnes states that alcoholics display numerous signs of a characteristic that he labels neuroticism. These signs include anxiety, depression, hysteria, and hypochondriasis. 2-2-2 W During the past thirty years, three perspectives have been developed to explain the characteristics of spouses of alcoholics (Finney, Moos, Cronkite, a Gamble, 1983; Moos, Finney, a Gamble, 1982). These perspectives are denoted as: (a) the 'disturbed personality“ theory, (b) the 'stress' hypothesis, and (c) the 'coping' perspective (Finney et al., 1983; Moos et al., 1982). The gig1gLbgg_gggsgng111y_nzggtngglg postulated that wives of alcoholics had abnormal personalities which led them to seek out and marry alcoholic men, nurture their alcoholism, and decompensate if their husbands became abstinent. Investigators largely failed to substantiate that spouses of current or recovered alcoholics were characterized by neurotic or disturbed personality traits (Ablon, 1976; Jacob, Favorini, Meisel, a Anderson, 1978; Moos et al., 1982; Paolino, McCrady, Diamond, & Longabaugh, 1976). The g;ngsg_hzggthggig examined the stress created by being married to an alcoholic partner and suggested that such spouse characteristics as depression, anxiety, complaints of physical symptoms, and poor health were a direct result of this stress (Moos et al., 1982). There is some support in the literature for this stress perspective (Jacob et al., 1978). More recently, research has focused on the various gggigg gtzlgg used by spouses of alcoholic partners and th;_gggsgggggggg of thgge gtzlg; for both the spouse and the alcoholic mate (Finney et al., 1983; James & Goldman, 1971). According to Moos et al. (1982), this perspective argues that many spouses can cope adequately with the stress they experience and can lead essentially normal lives, depending on their personal resources. Moos et al. (1982) have urged the integration of the above three perspectives within a conceptual framework. According to Finney et al. (1983), this conceptual framework would: (a) recognize that spouse functioning is affected not only by the severity of the alcoholic partner’s drinking problem but also by other characteristics of the partner (such as level of anxiety, depression, occupational functioning); (b) incorporate other sources of environmental stress (for example, life-change events such as the death of a friend) in addition to partner dysfunction, and (c) acknowledge that a spouse’s coping style and family social environment both‘ mediate the effects of stressors and directly influence spouse functioning. (p. 24) This model can also be applied to families where there are other types of illnesses, thereby reducing the 'specialism' that characterizes spouse research in the alcoholism field (Finney et al., 1983; Orford, 1975). Difficulties in drawing conclusions in this area of research are frequently attributed to methodological problems (Jacob et al., 1978; Moos et al., 1982). Moos et al. (1982) describe four fundamental limitations: (a) samples of spouses have been small, self-selected, and unrepresentative, (b) spouses have not been compared with adequately matched control groups, (c) spouses have generally been classified into groups on the basis of their reports of their partners’ drinking habits rather than on independent information obtained from the partner, (d) research on spouses of alcoholics has progressed independently of studies on spouses of other 'dysfunctional' or normal marital partners. At a conceptual level, Jacob et al. (1978) note that in most studies in both the 'disturbed wife' and 'stressed wife' literatures, one marital partner is viewed as the victim and the other as the villain. Since much of the recent research suggests there is greater utility in examining the alcoholic family from a systems perspective, it is important to understand how both the alcoholic and the spouse play a role in family functioning, rather than labeling individuals as villains.and victims. One needs to view people as systems as well as individuals, because it yields alternative views of their behaviors. 2-2-3 WM ‘[E§ring the past twenty-five years much work has been completed on the alcoholic marriage. The focus of this work during the past fifteen years has placed an increased emphasis on the family as a unit or system. Researchers are now interested in how the alcoholic family operates, its life history, how alcohol affects the functioning of the system, and how the system adapts and functions (Steinglass, 1982). Increased attention is being paid to the interactions between family members, rather than solely examining individual psychopathology. There are still some weaknesses in the research methodology used to study the alcoholic marriage (Orford, 1975). First, much of the research is descriptive rather than experimental. Second, reliability and validity of data are rarely questioned. Third, there has been a failure to describe and define samples or to consider differences between samples. Fourth, much of the earlier work lacked comparison groups. More importantly, Drford (1975) argues that most studies have focused on alcoholism to the exclusion of other factors involved in family disruption. Recently, researchers have become interested in the question of whether alcoholic families are similar to other families in which marital difficulties exist (Orford, 1975) or in families in which there is some type of chronic illness in the family (Finney et al., 1983). A large portion of the work emphasizes the negative psychosocial implications of living in an alcoholic family (Steinglass, 1981). There is consensus that serious conflicts and role dysfunctions exist in alcoholic families (Ablon, 1976; Moos a Moos, 1984). YEEsearch examining interactions among alcoholic couples indicate that they are 'more rigid, show more conflict, engage in more negative and hostile acts, and are less rational in their problem-solving activities than nonalcoholic couples' (Moos & Moos, 1984, p. 112E}>EEE terms of family environment, relapsed alcoholic families demonstrate high conflict and low cohesion, expressiveness, and organization (Moos, Finney, a Chan, 1981). Alcoholic families are perceived as chaotic, embedded in conflict, rigid in their interactions, and competitive in manner (Bullock a Mudd, 1959; Borad, 1971; Moos et al., 1982). These families are described as inconsistent and disorganiiEE§ Even though alcoholic families have many difficulties in functioning, alcohol has also been perceived as having adaptive consequences for the alcoholic marriage (Steinglass, 1981). It may also be an integral part of adaptive functioning in the system (Steinglass, Ueiner, a Mendelson, 1971). Jacob, Dunn, and Leonard (1983) found high alcohol consumption associated with high satisfaction and reduced symptomatology in the spouses of steady, but not binge drinkers. From these results Jacob et al. (1983) hypothesized that marital/family relationships are more satisfying during high versus low consumption periods. Jacob et al. (1983) noted that binge drinkers presented more pathological adjustments 11 than steady drinkers, indicated by higher scores on various MMPI scales. The alcoholic’s drinking patterns play an important role in family functioning, although this role is not yet fully understood. Researchers continue to examine the factors that determine the complex nature of functioning in these families (Moos & Moos, 1984). Despite discrepancies in the work on the alcoholic family, there is agreement that family functioning plays an important role in the alcoholic’s drinking. From a family systems perspective, alcohol is perceived as a central organizing aspect and integrated part of family functioning. with this increased understanding in recent years that family functioning is often an integrative aspect of the alcoholic’s drinking, family therapy has become more frequently used as a treatment for alcoholism (Janzen, 1977; Steinglass, 1976; Usher, Jay, a Class, 198223 2.3 cm re n ive f l' F ' i In examining the work already completed on the male alcoholic and his family, one must consider the existence of violence in these families. The male alcoholic is shown to be an impulsive, hostile, aggressive individual, with low tolerance for frustration. The literature examining the effects of alcohol on aggression supports the everyday observation that under certain conditions some individuals will become aggressive when consuming alcohol. The alcoholic with antisocial character is seen as more likely to become aggressive under drinking conditions, as well as when alcohol is not being consumed. 353 03020on u x man .3930: 37 2. i w ' i i I The first hypothesis is that higher rates of antisocial behavior in prior history will be observed among heavier drinking families. These relationships, of father and mother prior antisocial activity to own drinking density scores are presented in Table 2. Statistically significant positive correlations between fathers’ drinking and antisocial activity exist for all antisocial behavior subscale scores. The mean of these relationships is .51, with a range from .39 to .64. These data strongly demonstrate that father prior antisocial behavior is positively and strongly related to life course alcohol consumption. A significant positive relationship also exists between mother drinking and total antisocial behavior [5? .40, 25.05), as well as for subscale measures of delinquent behavior IL? .43, g5.05] and sexual behavior In? .42, [1.05]. Although not quite as strong as the relationship between father drinking and prior antisocial behavior, mother prior antisocial activity is also related to alcohol consumption. In summary, for both men and women, as the extent of alcohol use increases, their reports of antisocial activities increase. 3. elati n The second hypothesis is that higher rates of family conflict and dissatisfaction exist in heavier drinking families (Moos & 38 Table 2 Relationship of Parent Prior Antisocial Activity to own Drinking Density Score- Pearson R’s (N=30) Prior Antisocial Activity Relationship Relationship among fathers among mothers Total .64 see .40 a Parental Defiance .52 ass .28 School Behavior .56 it! .05 Delinquent Behavior .64 iii .43 * Excitement, Sensation Seeking .47 k! .24 Sexual Behavior .43 i .42 * Leaving the Field .42 e .13 Trouble with the Law .55 *** .27 Serious Physical Aggression .56 *fl* .20 Job Behavior .39 § .27 Marital Behavior .41 k .24 x 91.05, as p_<.01, an 19001 39 Billings, 1982; Moos, Finney, & Chan, 1981). It was expected that there would be a significant positive relationship between drinking density and family conflict, with higher rates of conflict observed among heavier drinking families. A drinking density score different from individual mother and father drinking scores is utilized in these analyses. It is called a “jggilz grigking ggnsitz gcgre“; it consists of the product of the father and mother drinking density score in each family. With this measure, one is able to examine conflict in families as iggilz drinking increases, not just the separate drinking of mothers and fathers in families. The family drinking density score will be further discussed and used when examining the relationship between family drinking and family violence (see pp. 64-75). These results, of a relationship of father and mother perception of family environment (Moos FES) to family drinking density scores are shown in Table 3. The data indicate that a significant positive relationship exists between perceptions of family conflict for both mother and father and family drinking; as predicted, as drinking increases, family conflict increases. In addition a significant negative relationship is demonstrated between family drinking and father report of cohesion in the family. As father drinking increases, family cohesion decreases. These findings, although in accord with expectations, are still much weaker in comparison to the relationships of antisocial behavior and drinking. Consequently, other approaches to testing the hypothesis were explored. 40 Table 3 Relationship of Parent Perception of Family Environment (Moos FES) to Family Drinking Density Scores- Pearson R’s (N=30) Family Environment Subscale Relationship Relationship of father of mother perception perception Cohesion ~.37 * -.11 Expressiveness -.17 .15 Conflict .39 a .40 * Independence -.02 -.10 Achievement Orientation -.09 .07 Intellectual Cultural Orientation -.22 -.29 Active Recreational Orientation -.26 -.24 Moral Religious Emphasis -.22 -.15 Organization -.04 -.34 Control .05 -.01 * 23,05 41 The number of prior marital separations from all marriages is considered to be an alternative, face valid measure of marital conflict in the life of the individual; so this index was also used to test the hypothesis. The information was obtained from the NIMH Diagnostic Interview Schedule questions relating to this issue (Robins, Helzer, Croughan, & Ratcliff, 1981; Robins et al., 1985). The results of this test are presented in Table 4. The data show a strong relationship between number of marital separations and drinking (for both individual and family drinking density scores). For both fathers and mothers, significant positive correlations exist between long term alcohol consumption and number of marital separations; as alcohol use increases, number of marital separations increases. These data demonstrate a strong positive relationship between history of marital conflict and alcohol consumption at the individual and at the system level. This relationship is not as well reflected in paper and pencil measures, such as the Moos FES, but the indices, taken together provide strong support for the hypothesis. 