ulnar-u“: "3 1“") . 2 _: , ‘.‘ 2.2.11.1“: i?§u1tr\l)EH’n .L'x; . '2‘.‘ .~' II In!” 2 . . . 5. f. ,‘L‘,', '.’"‘ ,2. . , ,..., 2 ..... - v I": “:1" "2.... .- .y 'm 1 NYE-LIV m ..'.:'.-mr- “-1. prl\~"'>.-.. .. .2,“ . u n .2” ........-, .-. .. .. n r . ... ... , ,2. .I- “I... . ,.. . , f; n. . I . ,. ... 22,2. ”‘1', ('2 ’ “1.: , I. no ”:7 ”“3.“- ..., ,2. 9'4""- .;..L-. | .— .2.~-.{ w“ v ,2, ... v v va‘I 1M: - 1-. ' ru- m .32.?! :- ,‘pv‘lu' . i"? J .2 ""’ J 7 ...2 . ":2. .- . .u m. awn... ,., n- u I... “51. :‘i_\':(. 2 H .. , u f:7...;:;;!~4~* 1’“ .. ‘uul'L-u' 32‘; L. 1 I: ..' 7;, 2. .2_ .2 1%.; . -‘.‘-2.~ 1:. I An“; \ us ILv ._, “:1. wt. 9-); :41! 1““ '(i‘f'n'i \ " K. C' r .r L'! W ' , .r. :\ 1-‘2 “Hun/I ”.2 —. £3": c-.rn..:.s...s. ‘21:“. :1“.- .J 3’. x... 2-3.:- ‘3’ Z‘ .2... ... mm. 7:2: ‘3‘MhI-mhi' 4;?1“g=h\m'h 2...... . .... 2:. .22 2.. «‘3'. hi» I.» Law'u .21.... . g w. r.‘ r us: uss c.3111 .2; ‘kw‘tfi'k‘ h...‘ ' ..\.:,:::u '\L:I.--- I» - .2». ..,. 2.. -‘ u ...,,.2. .,. . , .2 . .2 ., 2 v .-2 2 2 31'1""; . £513. 'l.:V"7‘J‘I " 2. m .421" .2; . .m I" 2.2 ...,.,,'.' . . ' , "22.... -.-«- z. . -. . .. 2’“ 2. :m. .2. .1, J "1' . w" W ya I?" wing: . 12...”... ... W .93: r v- I r I 2:. -2*~ n2.....,. fr?“- .. awn-:- -vu‘. ., ‘5.'..‘£Y.7..~2 . a. 2 2:3...” wv- :rn . ,mnv m2 ' mu yup/1 I" -.I. u v.- w cm I ' 'v-rru- y: 221-”.‘-;;2‘.:.:.,.. an-I w’2! .‘ -2'2 :" ”02”"- rb :1 u... {w my,“ '.-.2—2.'3:" 'Ig . 2., 2-.. .1523... ' m D' '7“ 1 I , .1?! 'I‘ {Us .. .L-. K . )2.‘»l2"'t . '2}. new” harm..- 25m 2:. “J I’m-when. J "flu-u . .y- unv.‘ :- , 714.3. ., ‘n. \- m 2": 'Vfi:.\‘ 7 n2 :ufiil': I» ,.. ..2.. . ESR SITY LIBRARIES llHllWlHllllllllllllllllllllllllllll l LEBRARY ngchigan state ' University This is to certify that the dissertation entitled AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR ACROSS THREE GENERATIONS: AN EXAMINATION OF THE RELATIONSHIPS OF AGGRESSION BETWEEN GRANDPARENTS, THEIR CHILDREN. AND THEIR CHILDREN‘IS CHILDREN IN YOUNG ALCOHOLIC FAMILIES presented by Karen Ann Cruise has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degeehi Psychology /Major pro sor Robert A. Z, ker September 9, 1991 Date *— MSUI'tnnAffir-nnn'mz‘ ' I; 'r. - r - - 042771 PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE WIT, 1 I99? [d ‘r MUN ‘ a 7988 I -_ .C‘ 4M I: :3 MSU Is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution c:\circ\dmdm.pm3-p.1 AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR ACROSS THREE GENERATIONS: AN EXAMINATION OF THE RELATIONSHIPS OF AGGRESSION BETWEEN GRANDPARENTS, THEIR CHILDREN, AND THEIR CHILDREN’S CHILDREN IN YOUNG ALCOHOLIC FAMILIES BY Karen Ann Cruise A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Psychology 1991 ,Jc/I / s. "x .) ‘.,\ _ 6 ,3. I ~ ., .. ABSTRACT AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR ACROSS THREE GENERATIONS: AN EXAMINATION OF THE RELATIONSHIPS OF AGGRESSION BETWEEN GRANDPARENTS, THEIR CHILDREN, AND THEIR CHILDREN’S CHILDREN IN YOUNG ALCOHOLIC FAMILIES BY Karen Ann Cruise Although the study of aggressive behavior in children has produced an extensive literature, researchers have only recently begun to address the development of aggression among preschoolers. Such examination is critical to the construction of a developmental model of aggression. The research described herein examines the influence of a variety of aggression-specific and exogenous variables on aggressive behavior across three generations in young alcoholic families with preschool-aged sons. The data are cross-sectional; however, the multigenerational nature of the data permits construction of models of causative chain, and facilitates attempts to understand the evolution of aggressive behavior within the context of the family. Using a path-analytic strategy, the present study provided evidence consistant with the a hypothesis regarding continuity in aggressive behavior over time for both men and women. Marital aggression was linked to aggressive discipline Karen Ann Cruise in both grandparents and parents. In the grandparental-to- parental generation, marital aggression was also linked to greater parental defiance in girls. In the current parent- child generation, mothers’ marital aggression was linked to aggressive family discipline. Aggressive discipline was linked to greater aggressivity in fathers and sons (during different developmental periods) and