4. FAM Y I CE A The third hypothesis was that a positive significant relationship will be found between higher rates of violence and heavier drinking. It is hypothesized that heavier drinking families more often utilize verbal and non-verbal expressions of hostility, as well as the use of physical force or violence in resolving conflict. The relationship between family violence and 42 Table 4 Relationship of Parent Separations in Marriage (Number) to Individual and Family Drinking Density Score- Pearson R’s (N=30) Relationship for Relationship for husband wife Individual drinking density .48 ex .36 * Family drinking density .45 4* .61 *** * p$.05, as p$.01, see p$.001 43 drinking density scores are examined in reports of: (I) ggggggl gggggggigg (individual report of violence to spouse, as well as spouse violence toward respondent, when resolving conflict during the past year), (2) ggrgnt gggggggigg tg guild (parent individual report of violence to child when resolving conflict during the past year), (3) ghiig gggggggign tgggrg ggrgnt (parent individual report of child violence to respondent when resolving conflict during the past year). Table 5 details the types of violence dealt with in the next section. Aggression scores are reported in terms of the following subscales: Reasoning, Verbal Aggression, Indirect Physical Aggression/ Threats, Physical Violence, Severe Physical Violence, and Total Violence. The items utilized in the subscale scores are detailed in Table 6. In this section, aggression in different family members is examined, in relation to both father and mother drinking. The following section focuses on the concept of family drinking, rather than the separate drinking of mother and father. This allows for the examination of the relationship between family drinking and family violence. 5. ' i n n ' i I 5.1 er r sion This section examines father aggression in the family, in relation to his own and his wife’s drinking. First, husband aggression to wife is examined by considering husband report of 44 Table 5 Types of Family Violence Examined via the Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (Violence that Occurred During the Past Year) I. Spousal Aggression 1. Self-initiated aggression against spouse- self reports 1a) Husband’s reports of his aggression to his wife. 1b) wife’s reports of her aggression to her husband. 2. Spouse initiated aggression against self- reported by self 2a) Husband’s reports of wife’s aggression toward him. 2b) wife’s reports of husband’s aggression toward her. II. Parent Aggression 3a) Father reports of violence to child. 3b) Mother reports of violence to child. Ill. Parent Reports of Child Aggresgion 4a) Father reports of child aggression against father. 4b) Mother reports of child aggression against mother. 45 Table 6 Violence Subscales and Items Tgtal Viglence = Verbal Aggression f Indirect Physical Aggression/Threats f Physical Violence f Severe Physical Violence Rgagoning= a f b + c a) Discussed the issue calmly. b) Bot information to back up his/her side. c) Brought in or tried to bring in someone to help settle things. Verbal Aggression= d f e f f f g f h d) Insulted or swore at you. e) Sulked and/or refused to talk about it. f) Stomped out of the room or house (or yard). 9) Cried. h) Did or said something to spite you. Indirect Physical Aggressiggglggggtge i t J i) Threw or smashed or hit or kicked something, but not at you. j) Threatened to hit or throw something at you. Physical Violence= k f l k) Hit you or actually threw something at you. i) Pushed, grabbed, shoved, slapped you or spanked you. Severe Physical Violencg= m f n f o m) Used a belt on you. n) Kicked, bit, hit, or beat you up. 0) Threatened to or used a knife or gun. 46 aggression to wife, as well as wife report of husband aggression. Second, father report of aggression to child is examined. 5-1-1 W 5.1.1a s n ' h n in In examining the association to alcohol consumption, reports of both husband and wife perceptions of husband aggression are available. The relationship between husband report of aggression to wife in comparison to wife report of husband aggression are given in Table 7. These results indicate that there is some congruence in these reports. The hypothesis was that there will be higher rates of husband aggression to wife when resolving conflict in families with husbands who have higher rates of alcohol consumption. Analyses of the relationship between husband aggression to wife and husband drinking, reported separately by husbands and wives, are presented in Table 8. Regarding husband reports, a significant positive relationship is observed between husband drinking and use of indirect physical aggression and physical violence. As husband alcohol use increases, husband reports of both indirect physical aggression and physical violence toward wife increase. Although the relationship is far weaker, wife independent reports of husband aggression tend to corroborate the husband reports. Significant positive correlations exist between husband drinking and wife report of husband’s physical violence. As husband drinking increases, wife report of husband’s physical violence increases. Essentially, both husband and wife report the greater 47 Table 7 Relationship of Husband Report of Aggression to wife in Comparison to wife Report of Husband Aggression- Pearson R’s (N=30) Aggression to wife Relationship Total Violence .31 b Reasoning .12 b Verbal Aggression .27 b Indirect Physical .31 Aggression/Threats Physical Violence .88 sex Severe Physical Violence -.05 *ii 23.001 b N= 29 for indicated correlations 48 Table 8 Relationship of Husband Drinking Density Score to Aggression to Uife- Pearson R’s (N=30) Aggression to Uife Relationship of Relationship of husband drinking husband drinking to husband report to wife report of aggression of husband to wife aggression Total Violence .23 -.00 b Reasoning -.03 .36 b Verbal Aggression .17 -.07 b Indirect Physical .49 ii .09 Aggression/Threats Physical Violence .57 sex .37 i Severe Physical Violence .30 .04 a p_<.os, u 5.01, m p_(_.001 b N= 29 for indicated correlations 49 use of physical violence by husband toward wife with husband’s increased alcohol consumption. 5.1.1b flgggggg gggngggign 19 gig; ggg wifg gringing The results of a relationship between husband aggression to wife, reported separately by husbands and wives, and wife’s drinking is presented in Table 9. Regarding husband perception, no significant relationship is found between husband aggression to wife and wife’s alcohol consumption. Regarding wife perception, a significant positive relationship exists between wife alcohol consumption and wife report of husband’s severe physical violence. As wife drinking increases, wife report of husband’s severe physical violence increases. For the most part, it appears that a positive relationship does exist between husband aggression toward wife and alcohol use. The strongest relationship is observed between husband report of aggression to wife and husband’s alcohol use. The wife’s report of husband aggression corroborates this relationship. Less corroboration is observed for the relationship between husband aggression toward wife and wife’s drinking. A relationship is found between wife’s alcohol use and wife report of husband’s severe physical violence; however, this relationship is not observed in husbands’ reports. The data from the present study cannot establish whether wife’s heavier drinking intensifies her perception of husband’s severe aggression, or whether it reflects occurrences, that because of their unpleasantness, husbands are under heavier pressure to deny. 50 Table 9 Relationship of wife Drinking Density Score to Husband Aggression to Uife- Pearson R’s (N=30) Aggression to Wife Relationship of Relationship of wife drinking wife drinking to husband report to wife report of aggression of husband to wife aggression Total Violence .21 .30 b Reasoning .19 .08 b Verbal Aggression .22 .29 b Indirect Physical .02 .21 Aggression/Threats Physical Violence .17 .33 Severe Physical Violence -.07 .44 * *,g$.05 b N= 29 for indicated correlations 51 5.1.2 thhg: Aggrgggigg 39 Child It was hypothesized that there would be higher rates of parent violence to child in heavier drinking families. In this section, fathers aggression to child is examined separately in relationship to father and mother drinking. These results are presented in Table 10. No significant relationship is found between father drinking and father aggression to child. The relationship between father aggression to child and mother drinking is also examined. A significant positive relationship is observed between rates of father physical and total violence toward child and mother drinking. As mother alcohol use increases, rates of father physical and total violence toward child increases. These results regarding the relationship between father aggression to children and both father and mother drinking are most interesting. It may be that heavier drinking fathers are more peripheral in their relationships with their children. Therefore, their drinking may not have much of an effect upon their use of aggression toward their children. Another possibility is that heavier drinking fathers are more likely to deny child aggression; such denial would serve to attenuate the reported father drinking to father aggression connection. However, it is also possible that increased alcohol use by mothers in families has a different and greater impact on family functioning. From this perspective, heavier drinking mothers would become more peripheral in care-taking of their children and Table 10 52 Relationship of Father and Mother Drinking Density Score to Father Aggression to Child- Pearson R’s (N=29) Aggression to Child Relationship of father drinking to father aggression Relationship of mother drinking to father aggression Total Violence Reasoning Verbal Aggression Indirect Physical Aggression/Threats Physical Violence Severe Physical Violence .34 -.03 -.16 .04 .14 .02 .22 .40 * .33 1‘. iii-05 53 fathers would end up being more involved in their children’s discipline. Biven the potential of these families to be chaotic and conflictual, one would anticipate that mothers’ drinking would have a greater impact on the chaos. Under these circumstances, the present data suggest that fathers then use higher rates of aggression in resolving conflict with their children. 5.2 Mgthgr Aggrgggigg This section examines mother aggression in families, in relation to husband and wife drinking. First, wife aggression to husband is examined, by considering wife report of aggression to husband, as well husband report of wife aggression. Second, mother report of aggression to children is examined. 5.2.1 ousal A re ion 5.2.1a. wife aggrgggign to hgggang gng hggbggg grigkigg As before, both wife and husband report of wife aggression is presented when examining the relationship between alcohol consumption. The relationship between wife report of aggression to husband in comparison to husband report of wife aggression is presented in Table 11. Again, as before, these results indicate that there is congruence in the reports. In fact, there is substantially greater reported congruence here than between husband report and wife report on husband aggression (Table 7). Both of these relationships suggest that there is substantial, independently corroborated, accuracy to the parent report of their aggression. 54 Table 11 Relationship of wife Report of Aggression to Husband in Comparison to Husband Report of wife Aggression- Pearson R’s (N=30) Aggression to Husband Relationship Total Violence Reasoning Verbal Aggression Indirect Physical Aggression/Threats Physical Violence Severe Physical Violence .60 *** .48 ii .25 as 21.01, axe 21.001 b N= 29 for indicated correlations 55 The hypothesis was that higher rates of spousal aggression, by both husband and wife, exist with increased alcohol use by husband; it was suggested that this relationship wbuld be even stronger for aggression initiated by husbands. As already noted, a strong positive relationship exists between husband drinking and husband aggression to wife. Now the relationship between husband drinking and wife aggression to husband is examined. The results of the relationship between wife aggression to husband, reported separately by wife and husband, and husband drinking are presented in Table 12. Regarding wife perception, a positive relationship is found between wife report of physical violence toward husband and husband drinking. As husband alcohol use increases, wife report of physical violence toward husband increases. In examining husband perceptions, no significant relationships are observed between husband report of wife aggression and husband drinking. Although a relationship is found between wife report of aggression to husband and husband alcohol use, this relationship is not corroborated by husband report of wife aggression. Although heavier drinking husbands report themselves as being more aggressive to their wives, they apparently do not perceive their wives as reciprocating or initiating aggression to a greater degree than do more moderate drinking men. 56 Table 12 Relationship of Husband Drinking Density Score to wife Aggression to Husband- Pearson R’s (N=30) Aggression to Husband Relationship of Relationship of husband drinking husband drinking to wife report to husband report of aggression to of wife aggression husband Total Violence .26 .00 Reasoning .31 -.01 Verbal Aggression .26 -.02 Indirect Physical -.02 .27 Aggression/Threats Physical Violence .47 as .23 Severe Physical Violence -.08 .16 u g_<_.01 57 5-2-1b W The analyses examining the possible relationship between wife aggression to husband, reported separately by wife and husband, and wife’s alcohol use are presented in Table 13. Regarding wife perception, a significant positive relationship exists between wife report of aggression to husband and wife drinking. As wife’s alcohol involvement increases, her report of total violence and verbal aggression toward husband increases. Regarding husband perception, no relationship exists between wife drinking and husband report of wife aggression These results indicate that a clear positive relationship exists between wife drinking and wife aggression to husband, according to wife report. As wife alcohol use increases, aggression toward husband increases. The present data indicate that the reports of one’s aggression are most clearly connected to one’s own reports of one’s drinking; thus, wife drinking is most clearly related to wife report of aggression to husband, while husband drinking is most clearly related to husband report of aggression to wife. This suggests that method variance, not surprisingly, enters into the correlation. Ultimately, the only way to most precisely establish the nature of these relationships is to obtain behavioral data (which have their own problems). Such work is far beyond the scope of the present study. 5.2.2 Mgther Aggrgggign tg Chiig It was hypothesized that there would be higher rates of parental violence in heavier drinking families. In this section, 58 Table 13 Relationship of Uife Drinking Density Score to Wife Aggression to Husband- Pearson R’s (N=30) Aggression to Husband Relationship of Relationship of wife drinking wife drinking to wife report to husband of aggression to report of wife husband aggression Total Violence .43 i ' .30 Reasoning .30 .32 Verbal Aggression .42 l .30 Indirect Physical .30 .25 Aggression/Threats Physical Violence .23 -.03 Severe Physical Violence .30 .04 .. 25.05 59 mother aggression to child is examined separately in relationship to father and mother drinking. These results are presented in Table 14. A significant positive relationship exists between mother physical violence to child and father alcohol consumption. As father drinking increases, mother report of physical violence toward child increases. No significant relationship is found between mother drinking and mother aggression toward child. The results regarding parent aggression to child are most interesting. As noted, father aggression is positively related to mother drinking, while mother aggression is positively related to father drinking. As already suggested, it may be that when one parent is drinking, he or she is more peripheral to handling parenting issues. The other parent may be dealing with a child who has many acting-out behaviors because of the family chaos and conflict. This likely distressed parent, may be more aggressive toward the child in resolving conflict. 5.3 thlg Aggggggign tg Pgrent Although not explicitly stated in the hypotheses, another set of relationships that can be examined are those between parental drinking and rates of child aggression toward parent. Because of the conflict and chaos that exists in heavier drinking families, one possibility is that children reared in such contexts would engage in higher rates of aggression toward their parents. In addition, it is plausible that parents may not be as apt to report higher rates of aggressive behavior toward their children because of social desirability factors, but they may be more willing to 60 Table 14 Relationship of Father and Mother Drinking Density Scores to Mother Aggression to Child- Pearson R’s (N=30) Aggression to Child Relationship of Relationship of father drinking mother drinking to mother to mother aggression aggression Total Violence .35 .09 Reasoning .32 .11 Verbal Aggression .12 .10 Indirect Physical .28 .01 Aggression/Threats Physical Violence .47 ** .04 Severe Physical Violence .07 .29 ** p$.01 61 report on their children’s aggressive behavior, which can be considered an index of aggression in the family. These relationships between children’s aggression to parents and parental drinking, will now be examined. 5.3.1 hi F The results of a relationship between child aggression to father and father and mother drinking, are presented in Table 15. Regarding father drinking, a positive relationship exists between father drinking and child verbal aggression to father. As father history of alcohol use is greater, father report of child verbal aggression is also greater. Regarding mother drinking, no significant relationship exists between mother drinking and child aggression to father. 5.3.2 Child Aggresgign to Mgthgr The results of a relationship between child aggression to mother and father and mother drinking, are presented in Table 16. Regarding father drinking, a significant positive relationship exists between father drinking and child total violence and indirect physical aggression to mother. As father drinking increases, mothers report of child indirect physical aggression increase. Regarding mother drinking, no significant relationship is found between mother drinking and mother report of child aggression. The results indicate that child aggression to parent is only clearly related to father drinking. As father drinking increases, father report of child verbal aggression increases, as well as 62 Table 15 Relationship of Father and Mother Drinking Density Score to Child Aggression to Father- Pearson R’s (N=29) Aggression to Father Relationship of Relationship of father drinking mother drinking to father report to father report of child of child aggression aggression Total Violence .34 .14 Reasoning -.02 .28 Verbal Aggression .38 a .20 Indirect Physical -.04 -.27 Aggression/Threats Physical Violence -.35 -.29 Severe Physical Violence -.09 .29 1 23.05 63 Table 16 Relationship of Father and Mother Drinking Density Score to Child Aggression to Mother- Pearson R’s (N=30) Aggression to Mother Relationship of Relationship of father drinking mother drinking to mother report to mother report of child of child aggression aggression Total Violence .43 i .15 b b Reasoning .25 .03 Verbal Aggression .31 .17 Indirect Physical .52 sex .21 Aggression/Threats Physical Violence .17 .12 b b Severe Physical Violence .03 .16 .1 13.05, m p_<.001 b N= 29 for indicated correlations 64 mother report of child indirect physical aggression. It is possible that these children have learned aggressive behaviors from those observed in their parents’ relationships. 6. l i ' w ‘ V' ' r' The previous sections have examined the concept of violence in families in relationship to the separate longterm alcohol consumption of father and mother. Another important concept to examine is the relationship between “family drinking“ and violence in families. The idea of family drinking enables one to examine the long term alcohol use of couples, rather than individuals. This permits one to find out how the drinking of the couple-system may affect the amount of aggression that takes place in a family. A drinking score different from individual mother and father drinking density scores is utilized in these analyses. It is called the fggily drinking ggngigy gggrg. As already noted, the family score consists of the product of the father and mother drinking density score in each family (see p. 39-42 for an earlier set of results involving this measure). with this score, one is able to examine whether increased amounts of family drinking will. affect the rates of violence that occurs in these families. 6.1 l r i n 6-1-1 W The hypothesis was that there will be higher rates of husband aggression to wife when resolving conflict in heavier drinking families. These results are presented in Table 17. These 65 Table 17 Relationship of Family Drinking Density Score to Husband Aggression to Uife- Pearson R’s (N=30) Aggression to wife ‘ Relationship of Relationship of family drinking to family drinking to husband report wife report of aggression of husband to wife aggression Total Violence .30 .21 b Reasoning .08 .37 k b Verbal Aggression .25 .12 b Indirect Physical .40 i .24 Aggression/Threats Physical Violence .61 sex .56 use Severe Physical Violence .19 .29 1. p_<_.os, m p_<_.001 b N= 29 for indicated correlations 66 results show a significant positive relationship between family drinking density and husband report of aggression to wife. As family drinking increases, husband report of indirect physical aggression/threats and physical violence toward wife increases. wife reports of husband aggression, independently tend to corroborate husband reports. Significant positive correlations exist between family drinking and reasoning [£9 .37, 21.051 and physical violence 1;; .56, 21.0011. As family drinking increases, wife report of husband using reasoning and physical violence toward her increases. It should be noted that it was originally expected that there would be lower rates of reasoning found in heavier drinking families, and these findings will be elaborated in the discussion section. In essence, both husbands and wives report the greater use of physical violence by husband toward wife in heavier drinking families. 6.1.2 Uifg Aggreggign tg Hggggng The hypothesis was that there will be higher rates of wife aggression toward husband when resolving conflict in heavier drinking families, although not as high as husband aggression toward wife. These results of a relationship between family drinking and wife aggression toward husband, as reported separately by wife and husband, are presented in Table 18. Regarding wife perception, a strong positive relationship is observed between family drinking and aggression to husband. As family drinking increases, wife report of almost all forms of 67 Table 18 Relationship of Family Drinking Density Score to Wife Aggression to Husband- Pearson R’s (N=30) Aggression to Husband Relationship of Relationship of family drinking family drinking to wife report to husband report of aggression to of wife husband aggression Total Violence .51 as .17 Reasoning .44 if .13 Verbal Aggression .51 4!! .15 Indirect Physical .14 .36 * Aggression/Threats Physical Violence .53 sex .11 Severe Physical Violence .09 .16 1. p_<_.05, in: p_<_.01, m p_<_.oo1 68 violence (i.e., total, reasoning, verbal aggression, and physical violence) toward husband increases. Regarding husband perception, only husband report of wife use of threat and indirect physical aggression is positively related to family drinking. As family drinking increases, husband report of wife making threats and throwing objects (but not at him) increases. In heavier drinking families wives strongly see themselves as more aggressive to their husbands; husbands do not particularly see this as occurring. The positive relationship between family drinking and wife report of reasoning toward husband was not expected, and this finding will be discussed later. In summarizing the relationships between family drinking and spousal aggression, a clear positive association is observed. Regarding husband aggression toward wife, both husband and wife report a greater amount of physical violence with higher family drinking. There does not appear to be as consistent a family connection between drinking and wife aggression to husband. A strong relationship exists between family drinking and wife report of aggression to husband, but there is not as strong a one between drinking and husband perception of wife aggression. These women report themselves as being far more aggressive than their husbands report. It may be that husbands do not see their wives’ behaviors as violent in comparison to their own aggressive behaviors. 69 6.2 r n r i ii The hypothesis was that higher rates of parental violence towards children would be found in heavier drinking families. These results are presented in Table 19. No significant relationship exists between family drinking and father aggression toward child. A significant positive relationship exists between family drinking and rates of mother physical violence to child. As family drinking increases, mother reports higher rates of physical violence toward child. Analyses regarding the relationship between family drinking and combined parent reports of aggression toward their children are presented in Table 20. Hhen parent reports of aggression are combined (summed), a significant positive relationship exists between family drinking and parent verbal aggression and indirect physical aggression/ threats toward child. A more substantial relationship exists for family drinking when parent reports of aggression to child are combined. 