to less adolescent aggression in mothers. A direct path was also found from fathers’ childhood aggression to aggression in their preschool-aged sons. Finally, the data support the hypothesis of an etiological connection, initially between aggression and lifetime alcohol problems for both men and women, and subsequently between problem alcohol involvement and aggressivity in later life. Among the exogenous variables, fathers’ intellectual functioning was inversely related to their own adolescent aggression and to aggressive family discipline of their sons. Family-of—origin SES was linked to higher levels of parental defiance in both mothers and fathers. Downward mobility, as indexed by SES, was found among these alcoholic men and their wives. Consistent patterns were found within this study, both across generations and among' mothers and fathers. The findings are also largely convergent with the existing literature. To my children - Carolyn, Ken, Steve, Patrick, and Katie - with love, respect, and great pride. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank Robert Zucker for the encouragement, assistance, and vision he contributed to all aspects of this project. I would also like to thank Hiram Fitzgerald, Frank Floyd, Robert N011, and Ellen Strommen for their supportw Finally, my gratitude to Eugene Maguin for his willingness to share his knowledge of statistical procedures, and to Janet Stavrou for her invaluable secretarial assistance in preparation of the final manuscript. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS LI ST OF TABLES O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I NTRODUCT I ON C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 LITERATURE REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aggressive behavior in preschool children . . Individual differences . . . . . . . . . Parents of aggressive preschool children Ecological variables . . . . . . . . . Summary - Aggression in preschool children Aggressive behavior in the school-aged child . Longitudinal studies . . . . . . . . . . Aggression and conduct disorder . . . . . Aggression and hyperactivity . . . . . . Aggression and antisocial behavior . . . Summary - Aggression in school-aged children Statement of the problem and hypotheses . . . METHOD Rationale . . . . . . Procedure . . . . . . . Tests and Measurements . . . . Aggression-specific relationships . . . . Exogenous relationships . . . . . . . . . Recruitment . Subjects . . . . . . . Testing procedures/datac all 1110 cti 0080000 Measuring intelligence . Measuring aggression . . Measuring alcohol and drug involvement Measuring marital conflict and discipline practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii Page . vi .viii . 1 . 5 . 5 . 6 O O O O O O O O H \l . 33 36 36 36 38 42 42 43 45 50 RESULTS 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O 0 Developing a composite measure of child aggression Other composite aggression measures: Constructing scales to measure aggressive behavior in parents and grandparents . . . . . . . . . . Parent aggression . . . . . . . . Parents’ marital aggression . . . Parents’ disciplinary practices . Grandparents’ marital aggression Grandparents’ disciplinary practices Computation of correlation matrices . . . Building the causal models . . . . . . . . . . . . Relating grandparental to parental aggression Model relating grandparental-to-maternal aggression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Model relating grandparental-to-paternal aggression . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of grandparent to parent rela- tionships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Parent and child aggression . . . . . . . . . Model predicting maternal-to-child rela— tionships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Model predicting paternal-to-child rela- tionships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of parent-to-child relationships DISCUSSION 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Interpretive considerations . . . . The nature of the data . . . . The nature of the population . Gender—related issues . . . . . Developmental issues . . . . . Aggression-specific relationship . . Continuity within generations . . . Marital violence and child aggression . Disciplinary practices and child aggress Direct transmission of aggression . . . Exogenous relationships . . . . . . . . The role of intellectual level The role of SES . . . . . . . Alcohol-specific relationships . Alcohol-related paths . . . What do the data say? . . . . . In the first generation . In the second generation ooooooooopooooooooo O .