6.3 Child Aggrggsion to Egggnt It was hypothesized that children will be more aggressive toward their parents in heavier drinking families. The tests of this hypotheses are shown in Table 21. These data indicate a relationship exists between family drinking and father report of child rates of total violence, verbal aggression, and physical violence. As family drinking increases, father report of child rates of total violence and verbal aggression toward him increases. A significant negative correlation exists between Table 19 70 Relationship of Family Drinking Density Score to Father and Mother Individual Aggression to Child- Pearson R’s (N=29 for Fathers and N=30 for Mothers) Aggression to Child Relationship of family drinking to father reported aggression Relationship of family drinking to mother reported aggression Total Violence Reasoning Verbal Aggression Indirect Physical Aggression/Threats Physical Violence Severe Physical Violence .13 .28 .08 .09 .22 .31 .15 .24 .40 * .23 * p$.05 71 Table 20 Relationship of Family Drinking Density Score to Combined Parent Aggression to Child- Pearson R’s (N=29) Aggression to Child Relationship of family drinking to combined parents aggression Total Violence .32 Reasoning .21 Verbal Aggression .45 ** Indirect Physical .47 as Aggression/Threats Physical Violence .02 Severe Physical Violence .10 11* [11.01 Table 21 72 Relationship of Family Drinking Density Score to Child Separate Aggression to Father and Mother- Pearson R’s (N=29 for Fathers and N=30 for Mothers) Aggression to Parent Relationship of family drinking to father report Relationship of family drinking to mother report of child of child aggression aggression Total Violence .38 i .47 as b Reasoning .12 .20 Verbal Aggression .44 x .36 * Indirect Physical -.13 .60 *** Aggression/Threats Physical Violence -.38 f .24 b Severe Physical Violence .08 .12 * p$.05, if p$.01, sax p$.OOI b N=29 for indicated correlations 73 family drinking and physical violence lg; -.38, 11.05]. As family drinking increases, father report of child physical violence toward him decreases. It is possible that these results may be due to children being in greater fear of their fathers in heavier drinking families and are consequently less likely to act out towards them. Regarding mothers, the results indicate that a relationship exists between family drinking density and mother report of child aggression toward her in resolving conflict. Significant positive correlations exist between family drinking and child total violence, verbal aggression, and indirect physical aggression. As family level of drinking problems increases, so also does child rates of aggression toward the mother. These children in heavier drinking families apparently do not have the same fear of mothers as they do of fathers, since no negative relationships exist between alcohol use and child aggression to mothers. Analyses regarding the relationship between family drinking problems and combined (summed) parent report of child aggression are presented in Table 22. Uhen parent reports of child aggression are pooled, a significant positive relationship is found between family drinking and total violence, as well as subscales of verbal aggression and indirect physical aggression/ threats. As level of family drinking trouble increases, child aggression toward parents increases. In summary, when examining the relationship between family alcohol related difficulty and child aggression toward parent, the 74 Table 22 Relationship of Family Drinking Density Score to Combined Reports of Child Aggression to Parents- Pearson R’s (N=29) Aggression to Parents Relationship of family drinking to combined reports of child aggression Total Violence .52 9* b Reasoning .21 Verbal Aggression .45 as Indirect Physical .47 ** Aggression/Threats Physical Violence .02 b Severe Physical Violence .11 ** p$.01 b N= 28 for indicated correlations 75 results also indicate that as family drinking trouble is high, child aggression toward parent also is high. These relationships are slightly more robust than those comparing family drinking and parent aggression toward child. It may be that parents have difficulties admitting of their own aggression toward their children. However, they may more readily report their children’s aggression, because they perceive it as misbehavior, rather than the usage of violence. It is also possible that heavier drinking families are more chaotic and these parents less often discipline their children; or, children in these families may identify with parents when punished aggressively, so there is an increase in modelled aggression (Eron, 1987). Last, these families may be so heavily involved in spousal conflict that dealing with their children may be more peripheral in their concerns. In consequence, their children’s aggressive behaviors continue to escalate. These alternatives eventually need to be explored via more direct behavioral interaction studies. 7. Rglgtignghigg ggtwggn Eggily yiglgnge l nd urr A h i Last, it had been hypothesized that measures of current alcohol consumption would show a stronger relationship to individual and familial violence than would lifetime measures of alcohol involvement. Current drinking difficulty is assessed by Cahalan, Cissin a Crossley’s (1969) Ouantity-Frequency-Variability (OFV) index of extent of drinking in the last six months. Results 76 indicate that nit; gnrnnnt grinking in nnt nnlntgg to nngugnl nggnnnnign (See Appendix 81-82). Therefore, the following sections on spousal aggression report the findings only in relation to husband’s current drinking. 7.1 l A r ion 7.1.1 H ' rr drinking It was hypothesized not only that higher rates of husband aggression to wife would be associated with higher husband alcohol use, but also that this association would be higher with a measure of current alcohol consumption than it would be for a lifetime involvement measure. At the outset it should be noted that this hypothesis was disconfirmed. Although the pattern of significant correlations involving O-F-V (the current alcohol consumption measure) varies somewhat from the drinking density correlations, in no instance in this section (7.1), or in the following ones (7.2 and 7.3) were the O-F-V and drinking density r’s significantly different from each other. Nhat follows is simply a description of the O-F-V aggression findings: the reader needs to be aware that they fairly closely parallell the drinking density findings, although in a few instances the details vary. Results testing the current consumption versus husband aggression hypothesis, reported separately by husbands and wives, are presented in Table 23. Regarding husband perception, no relationship exists between husband’s current drinking and husband’s report of violence to wife. Regarding wife perception, 77 Table 23 Relationship of Husband Current Drinking to Husband Aggression to loiife- Pearson R’s (N=30) Aggression to Uife Relationship of Relationship of husband drinking to husband drinking husband report to wife report of aggression of husband to wife aggression Total Violence -.14 -.03 b Reasoning .16 .37 i b Verbal Aggression -.17 -.02 b Indirect Physical .15 -.04 Aggression/Threats Physical Violence .24 .06 Severe Physical Violence .27 -.19 * p$.05 b N= 29 for indicated correlations 78 a significant positive relationship exists between husband’s drinking and wife’s report of husband reasoning. High levels of husband current alcohol use are associated with greater wife reports of husband reasoning. As previously noted, it was not expected that there would be a significant positive relationship between drinking and wife’s reports of husband’s reasoning as a means of conflict resolution. This will be discussed in a later section. And although higher rates of husband aggression to wife, reported by both husband and wife, are found with greater lifetime involvement (see Table 8), those relationships are not significantly different than these regarding current alcohol use. 7.1.2 wife nggression tg nunband nnd husnnng ggrrgnt drinking It was also hypothesized that wife aggression to husband would be positively related to current alcohol use, although not as strongly as for husband aggression to wife. These results are presented in Table 24. Regarding wife perception, no relationship is found between husband’s current alcohol intake and wife reports of aggression to husband. Regarding husband perception, no relationship is observed between husband current drinking and wife aggression to husband. 7.2 rent A r 'on o hil It was also predicted that there would be higher rates of violence toward children in families with current heavier drinking, and that these relationships would be stronger than those using measures of lifetime alcohol involvement. These 79 Table 24 Relationship of Husband Current Drinking to Wife Aggression to Husband- Pearson R’s (N=30) Aggression to Husband Relationship of Relationship of husband drinking husband drinking to wife report to husband report of aggression to of wife husband aggression Total Violence .23 -.31 Reasoning .26 -.13 Verbal Aggression .24 -.32 Indirect Physical -.23 -.21 Aggression/Threats Physical Violence .18 -.06 Severe Physical Violence -.28 .25 80 results are presented in Table 25. A significant nngnliyg relationship exists between father current drinking and severe physical violence of father toward child. Higher current alcohol consumption by fathers is associated with lower levels of severe physical aggression by him. There is no relationship between father current alcohol use and mother aggression toward child. A negative relationship exists between mother current drinking and physical violence by mother toward child. Mothers with higher current alcohol consumption levels report less physical violence toward their child than do those with lower drinking levels. So contrary to the hypothesis regarding current alcohol use, a significant negative relationship exists between parent drinking and that parent’s aggression to child. 7.3 Child Aggreggion to Parent It was also predicted that there would be higher rates of child violence toward parents in families with heavier current drinking, and that these relationships would be stronger than those using measures of lifetime alcohol involvement. These results are presented in Table 26. Taken together, the results show that a significant negative relationship exists between both father and mother current drinking and child indirect, physical and severe physical violence toward father. As father and mother current alcohol use increases, rates of aggression by child toward father decrease. It is not clear why there is a relationship association between current drinking and decreased child 81 Table 25 Relationship of Parent Current Drinking to own and Spouse’s Aggression to Child- Pearson R’s (N=29 for Fathers and N=30 for Mothers) Aggression to Child Relationship of Relationship of parent drinking parent drinking to his/her own to spouse’s reported reported aggression aggression (A) Father Drinking and Parent Aggression to Child Total Violence -.13 .32 Reasoning .10 .08 Verbal Aggression .15 .24 indirect Physical .02 .31 Aggression/Threats Physical Violence -.25 .27 Severe Physical Violence -.37 a -.26 (8) Mother Drinking and Parent Aggression to Child Total Violence -.23 .26 Reasoning .09 -.02 Verbal Aggression .06 -.25 Indirect Physical -.30 .29 Aggression/Threats Physical Violence -.36 f .25 Severe Physical Violence .07 .06 a p$.05 82 Table 26 Relationship of Parent Current Drinking to Child Aggression to Self and Spouse- Pearson R’s (N=29 for Fathers and N=30 for Mothers) Aggression to Parent Relationship of Relationship of parent drinking parent drinking to child to child aggression aggression to him/her to spouse (A) Father Drinking and Child Aggression to Parent Total Violence .07 .10 b Reasoning -.08 .03 Verbal Aggression .15 .09 Indirect Physical -.22 .21 Aggression/Threats Physical Violence -.42 * .03 b Severe Physical Violence -.39 a -.04 (8) Mother Drinking and Child Aggression to Parent Total Violence -.12 -.16 b Reasoning .16 .23 Verbal Aggression .04 -.08 Indirect Physical -.20 -.35 a Aggression/Threats Physical Violence -.22 -.37 b Severe Physical Violence -.02 .07 * p$.05 b N=29 for indicated correlations 83 aggression to father, but not one for mother. But here also, as in the previous section, there is no evidence for a significantly stronger relationship, or better predictability, involving parent current consumption. In no instance where tests of these correlations for difference were run were any of the effects significant. In summary, hypotheses regarding a strong positive relationship between current drinking and family violence are not confirmed. No relationship exists between husband current drinking and aggression to wife. Unexpectedly, as current alcohol use increases, there is a decrease in parent and child aggression. No significant differences are found between long term and current drinking indicators as predictors of family aggression. Contrary to expectations, there is no greater predictability involving current alcohol consumption measures. 8. Mgdels 9f Pnggigtign All of the relationships described so far are based on single cause theories of effect. Even though the sample sizes here are small, it is appropriate in an exploratory way to test a more comprehensive multivariate model of causation. Hierarchic regression models were formulated to predict the occurrence of violence; one model was hypothesized to predict husband physical violence to wife and one to predict parent violence to child. These models are diagrammed in Figures 2 and 3, respectively. 34 Figure 2 Hierarchic Model of Husband Violence to wife Prior Husband Antisocial Activity \Ir Husband Education 4r Husband Drinking Density 4’ wife Drinking Density .v Family Conflict (husband report) J. Husband Physical Violence to Uife/ (as reported by husband and wife) Figure 3 Hierarchic Model of Parent Aggression to Child Prior Parent Antisocial Behavior 4’ Father Education 4r Parent Drinking Density it Spouse Drinking Density '1 Family Conflict .¢ Child Age to Physical Violence to Child/ Total Physical Violence to Child 85 8.1 flgnpnng viglgnge tn wifn: In predicting husband physical violence to wife (husband and wife report), the variables used were entered in the following order : (I) husband prior antisocial activity, (2) husband education, (3) husband drinking density score, (4) wife drinking density score, and (5) Moos Family Conflict (husband report). This specific order was used for several reasons: (a) It was believed that those males engaging in high rates of early antisocial activity would also have lower levels of education. Also, (b) a negative relationship was found between husband long term alcohol involvement and education; husband education level decreases with increased drinking. (c) It was anticipated that high rates of antisocial activity and low levels of education would lead to high rates of long term alcohol involvement. (d) Carrying the model further, it was anticipated that antisocial, heavier drinking males are then more likely to marry women who are also higher in long term alcohol involvement. (e) The long term consequence of these relationships is the expectation that the marital pair will experience much conflict, and this will in turn lead to husbands’ aggression to wives. The regression analysis for nngbnng rgnort of physical violence is given in Table 27. The equation accounts for 58 percent of the variance. Husband prior antisocial activity, his drinking, and the family conflict measure were the significant predictive variables. For the collateral data from wives, i.e., 86 Table 27 Hierarchic Regression Analysis of Husband Physical Violence to Uife (A) Prediction using Husband Report of his Violence Multiple R .76 R square .58 Analysis of Variance: F (5,21) = 5.76 (p$.001) 2 2 Variable n R R Chnnge F Qhange Set; In 1) Husband prior .53 .28 .28 9.73 *i .53 antisocial activity 2) Husband education -.25 .31 .03 .95 -.17 3) Husband drinking .66 .46 .15 6.34 i .55 4) wife drinking .13 .48 .03 1.10 .16 5) Family conflict .56 .58 .10 4.75 * .39 a p_<_.05, u p_<_.01 (8) Prediction using Uife Report of his Violence Multiple R .75 R square .57 Analysis of Variance: F (5,21) = 5.55 (p$.001) 2 2 L‘iable c B Mime mange. L__cta In 1) Husband prior .14 .02 .02 .51 .14 antisocial activity 2) Husband education -.30 .10 .08 2.11 -.29 3) Husband drinking .40 .19 .10 2.73 .44 4) Wife drinking .40 .36 .16 5.46 i .41 5) Family conflict .68 .57 .21 10.44 at! .59 * p$.05, iii p$.001 87 the wife rgngrt of husband physical violence, the resulting regression equation has an almost identical R2(0.57) but a somewhat different set of predictive variables. Family conflict is highly significant, but husband’s prior antisocial no longer does any predictive work. Instead, wife’s drinking enters the equation-- and positively predicts the perception of his aggression. The most appropriate formulation that is suggested across these two analyses is that family conflict is critical in husband’s perceived aggression, irrespective of who perceives it. So also is self drinking of the perceiver. The details of why this might be so remain to be explored with a larger sample of families. 8.2 Vi lence toward hild: Hierarchic regressions were also performed to predict physical violence and total physical violence of mother and father to child. The predictor variables used were entered in the following order: (1) parent prior antisocial activity, (2) father education, (3) parent drinking density score, (4) spouse drinking density score, (5) Moos Family Conflict, and (6) child age. As with husband aggression to wife, this specific order was used for several reasons: (a) It was believed that those parents engaging in high rates of early antisocial activity would also have lower levels of education. Also, (b) a negative relationship was found between father long term alcohol involvement and education; as father education levels increases, drinking decreases. (c) It was anticipated that high rates of antisocial activity and low levels of education would lead to high rates of long term alcohol involvement. (d) Carrying the model further, it was anticipated that antisocial, heavier drinking males are then more likely to marry women who are also higher in long term alcohol drinking. (e) The long term consequence of these relationships is the expectation that the marital pair will experience much conflict, and this will in turn lead to aggression to their child. (f) Also, child age was considered important in predicting parental violence toward child. For fathers, the overall regression equation for Oblil£2l violengg was not significant (Table 28). However, family conflict was a signficant predictor and mother drinking density score tended towards significance. For father totnl nhynignl violengg to child, the regression equation accounted for 45 percent of the variance. Family conflict was a significant predicting variable and mother drinking tended toward significance. For mother physical violence to child, szas .45 (Table 29). Child age was a significant predicting variable; mother prior antisocial activity and father drinking tended toward significance. For mother tgtnl nhygical viglgnce to child, the overall regression equation was not significant. However, mother prior antisocial activity was found to play a significant role in the predictive equation. In summary, family conflict is a variable that accounts for a substantial amount of the variance in predicting violence of husband toward wife and parent toward child in a consistent 89 Table 28 Hierarchic Regression Analysis of Father Physical Violence to Child 1. Physical Violenge Multiple R .60 R square .36 Analysis of Variance: F (6,20)=1.84 (p$.15) 2 2 Variable n 3 R Chnnge F Qhange Beta In 1) Father prior -.07 .00 .00 .12 -.07 antisocial activity 2) Father education .20 .04 .04 .96 .20 3) Father drinking -.15 .05 .00 .09 -.09 4) Mother drinking .36 .17 .13 3.37 f .36 5) Family conflict .41 .33 .16 5.05 t .50 6) ChIId 398 -e24 e36 016 070 -e17 f p$.10, * p$.05 II. Total Phynical Viglgnge Multiple R .67 R square .45 Analysis of Variance: F(6,20)= 2.73(p$.05) 2 2 Vnriablg n R R Chnngg £_§nnngn ta n 1) Father prior -.06 .00 .00 .09 -.06 antisocial activity 2) Father education .24 .06 .05 1.36 .23 3) Father drinking ”.05 e06 .OI e20 .13 4) Mother drinking .35 .18 .11 3.03 f .34 5) Family conflict .65 .45 .27 10.30 ft! .65 6) Child age -.04 .45 .00 .05 -.04 f p$.10, *** p$.001 90 Table 29 Hierarchic Regression Analysis of Mother Physical Violence to Child I. Physicnl Viglgngg Multiple R .67 R square .45 Analysis of Variance: F(6,20)= 2.74(p$.05) 2 2 Variable n 3 R Change E Change Bgta In 1) Mother prior .37 .14 .14 3.95 f .37 antisocial activity 2) Father education -.10 .14 .00 .80 -.05 3) Mother drinking .11 .14 .00 .89 .03 4) Father drinking .37 .24 .IO .10 f .36 5) Family conflict .20 .24 .00 .94 -.02 6) Child 898 -e32 e45 e2! e01 ** -e51 f p5.10, if p$.01 II. Total Phynical Viglgnge Multiple R .57 R square .33 Analysis of Variance: F(6,20)=1.61(p=.20) 2 2 yariable n 3_ B_anngg E thngg Bgtn In 1) Mother prior .41 .17 .17 5.10 e .41 antisocial activity 2) Father education -.17 .18 .01 .41 -.12 3) Mother drinking .12 .18 .00 .03 .03 4) Father drinking .32 .23 .05 1.34 .24 5) Family conflict .23 .23 .00 .01 .03 6) Child age -.17 .33 .09 2.76 -.17 * p$.05 91 manner. In addition, mother drinking plays a significant role in the father-violence-to-child equation and father drinking predicts mother violence to child. These results are consistent with univariate results previously discussed and give credence to thinking in systems terms about the relationships between alcohol use and family violence. HAPT R V GENERAL DISCUSSION The present study was designed to investigate the presence of violence in heavier drinking families. As commonly observed in the literature, it was hypothesized that higher rates of prior antisocial activity would be observed in the personal histories of heavier drinking families. Also observed in the literature, it was hypothesized that higher rates of family conflict and dissatisfaction would be found in heavier drinking families. Finally, it was anticipated that a relationship between higher rates of family violence and higher rates of drinking would be found. Several more detailed predictions were made regarding the relationship between drinking and family violence. First, it was suggested that higher rates of spousal violence would be associated with increased levels of drinking problems in these families. Higher rates of violence were expected among both husbands and wives; however, this relationship was expected to be even stronger for violence initiated by husbands. Second, it was hypothesized that higher rates of parental violence towards children would be found in heavier drinking families. Third, measures of current alcohol consumption would show a stronger relationship to individual and familial violence than would measures of lifetime alcohol involvement. This section highlights 92 93 the results of these hypothesis tests, as well as discusses other pertinent and interesting findings. 1. Relationship between rates of prior antisocial activity and personal histories of heavier drinking. As hypothesized, the data demonstrate a strong positive relationship exists between father prior antisocial behavior and long term alcohol use. This relationship is found for total antisocial behavior, as well as for all antisocial behavior subscale scores. Although not quite as strong as the father relationship, a positive relationship is found between mother drinking and total antisocial behavior, as well as for subscale measures of delinquent and sexual behavior. It was suggested that the combination of high rates of antisocial behavior and family conflict in heavier drinking families would provide the basis for higher rates of family violence. These results illustrate that with higner lifetime r tes f famil n in ivi al r nkin gifficulty. 2. Relationship between rates of family conflict/dissatisfaction and heavier drinking. As predicted, paper-and-pencil measures (Moos FES) show that a significant positive relationship exists between perceptions of family conflict for both mothers and fathers and family drinking; as drinking increases, family conflict increases. In addition, as family drinking increases, father report of family cohesion 94 decreases. However, these results are weaker in comparison to the relationships of antisocial behavior and drinking. Number of separations from all marriages was considered to be an alternative, face valid measure of conflict; so this index was also used to test the hypothesis. These results demonstrate n tron ositive correlati n xi etwe n marital e ar ti n drinkin in famili wi h m r i ns s rv ' vier drinking families. Taken together, these data indicate that a strong positive relationship exists betweeen family conflict and alcohol consumption. As hypothesized, higher rates of antisocial behavior and marital conflict do exist in heavier drinking families. As noted, these proven hypotheses form the basis for expecting a relationship to exist between drinking and family violence. It is shown that high rates of antisocial behavior and conflict exist in heavier drinking families. The next logical step is that high rates of violence also exist in these families. 3) Measures used for drinking and family violence As demonstrated in the results section, there are many different ways one can go about examining the relationship between alcohol use and family violence. Many aspects of drinking can be considered-- amount of current drinking, long term alcohol consumption, family drinking, problems related to alcohol use, and so on. In addition, different types of family violence can be examined-- spousal violence, violence toward child and parent, as 95 well as sibling violence. Also, violence can be reported by different family members, so that one can gather different perceptions of violence that occurs in families. Then one needs to decide which information is most accurate and useful in reporting results. In some ways it may have been easier to use one type of drinking score and fewer aspects of family violence, and therefore present results that appear more comprehensive. However, it is also important to see how various drinking scores may be related to different types of family violence. The following sections integrate some of these findings. 4) Higher rates of violence and higher rates of reasoning in heavier drinking families It was hypothesized that higher rates of family aggression and lower rates of reasoning would be used in resolving conflict in heavier drinking families. The results indicate (1) that ; pgsitive relgtionship gges exist between grgater long term alcghol consumption nnd fnnily aggreggign. (2) However, he re t so gften illustrate positive trends pgtween lpng tpnm prinking and the grgatgr ung of rennoning whgn nggglving gpnflip . On second thought, it makes good sense that this positive relationship exists, because conflictual families will need to use reasoning more often than do families not experiencing difficulties. Families do not begin by hitting each other when resolving problems. They will first utilize reasoning; only when this does not work will they use more aggressive techniques. So the 96 positive relationship between family violence and reasoning further illustrates that heavier drinking families have higher rates of conflict and use higher rates of reasoning to resolve their interpersonal difficulties. In addition to higher rates of reasoning, heavier drinking families also use a preponderance of aggression in resolving conflict. 5) Long term alcohol involvement: Individual drinking density scores versus family drinking density scores The relationship between long term alcohol related difficulty and family violence was examined in two separate ways: in ivi ual drinking density scores (fathers and mothers) and finally drinking density scores. As previously noted, the idea of family drinking enables one to examine the long term alcohol consumption of the family as a couple, rather than as individuals. In this way one can crudely assess how alcohol use of the couple system affects the amount of aggression that takes place in a family. Many significant results were found when using the family drinking density score. Table 30 represents an effort to tally these results, contrasting the alternative (individual vs. family) measures of drinking as they predict stronger or weaker associations with violence. For the most part, the data in Table 30 illustrated that there were as many, and often more significant results when using the family drinking density score, in comparison to the individual drinking density score. These are both interesting and exciting 97 Table 30 Family Violence Tallies: Number of significant results Number Percent signficant results 1. Husbands’ Aggression to Wives a) Husband DDS Husband report 2 40 Z Wive report 1 20 2 b) Wife DDS Husband report 0 0 2 Wife report 1 20 Z c) Family DDS Husband report 2 40 2 Wife report 1 20 3 d) Husband OFV Husband report 0 0 Z Mother report 0 0 Z 2. Wives’ Aggression to Husbands a) Husband DDS Husband report 0 0 Z Wife report 1 20 2 b) Wife DDS Husband report 0 0 2 Wife report 2 40 Z c) Family DDS Husband report 1 20 2 Wife report 3 60 2 d) Husband OFV Husband report 0 0 Z Wife report 0 0 Z 98 Table 30 (cont’d) Number Percent signficant results 3. Fathers’ Aggression to Children Father DDS 0 0 2 Mother 005 2 40 X Family DOS 0 0 A Father OFV 1 (negative) 20 2 Mother OFV 0 0 Z 4. Mothers’ Aggression to Children Father DOS 1 20 2 Mother DDS 0 0 X Family DOS 1 20 2 Father OFV 0 0 2 Mother OFV 1 (negative) 20 Z 5. Pooled Parents’ Aggression to Children Family DOS 2 40 Z 6. Children’s Aggression to Fathers Father DOS 1 20 2 Mother 008 0 0 X Family DOS 3 (1 negative) 60 2 Father OFV 2 (negative) 40 2 Mother OFV 1 (negative) 20% 7. Children’s Aggression to Mothers Father DOS 2 40 Z Mother DOS 0 0 2 Family DOS 3 60 2 Father OFV 0 0 2 Mother OFV 0 0 Z 8. Pooled Children’s Aggression to Parents Family DDS 3 60 Z Note: Reasoning results not included because the tallies are designed to show significant number of alcohol-aggression findings, and reasoning is not considered to be an aggressive activity. 99 findings, and suggest that the alternative, of a system view of family behavior, is at least as good in a predictive sense, as are the relationships based upon an individual conceptualization of behavior. 6) Current drinking versus long term alcohol involvement in relation to family violence It was hypothesized that more family aggression would be found in families with higher rates of pprnpnt drinking, as opposed to long term alcohol related trouble. However, significant differences were not found in strength of relationships between any of the long term and current drinking measures. In addition, significant positive relationships were consistently found between long term drinking involvement and family aggression. Nonetheless, it seemed plausible that those families more recently involved in heavier drinking would be even more conflictual and volatile in nature, and would show more aggression among family members. However, no relationships were found between either husband or wife current drinking and spousal aggression that would justify this line of reasoning. In addition, the data indicate that as current parent alcohol use increases aggression decreases between parent and child. In comparing to other research, it should be noted that both Steinglass and Jacob have posited and empirically demonstrated that the alcoholic’s drinking may at times have adaptive consequences for family functioning. Dunn, Jacob, Hummon, and 100 Sulkamer (1987) found that high-rate drinking among in-home drinkers is likely to be reinforced and associated with positive consequences. The results of the present study indicated that no relationship exists between current parent alcohol consumption and spousal aggression, and there is a decrease in aggression between parent and child. It is unclear whether this decrease in aggression is indicative of adaptive and positive consequences of family functioning from drinking or not. An alternative view is that there is less aggression among family members because there is increased difficulty and tension with greater current alcohol consumption, and family members are careful to stay away from each other. This view is consistent with Wiseman’s (1981) interviews with alcoholic wives, who suggest that sober states are nonnormal periods for alcoholics and are often associated with great tension and hypersensitivity. It is important to examine these complex relationships more closely with a larger sample size, and to contrast families with different aged chldren. Our own work is with young (4-1/2 to 5 year olds). The mean age of the parents in the Dunn et al. studies was 40, which is ten years greater than the present study; so it is likely that the children in their study are in their adolescent years where a considerably different set of family dynamics would be expected to operate (Haley, 1980). 101 7) Relationship of spousal aggression and long term alcohol use It was hypothesized that a positive relationship exists between spousal violence and alcohol consumption. It was predicted that this relationship would be stronger for husband aggression to wife, rather than for wife aggression to husband. The relationship between long term alcohol use and husband aggression to wife was examined, as well as wife aggression to husband. It had been hypothesized that there would be a stronger relationship for husband aggression to wife and alcohol use than for wife aggression to husband. The present data show no differences. Positive relationships were found between long term alcohol use and husband aggression to wife when the alcohol measures used were (a) husband drinking density score (20 Z of the husband report ns are significant, 40Z of the wife report ns are significant); (b) wife drinking density score (0 Z of the husband report, 20 Z of the wife report); and (c) family drinking density score (40 Z of the husband report, 20 Z of the wife report) (See Table 30 for Family Violence Tallies). As one can see, these relationships are strongest when the measure of alcohol involvement is either the husband drinking density score or the family drinking density score. n wi n ' ra le con i tenc h husbands and wives r r h' her r t s h d re ' n with higner rntesggf hugband nlgohgl une. The relationship between long term drinking and wife aggression to husband was also examined. Positive relationships 102 were found between wife aggression to husband and alcohol use when the measures used were (a) husband drinking density score (20 Z of the wife reports are significant, 0 Z of the husband reports); (b) wife drinking density score (40 Z of the wife reports, 0 Z of the husband reports); and family drinking density score (60 Z of the wife reports, 20 Z of the husband reports). As one can see, these relationships are even stronger for wife report than for husband report. Husbands may have a difficult time seeing their wives’ behaviors as aggressive and so attenuate what actually takes place; the wives appear to wear no such blinders. There is a significant positive relationship between husband aggression to wife and long term alcohol consumption, considering both husband and wife report; however, the relationship is somewhat stronger for husband report. The relationship between wife aggression to husband and alcohol use is very strong for wife report; there is little relationship for husband reports. it appears that these relationships are stronger for those individuals who are reporting on their own behaviors (e.g., husband reporting on his aggression to wife, wife reporting on her aggression to husband). It appears that these respondents are more sensitive to their own behaviors than those of their spouses. 8) Relationship of parent aggression to child and long term alcohol use It had been hypothesized that a relationship exists between long term alcohol use and parent aggression to child. The results 103 were unexpected and very interesting: as mother drinking increases, father aggression to child increases, and as father and family drinking increases, mother aggression to child increases. How are these findings to be understood? It is possible that the drinking individual is less involved in child care, and the distressed spouse utilizes more aggression in dealing with child conflicts and child misbehavior. Also, the drinking individual may be experiencing more denial in terms of his/her difficulties and deny aggressive behaviors toward his/her child. The nondrinking spouse may not be as invested in denying child behavior problems and the need to use aggressive behaviors in order to resolve conflict with his/her child. Clearer relationships appear present between long term alcohol use and spousal aggression than for alcohol use and parent aggression to child. 9) Relationship of child aggression to parent and long term alcohol consumption Although no formal predictions were made, another area of interest was the relationship of child aggression to parent and parent drinking. Because of the conflict and chaos observed in heavier drinking families, it was thought that children would be more aggressive toward their parents. In addition, it was felt that because of society’s current sensitivity to issues of child abuse, a parent might be reluctant to report aggressive behaviors to their child, but more likely to report aggressive child 104 behavior. If this were so, then child aggression to parent, as reported by each parent, could be considered an index of the amount of aggression that actually takes place in the families. Using this perspective, the present study shows (a) 35;; lifgtime higtgrz gf ggrent glcohg] gifficultz i; gggitively relateg tg levgl of gggrggsign in the fgmllz, and (b) that high lgvgl; gf current ggrent grinking suggregg lgvels gf ovgrt chilg gggreggign- to fathers, at least within the preschool age range of children (and families) examined here. Positive relationships were foggd fgr chilg gggrgsgign to father when the alcohol measures used were (a) father drinking density score (20% of the relationships were significant); and (b) family drinking density score (40% of the relationships were positive and 20% were negative). Positive relationships were found for ghild aggression to mother when the alcohol measures used were (a) father drinking density scores (40%); and (b) family drinking density scores (60%). T e e resul s l rl i tr e that higher levels of ghild aggrgssion exist in fgmilieg with igthers who have higher rates gf lgng tgrm gigghg! gsg. However, with higher levels of family drinking difficulty, it is found that these children are more verbally aggressive toward their fathers, but less physically aggressive toward them, quite possibly because they are afraid of them. Indeed, although causal statements cannot be made, it is likely that higher rates of child aggression in families with heavier drinking fathers may be considered an 105 index of the turbulence, conflict, and aggression that occurs in these families. The present results, and the network of family linkages they suggest are in clear accord with those found in another substudy of the MSU Longitudinal project (Baxter-Hagaman, 1986). Alcoholic families were compared with community controls, utilizing a participant-observer methodology and extensive field observations in the home. Baxter-Hagaman describes these families as follows: Target boys live in a context of chronic conflict with harsh, rejecting and/or labile parents. Not only was the target child exposed to confused sex-role models, but he often was triangulated into parent conflicts. Marked parental preferences were frequently observed. Early signs of increased activity level, aggression and impulsivity were observed in Alcoholic target children, possibly due to the complex reciprocal effects of the child’s own temperament, parental role models and noncontingency in the family environment. (p. 254) 10) Predictive Models of Violence As already described, hierarchical regression models were constructed, to gain a better multivariate understanding of the occurrence of violence in these families. Results of the regression analyses indicate that family conflict was the one variable most consistently predicting both spousal aggression and parental aggression to child. After that, the results become less consistent. Husband drinking was found to predict husband reports of physical violence toward wife, and mother violence toward child. wife drinking was found to predict wife report of husband total physical violence toward her. Regarding mother violence 106 toward child, mother prior antisocial activity, husband drinking, and child age were found to be important predictor variables. These results should be considered as first steps in gaining an understanding of the conceptual structure of violence in families. They clearly indicate that family conflict does predict violence. In addition, both mother and father drinking appear to play some role in the equation; however, these relationships are less clear and need both further elaboration and replication. 1]) Limitations of the study The results clearly indicate that there is an increase in aggression with an increase in alcohol use. Approximately 22% of the findings were significant, with virtually all results in the anticipated direction. Nonetheless, more fine grained analyses on subgroups would have been desirable, but were not possible with this study as constituted by small sample size. Lack of power and resultant increase in Type 11 error legislated against this. Another issue is that results were strongest for the family drinking density score; however, it is unclear whether these stronger effects were solely attributed to the enhanced reliability obtained from the pooling or aggregation of data (Epstein, 1984), or whether they reflect genuine results of a crude systems analysis. were the latter explanation correct, it would suggest that a systems conceptualization is the more effective way to conceptualize and explain intrafamilial violence. 107 But the present study does not allow us to decide between these alternative hypotheses. 12) Future directions It is important to return to the literature to see how this work fits with that of other studies. As initially noted, little research documents the relationship between alcohol consumption and family violence and much of the existing research is plagued with methodological problems. The results of this study glegrlz ggggment gfreiationshi tw en i n term l oh i se gggression gmono,fgmily mgmber . These findings are in accord with those of the national survey completed on family violence; Coleman and Straus (1983) found a relationship between family violence and frequency of drunkeness. Their interview study included people between the ages of 18 and 65. Information obtained about children included the age range from 3 to 17. In their study, they found the relationship to be a curvilinear one. Individuals who were frequently drunk were more abusive than those .who were seldom drunk; however those who were I'very often' or 'almost always' drunk were among the least violent subjects. It is difficult to know what to make of their findigs; they undoubtedly collapse and fuse occurrences that take place over a number of disparate developmental stages for parents, and for children. Given this confounding it is not clear whether their reported relationship was genuinely curvilinear, within developmental stage, or whether it was spuriously so. The data 108 here indicate that a linear model does quite well in predicting the relationship. Black and Mayer (1978) examined child-rearing practices of 100 alcoholic and 100 opiate-addicted parents with children under the age of 18; they found that 27% of the 100 alcoholic parents had abused and/or neglected their children. They found alcoholic mothers more likely to have maltreated their children than alcoholic fathers, a finding consistent with studies of nonalcoholic samples. However, because of methodological problems and confounding variables, these results cannot be compared to the present study. In their sample alcoholic mothers were also more likely than alcoholic fathers to head single-parent families and be economically poor. If married, they were likely to have spouses with alcohol or drug problems. They found that the maltreating alcoholic parents differed from nonmaltreating ones on other variables as well. Haltreating alcoholic parents had more disrupted childhoods, were more likely to have been physically abused as children, and were less likely to have been raised in two-parent families. In addition, they were also more likely to have parents with alcohol or drug problems. Last, developmental stage of family is mixed in this study. In examining the literature on alcohol abuse and family violence, Steinglass and Robertson (1983) noted the need to control for social class and sex of abuser in further research, since the relationship between alcohol and family violence may be dependent upon these variables. Coleman and Straus (1983) found 109 that social class differentiated fathers, but not mothers for child abuse. Their results indicated that less child abuse exists than spouse abuse, and that mothers were more abusive than fathers to children-- across social classes and at each level of drunkeness. Blue collar fathers were more abusive than white collar fathers, but both blue and white collar mothers were more abusive than fathers. The present study in fact illustrates a negative relationship between father education and drinking density scores; greater long term drinking difficulty is associated with lower educational level. In contrast to Coleman and Straus’ results, a negative trend was found in the present study between mothers’ educational level and their levels of aggression toward their children; higher rates of violence are associated with lower education levels. Unlike the national survey, this relationship was not found for fathers. It is not possible to compare results of the present study with those of the national survey, because the present study is considerably more restricted in range. It is also important to understand the present research in relation to the current understanding of the alcoholic family in the literature. This study shows that families with long term drinking difficulty also have higher rates of prior antisocial activity, experience greater marital conflict, and report a preponderance of aggression amongst family members. This picture of alcoholic families is consistent with much of the literature, as well as with earlier results from pilot work on the MSU 110 Longitudinal Project (Zucker, Ueil, Baxter, & Noll, 1984b; Baxter-Hagaman, 1986). More recently, researchers in the alcoholism field have focused their energies on a behavioral-systems view of the alcoholic family (e.g., the work of Steinglass and Jacob), utilizing interactional data in the home and laboratory to gain a better perspective of how the alcoholic family system functions. Both Jacob and Steinglass’ data suggest that the alcoholic’s drinking at times can have a stabilizing and adaptive influence on the family, which reinforces the continuation of drinking. The focus of current research has examined more closely the relationship between the alcoholic’s drinking and family . functioning (Jacob et al., 1983; Steinglass & Robertson, 1983; Dunn et al., 198?). Independent variables considered included type of drinking (binge versus steady drinking) and location of drinking (inside versus outside home). Dunn, Jacob, Hummon, and Seilhamer (1987) found that high-rate drinking among in-home drinkers is likely to be reinforced and associated with positive consequences. Alternatively, for both binge drinkers and steady out-of-home drinkers, there I'appears to be greater individual pathology than with steady, in-home drinkers, and the drinking pattern is extremely variable, at times chaotic, and is not incorporated into family life' (p.106). This study identified a causal relation between alcohol consumption and marital stability and indicated the significant impact of drinking location on these relations. Results of the study are consistent with those of 111 Steinglass, indicating that high levels of alcohol consumption can have adaptive consequences for family functioning. In a parallel view, Uiseman’s (1981) interviews with alcoholic wives suggest that sober states are nonnormal periods for alcoholics, and are often associated with great tension and hypersensitivity. In view of these findings, it is important to more closely scrutinize some results of the present study. As already noted, clear positive relationships were found between long term alcohol involvement and family aggression. No significant relationships were established between current alcohol use and spousal aggression. However, incre d current rinkin was oci t d with less gggression to child 92 drinking ggren . Also, higher levels of current parent drinking were associated with lower child rate of aggression toward the father. So increased aggression amongst family members occurs with increased long term alcohol use, and there is concomitantly a decrease in aggression between parent and child when there are higher levels of parent consumption. Thus, it seems important to continue to examine the relationships between various aspects of drinking behavior and how they differentially affect family functioning-- both positively and negatively. The roles of family developmental stage, and of each parent, in this complex process need to be more carefully charted. Then we will have a more truly comprehensive understanding of how violence occurs amongst family members. APPENDICES Appendix A Conflict Tactics Scale-Revised 1112 (57A) in as cmrinso FOLLMNB ois uucsnoi 209- p. 56 la) in raising children, all of then are troublesome some of the time. At those times parents and children sometimes use different ways of tryin to settle these differences. l’a going to read a list 0 some things that ( ) oi ht have done when you ha a dispute or disagreement. For each one, i want to ask you about ( lisgfigfiagior wi h [0 . Tell me how how often in the past year when you had a disagreement with f ), he: 1a How often? 19 Ag: 1c Ever? a) Discussed the issue calnly with you. b) Got information to back up his side of things. c) Brought in or tried to bring in someone to help settle things. ___._..._ d) insulted or swore at you. e) Sulked and/or refused to tail about it. f) Stamped out of the room or housetor yard). g) Cried. h) Did or said something to spite you. i) Threw or smashed or hit or kicked something, but not at you. i) Threatened to hit or throw something at you. I) kit you or actually threw something at you. O l) Pushed, grabbed, shoved, slapped you or spanked you. ________.____. n) Used a belt on you. n) kicked, bit, hit or beat you up. o) Threatened to or used a knife or gun. (If figs; or her; than ggce answered to la, ast 1b): 1b) Now young was t ) the first time he used this manner to settle things? (if Never answered to la, asl 1c): {cl "During a disagreement with y0u, had ( ) 33;; done the following things, and if so, when was the earliest ime. Scale of freguencv: Never, once, twice, 3-5 tines, 6-10 times, 11-20 tines, >20 tines. 113 tDYb) 2a) Ue’ue just talked about the ways your child is with you when the two of you have had a dispute or disagreenent. How 1 want to ask you about the 5: m are and what you do during these tines. l a going to read a list of sue things that mm. For each one, 1 would like you to tell we hai often in the past year 29.111.30.11 with ( ): 2! lion gftgn? n g? u r? a) Discussed the issue calnly. b) Bot information to back up your side of things. c) Brought in or tried to bring in soneone to help settle things. d) Insulted or swore at your child. e) Sulked and/or refused to talk about it. f) Stonped out of the roan or house(or yard). 9) Cried. h) Did or said something to spite your child. i) Threw or slashed or hit or kicked something, but not at your child. 2d) Bruises? j) Threatened to hit or throw something at your child. 2d) Bruises? k) Hit or actually threw something at your child. 1) Pushed, grabbed, shoved, slapped or spanked your child. 2d) Bruises? n) Used a belt on your child. 2d) Bruises? n) kicked, bit, hit or beat up your child. 2d) Bruises? a) Threatened to or used a knife or gun. 2d) Bruises? (1f 2a angered M or W, as! 2b): 2b) Haw young was ( ) the first tine it was necessary to settle things this way? (If 2a answered upggg, ask 2c): 2c) During a disagreeaent with ( ), had zgg guer done the following things, and if so, when was the earliest tine? (For items i-n answered m, ask 2d and 2e): (see next page for 2e) 2d) Did this activity cause any bruises? Here they hard enough so that he had to stay in bed or see a doctor? Scple gf freguencz: Never, once, twice, 3-5 times, 6-10 times, 11-20 times, )20 lines. lllf (57C) 2e!) (if any iten of _iJ ans-need as m on 2a, ask the Mining at the end): Let me ask a little more about none of the disagreenents that occurred in the last year. (Interviewer: List items frin i-n). Has any alcohol or any other drug used during the nest recent time that this happened? 2e?) Uhat was the thug? 2e?) liow much did you have? 2ef) flow long was it comment before the disagreement with ( )? 2e5) tfhat was the nature of the disagreement after you had (tug)? that did you do? 3a) Hoe to a different area. wt mgr an ghiidhgd, do you recall ever being physically punished or abused by your parents when you were a child or tegnaggr? 3a) (If question hwas named as 1.1.14. ask 3:): 3b1) By emcee? ‘ 3b2) For what kind of disagreement? 3b?) flaw? tfhat happened? 3bf) ifaw often did this occur? (once or twice, monthly, weekly?) 3b.?) that was your earliest age at dich this occurred? 3M) tihat was your oldest age at which this occurred? 3b7) Here there any typical circumstances for these occasions? (probe for alcohol or other drug use) 115 (57D) fa) ven if weren’ti wer ) icall abuse , were you ever sexually abused by someone in your fuily, (l' by a neighbor or friend? (If nuestimi 1; was annnered as m, ask hi): 4b!) 07 urban? fb2) lion? that happened? '4b3) tfow often did this occur? (bf) font was your earliest age at which this occurred? be) lfhat was your oldest age at which this occurred? fbd) liere there any typical circnstances for these occasions? (probe for alcohol or other ih'iig use) 116 (572) be) No: i would like to ask you a few questions about your relationship wit! zggr (wifg/hgmg). No matter how well a couple gets along, there are times when they disagree on major decisions, get annoyed about simething the other person does, or just have spats or fights because they are in a bad mood or tired, or for some other reason. They also use nnny different ways of trying to settle their differences. 1 an going to read a list of of some things 1511.!!! gng zgr gggse night have done idien you had a dispute. I would like you to tell on, for each me, hmi often m; spggtt dig it in the past year: 3 lion gften? M 3 Eugr? a) Discussed the issue calmly. b) Bot information to back up (his/her) side of things. c) Brought in or tried to bring in scmeone to help settle things. d) Insulted or swore at you. e) Sulked and/or refused to talk about it. f) Stopped out of the room or housetor yard). g) Cried. h) Did or said sonething to spite you. i) Threw or smashed or hit or kicked semething, but not at you. j) Threatened to hit or throw suething at you. I) kit you or actually threw simething at you. l) Pushed, grabbed, shaved, slapped or spanked you. n) tised a belt on you. n) kicked, bit, hit or beat you up. a) Threatened to or used a knife or gun. (If 3a anmiered EL! or m, ask 3b): 5b) ifow long ago was the first time ( )heeded to settle things in this manner? (1f 3a anmeered m, ask 5:): 5c) During a disagreement with you had your spouse gel done the folloning things, and if so, when wass the earliest time? Mum Never, once, twice, 3-3 times, 6-10 times, 11-20 times, )20 times. 117 (57?) 5d!) (if any item of H anmnered as yes on 3a, ask the following at the end): Let me ask a little more about nine of the disagreements that occurred in the past year). (interviewer: List items frim i-m). ffad your spouse used any alcohol or any other drugs during the most recent time that this happened? 5d?) tfhat was the drug? 3:13) time much did your spouse consime? Sdf) flow long did your spouse consime it before the disagreement? 5d5) that was the nature of the disag-eement after your spouse had (tug)? that did your spouse do? 1183 (576) fa) tie have just talked about the way your spouse is with you when the two of you have had a dispute or disagreement. No: 1 want to ask you about W and int you do during these times. Tell me ha often in the m, when you and your spouse had a dispute or disagreement, m: ferstth .QLEELlEEZ uLnu;1___ a) Discussed the issue calnly. b) Got information to back up your side of things. c) taught in or tried to bring in simeone to help settle things. d) Insulted or swore at your spouse. e) Sulked and/or refused to talk about it. f) Stuped out of the run or houseiur yard). g) Cried. h) Did or said something to spite your spouse. i) Threw or smashed or hit or kicked saething, but not at your spouse. j) Threatened to hit or thron saething at your spouse. __ k) kit or actually threw soething at yous spouse. l) Pushed, grabbed, shoved, slapped or spanked your spouse. m) Used a belt on your spouse. n) kicked, bit, hit or beat up your “BB”. u) Threatened to or used a knife or gun. (If he anmnered M1 or m, ask db): db) itini long ago was the first time you used this manner to settle things? (If do anmiered m, ask dc): dc) During a disagreement with your spouse, had you m; done the following things, and if so, when was the earliest time? Scale of frequency: Never, once, twice, 3-5 times, 6-10 tines, 11-20 times, )20 times. 119 (57H) 7a1) (if any item of 1:3 answered as 1;; on 9;. ask the following at the end): Let me ask a little more about some of the disagreements that occurred in the last year. (Interviewer: List items from i-n). Has any alcohol or other drug used during the most recent time that this occurred? 7a?) Uhat was the drug? 7a3) How much was consumed? 7af) How long was it consumed before the disagreement with your spouse? 7a5) Uhat was the nature of the disagreement after you had (drug)? Uhat did you do? 8) Now to a different subject. As on were rowin u , were there ever occasions when your arents hit h other, or threw things at each other or used violence with each other? (If B is answered 1:1; ask 2;;ggl: 9a) For what kind of disagreements? 9b) How often did this occur?(once or twice, monthly, weekly?) 9c) Uhat was your earliest age at which this occurred? 9d) Uhat was yovr earliest age at which this occured? 9e) Here there typical circumstances for these occasions? (probe for alcohol or other drug use) Now i'm gaing to ask you about your sexual experience. (To DIS p. 63- 0. 219) Appendix 81 Relationship of wife Current Drinking to Husband Aggression to Wife 120 Relationship of Uife Current Drinking to Husband Aggression to wife- Pearson R’s (N=30) Aggression to Uife Relationship of Relationship of wife drinking to wife drinking to husband report to wife report of aggression of husband to wife aggression Total Violence -.02 .10 b Reasoning .18 -.16 b Verbal Aggression .02 .1? Indirect Physical -.25 -.13 Aggression/Threats Physical Violence -.25 -.10 Severe Physical Violence -.14 .21 f pi.10, i p$.05, so p$.01, use p$.001 b N= 29 for indicated correlations Appendix B2 Relationship of Wife Current Drinking to wife Aggression to Husband 121 Relationship of Uife Current Drinking to Wife Aggression to Husband- Pearson R’s (N=30) Aggression to Husband Relationship of Relationship of wife drinking wife drinking to wife report to husband report of aggression to of wife husband aggression Total Violence .2? .07 Reasoning -.01 .17 Verbal Aggression .27 .09 Indirect Physical .06 -.11 Aggression/Threats Physical Violence -.15 -.18 Severe Physical Violence .12 -.18 + p$.10, * p$.05, ** p$.01, use p$.001 / 1 LIST F F RENCES , Ablon, J. (1976). Family structure and behavior in alcoholism: A review of the literature. In B. Kissin and H. Begleiter (Eds.), ng Btgtggz gf Algghgligg, Vgt, {V (pp. 205-242). New York: Plenum Press. Alcoholism and Drug Addiction Research Foundation. (1978). ia nosis and tr me of i ii for ' ar r ghzsigigns. Ontario: Addiction Research Foundation. American Humane Association. (1978). Natignal gnalzgig gf gfficigl child ngglegt gnd abugg rggorting. Colorado: American Humane Association. lBarnes, G.E. (1979). The alcoholic personality: A reanalysis of the literature. 0 r of 'e on i h l, 5g 571-634. Becker, J.V., & Miller, P.M. (1976). Verbal and nonverbal interaction patterns of alcoholics and nonalcoholics. Jggrnal of Studies on Algghol, 32, 1616-1624. Black, R., & Mayer, J. (1978). An investigation of the relationship between substance abuse and child abuse and neglect. Final report submitted to National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, ACYF, DHEN. Boyatzis, R.E. (1974). The effect of alcohol consumption on the aggressive behavior in men. Quarter rn l t ies n Alcohol, 3;, 959-972. Boyatzis, R.E. (1975). The predisposition toward alcohol-related interpersonal aggression in men. rn l f Studie on i hol, g9, 1196-1207. Boyatzis, R.E. (1983). who should drink what, when, and where if looking for a fight. In E. Gottheil, K.A. Druley, T.E. Skoloda, & H.M. Uaxman (Eds.), l o oi A e A r ion (pp. 314-329). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas, Publisher. Bullock, S.C., & Mudd, E.H. (I959). The interaction of alcoholic husbands and their nonalcoholic wives during counseling. American Jgurngl gf Qrthgggzchigtrz, 22, 519-527. Buss, A.H. & Durkee, A. (1957). An inventory for assessing different kinds of hostility. ourn l f ns lti h , a, 343-349 a 122 Buss, A.H., Fischer, H., & Simmons, A.J. (1962). Aggression and hostility in psychiatric patients. rn ltin Byles, J.A. (1978). Violence, alcohol problems and other problems in disintegrating families. Jggrngl g1 §tggig§ gn Alcghgl, 32, 551-553. Cahalan, D., Cisin, I.H., & Crossley, H.M. (1969). fimgglggg grinking gracticeg; e ggtiongl gtggz gf ggtnkigg gghgvigr gng gttitudes. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Center of Alcohol Studies. Coleman, D.H., a Straus, M.A. (1983). Alcohol abuse and family violence. In E. Bottheil, K.A. Druley, T.E. Skoloda & H.M. Waxman (Eds.), Alc h l ru Ab nd r ' n (pp. 104-124). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas. . -..\ Coleman, K.H., Weinman, M.L., & Hsi, B.P. (1980). Factors affecting conjugal violence. Thg Jogrngl gf szgnglggz, LQQ, 197-202. Cotton, N.S. (1979). The familial incidence of aleoholism. Jogrnal of Stugies on Alcohol, 30, 89-115. Department of Health, Education & Welfare. (1978). Thi ec al rggort to the U.S, Congregs gn algggol gnd hgalth. (Stock number 017-024-00848-6). Washington, D.C.: DHEW. Department of Health, Education & Welfare. (1983). fifth ggggigl ngort to the 0.3. angrgss on algohol ang hgglt . Washington, D.C.: DHEW. Dunn, N.J., Jacob, T., Hummon, N., & Seilhamer, R.A. (1987). Marital stability in alcoholic-spouse relationships as a function of drinking pattern and location. rn l f n r l Ps choio , 29, 99-107. Edwards, P., Harvey, C., & Whitehead, P. (1973). Wives of alcoholics: A critical review and analysis. rt urn l of Studies on alcohol, 33, 112-132. Epstein, S. (1984). The stability of behavior across time and situations. In R.A. Zucker, J. Aranoff, and A.I. Rabin (Eds.), er onalit and the Pre 'cti n of havi r (pp. 209-268). Florida: Academic Press, Inc. Eron, L.D. (1987). The development of aggressive behavior from the perspective of a developing behaviorism. Amgrtggn Ps ch to i t, §, 435-442. 123 ‘- Feighner, J., Robins, E., Buze, 5., Woodruff, R., Winokur, 0., & Munoz, R., (1972). Diagnostic criteria for use in psychiatric research. erghives gf Beggral Egyghiatgy, 29, 57-63. Finney, J.W., Moos, R.H., Cronkite, R.C., & Gamble, W. (1982). A conceptual model of the functioning of married persons with impaired partners: Spouses of alcoholic patients. Jgggngl gt ugrriggg gnd the Fgmily, 35, 23-34. Friedrich, W.N., & Einbender, A.J. (1983). The abused child: A psychological review. ournal f lini l hil P h lo , t2, 244-256. Barbarino, J. (1977). The human ecology of child maltreatment. urnal f Marria e and the F ii , 32, 721-735. Bayford, J.J. (1975). Wife battering: A preliminary survey of 100 cases. British Medigal Journal, 1, 194-197. 'fioeiies, R.J. (1974). The violen n e- stu f i l aggression between husbands gng wives. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Belles, R.J. (1980). Violence in the American family: A review of research in the seventies. Journgl gf Marrigge gnd the F ii , 12, 873-886. Belles, R.J. (1982). Applying research on family violence to clinical practice. urnal of Marri e n the Famil , 53, 9-20. Belles, R.J., & Straus, M.A. (1979). Determinants of violence in the family: Towards a theoretical integration. In. W.R. Burr, R. Hill, F.I. Nye and I.L. Reiss (Eds.), antemgorgry Thggries agout the Family (pp. 549-581). New York: Free Press. Borad, S.L. (1971). Communicational styles and interactions of alcoholics and their wives. Egmily Procggg, t9, 475-89. Bottheil, E., Druley, K.A., Skoloda, T.E., & Waxman, H.M. (1983). Aggression and addiction: Summary and overview. In E. Bottheil, K.A. Druley, T.E. Skoloda, & H.M. Waxman (Eds.), Alcohgl, Drgg Abuge and Aggrgggion (pp. 333-356). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas, Publisher. Haglund, R.H., & Schuckit, M.A. (1977). The epidemiology of alcoholism. In N.J. Estes & M.E. Heineman (Eds.), filcghgligm. St. Louis, MO: C.V. Mosby Co. Haley, J. (1980). Leaving gom . NY: McBraw-Hill. 124 Herrenkohl, R.C., Herrenkohl, E.C., & Egolf, B.P. (1983). Circumstances surrounding the occurrence of child maltreatment. Jggrnal of anggltigg agg Qtiniggl Egyghglggy, 51, 424-431. Hilberman, E. (1980). Overview: The wife-beater’s wife reconsidered. Ameriggn Jggpggl gf Egyggigtgy, 131, 1336-1347. Hilberman, E., & Munson, K. (1977-78). Sixty battered women. Vigtimology, 2, 460-470. Jacob, T., Dunn, N.J., & Leonard, K. (1983). Patterns of alcohol abuse and family stability. l h l' - linic l an Experimental Rggegrgh, 1, 382-385. Jacob, T., Favorini, A., Meisel, S.S., & Anderson, C.M. (1978). The alcoholic’s spouse, children and family interactions: Substantive findings and methodological issues. Journal of §tgdies 9h Algohgl, 32, 1231-1251. James, J.E., & Boldman, M. (1971). Behavior trends of wives of alcoholics. arterl rn l f i h l, 32, 373-381. Janzen, C. (1977). Families in the treatment of alcoholism. Jo rn l of Studies n Al ohol, 35, 114-130. Kempe, C.H., Silverman, F.N., Steele, B.P., Droegemueller, W., & Silver, H.K. (1962). The battered child syndrome. rn l f the Americgn Medical egsgciation, 18;, 107-112. Langley, R., & Levy, R.C. (1977). Wife geating; The gilgnt crisis. New York: E.P. Dutton. Martin, N.J. & Walters, J. (1982). Familial correlates of selected types of child abuse and neglect. rn f rri and the Family, 35, 267-276. Moos, R.H. & Billings, A.B. (1982). Children of alcoholics during the recovery process: Alcoholic and matched control families. figgictivg thagigrg, Z, 155-163. Moos, R.H., Finney, J.W., & Chan, D.A. (1981). The process of recovery from alcoholism: 1. Comparing alcoholic patients and matched community controls. u l f i n l l, 13, 383-402. Moos, R.H., Finney, J.W., & Bamble, W. (1982). The process of recovery from alcoholism II. Comparing spouses of alcoholic patients and matched community controls. ggggggl_g1_§tggtgg_gg Alcohol, 33, 888-909. 125 Moos, R.H. & Moos, 8.8. (1976). A typology of family environments. Eggily Ergggsg, 1:, 357-371. Moos, R.H. & Moos, 8.8. (1981). i nvir l n . Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. //;.'§Moos, R.H. a Moos, 8.8. (1984). The process of recovery from \ l 1 alcoholism: III. Comparing functioning in families of alcoholics and matched control families. r t ie n Al oh i, 3;, 111-118. Morgan, P. (1982). Alcohol and family violence: A review of the literature. In J. DeLuca (Ed.), lc h l n h a h n r Vgl. 1: Alcoh l m i n n r l r (pp. 223-259). NIAAA, U.S. Government Printing Office. Olson, D.H., Portner, J. a Bell, R. (June 1982). FACES 11: Family adaptability and cohesion evaluation scales. In D.H. Olson, H.1. McCubbin, H. Barnes, A. Larsen, M. Muxen, a M. Wilson (Eds.), Fami Inv ntori ven ri i Natignal Survgy gf Fggilieg acrggg the Fgmily Ltfg nglg 599. 5-25), 8t, Pgui, MN: Fggily Sogigl figigggg, Orford, J. (1975). Alcoholism and marriage; the argument against specialism. gournal of §tugig§ gn Algghgl, 3g, 1537-1563. Paolino, T.J., Jr., McCrady, 8., Diamond, 8., & Longabaugh, R. (1976). Psychological disturbances in spouses of alcoholics. Journal gf Studies on Algohol, 32, 1600-1608. Parke, R.D. & Collmer, C.W. (1975). Child abuse: An interdisciplinary analysis. In M. Hetherington (Ed.), figglgg_g1 chilg ggvglggment rggggrgg; V91. 5 (p. 1-102). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Perry, M.A., Wells, E.A., & Doran, L.D. (1983). Parent characteristics in abusing and nonabusing families. Jggrggt gf Qlinigal ohiig ngghglogy, 1;, 329-336. Pihl, R.0. (1983). Alcohol and aggression: A psychological perspective. In E. Bottheil, K.A. Druley, T.E. Skoloda, & H.M. Waxman (Eds.), elggggl, Drgg Aguge gng Aggrggsigg (pp. 292-313). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas, Publisher. Renson, 0.8., Adams, J.E., a Tinklenberg, J.R. (1978). Buss-Durkee assessment and validation with violent versus nonviolent chronic alcohol abusers. igggggl_gt_§gggg1t1gg_ggg Robins, L.N., Helzer, J.E., Croughan, J., & Ratcliff, K. (1981). National Institute of Mental Health Diagnostic Interview 126 Schedule: Its history, characteristics and validity. r i es gf figngra! Egyghigtry, 3g, 381-389. Robins, L., Orvaschel, H., Anthony, J., Blazer, D., Burnam, M.A., & Burke, J. (1985). The Diagnostic Interview Schedule. In W.W. Eaton & L.B. Kessler (Eds.), ' mi i f' l me ggyghigtry; Thg NIMH ggiggmigtggig ggtggmgnt gggg grggggg. New York: Academic Press Inc." Schlesselman, J.J. (1982). n r l i i n ggnguct, gnalygi . New York: Oxford University Press. Selzer, M.L. (1975). A self-administered Short Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test (SMAST). Jggrngl gf Stggigs gn , Alcohgl, 3g, 117-126. in ‘ Smith, S.M. (1975). h t re chi n r . Reading, Massachusetts: Butterworths Publishers. 3/ --‘I