‘3 iv Page 54 56 60 60 64 67 68 70 74 77 77 84 88 90 93 95 98 104 106 107 107 109 111 112 114 114 115 116 119 121 121 123 125 125 127 127 130 Page How do these findings fit the existing literature? 130 General convergences and divergences . . . . 131 Study-specific comparisons . . . . . . . . . 135 Limitations and strengths of the present study . . 143 Directions for future research . . . . . . . . . . 145 The heritage of aggression . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 The price of the heritage . . . . . . . . . . 147 The downward path . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 Alternate roads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 A note of caution . . . . . . . . . . . 151 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 APPENDIX A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 APPENDIX B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 APPENDIX C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 APPENDIX D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 APPENDIX E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178 APPENDIX F . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 Table 10 11 12 13 LIST OF TABLES Sociodemographic Characteristics of the sample 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I Cross-Generational Socioeconomic Status. Correlation Matrix for Child Aggression measures 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Item-Factor Loadings of Child Aggression Items 0 I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Correlation Matrix for Parent Aggression Measures 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Factors and Item Loadings for Parent Aggression Items . . . . . . . . . . . . Correlations Between Parent Aggression Factors 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Item-Factor Loadings of Parent Discipline Items 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Descriptive Statistics for Grandparents’ Marital Aggression Variables . . . . . . Item-Factor Loadings of Grandparent Marital Conflict Items . . . . . . . . . . . . . Descriptive Statistics for Grandparent to Parent-As-Child Aggression Scale Items . Item-Factor Loadings of Grandparental Discipline Items . . . . . . . . . . . . Correlation Matrix of Variables for Grandparental-To-Parental Aggression Relationships. . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi Page 40 41 58 61 62 65 66 69 71 72 75 76 78 LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED) Table 14 15 Page Correlation Matrix of Variables for Parent- To-Child Aggression Relationships. . . . . . 79-80 Reliability of Variables Used in One-Sided Corrections for Attenuation. . . . . . . . . 81 vii Figure 6a 6b 8a 8b LIST OF FIGURES Page Theoretical Model of Grandparental-to- Parental Transmission of Aggression . . . . . 83 Path Model Relating Grandparental-to- Maternal Aggression . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Final Path Model Relating Grandparental-to— Maternal Aggression . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Path Model Relating Grandparental-to- Paternal Aggression . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Final Path Model Relating Grandparental-to- Paternal Aggression . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Model Linking Exogenous Maternal Variables to Child Outcome Measures . . . . . . . . . . 96 Path Model for Parent-to-Child Relationships: Model Linking Maternal Aggression-Specific Factors to Child Outcome Measures . . . . . . 97 Final Path Model of Maternal Influence Upon Child Aggressiveness. . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 Path Model for Parent Child Relationships: Linking Exogenous Paternal Variables to Child Outcome Measures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 Path Model for Parent-to-Child Relationships: Model Linking Paternal Aggression-Specific Factors to Child Outcome Measures . . . . . . 102 Final Path Model of Paternal Influences Upon Child Aggressiveness. . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 viii INTRODUCTION The study of aggressive behavior in children has produced an extensive literature. Longitudinal studies (e.g., Elder, Caspi, & Downey, 1986; Jersild & Markey, 1935; Kagan & Moss, 1962; Lefkowitz, Eron, Walder, & Huesmann, 1977) have identi- fied varying levels of aggressive behavior in normal children and have demonstrated that aggressive tendencies tend to persist when the same children are retested months and/or years later. This finding is consistent despite differences in methodology and age of the child at initial assessment. Although there is evidence for continuity of aggression in both boys and girls, this phenomenon has been more clearly documented in boys (Olweus, 1980). Researchers have been interested not only in the conti- nuity of aggressive behavior over time, but also in the factors involved in its transmission and prediction. LRela- tionships have been found between aggression and ecological variables ranging from socioeconomic status and family size to family stress (Campbell, Breaux, Ewing, 8: Szumowski, 1986; Farrington, 1978; Stewart, DeBlois, & Cummings, 1980). Examination of variables within the family, such as marital disharmony, parental aggression, discipline practices, and 2 quality of parent-child relationships, has also yielded a number of potential precursors of childhood aggression (Cummings, Iannotti, & Zahn-Waxler, 1985; Eron, Walder, & Lefkowitz, 1971; Farrington, 1978). Epidemiological studies (see Rutter, 1978), which have examined persistently aggres- sive behavior under the broader rubric of conduct disorder, substantiate these relationships, as do studies whose goal has been a more fine-grained differentiation of various childhood disorders of activity and/or conduct involving aggression (Loeber & Schmaling, 1985 ; Reeves, Werry, Elkind, & Zametkin, 1987). Although there is considerable evidence that aggressive styles can be identified in early childhood (Fagot, 1984; Loeber & Schmaling, 1985a; Olweus, 1979), much of what is known about the determinants of childhood aggression has come from studies of school-aged children and adolescents. Until recently, researchers interested in the etiology of aggressive behavior of pre-school children have examined few parental variables beyond socioeconomic status and occupation. Nevertheless, it is during this period that the child can most clearly be seen as an individual developing in interaction with the family. Parental influences are therefore particu- larly salient. Recent research (Campbell et al., 1986; Cummings et al., 1985; Kligman, Szmuilowicz, Choptiany, 8: Sameshima, 1980) has begun to address the development of aggression among preschoolers. An important goal of J _‘—- a 3 research in this field is the construction of a developmental model that would specify the probability of aggressive behavior given the presence of certain conditions or events. Research which examines aggressive behavior and its correlates or correspondences in the preschool child is critical to this construction. Examination of a number of these potential factors within the same group of young children is a necessary step in this research. LThe study presented here utilizes an aggression-specific approach, as the first step in building such a multidimension- al, multigenerational model. The children being studied are boys aged three through six, living with both biological parents. The study examines the role of child, parent, and family variables in accounting for individual differences in aggressive behavior during this developmental periodLi Although the study is cross-sectional, it utilizes a heuris- tic, cross-generational framework within which the predictors of individual differences in aggressive behavior in early childhood are examined. Multidimensional features include examination of IQ (a factor which is both biologically based and environmentally influenced) as it is predictive of individual differences in parent and child aggression. [At the socialzfamilial level of influence, parents are hypothe- sized to play a role by way of teaching the child about aggression, and by virtue of the extent to which they serve as undercontrolled, aggressive models. This may be seen in 4 individual aggressive behaviors or characteristics over time, or' through. aggressive conflict. with one’s spouse and/or discipline of the child. And last, at a broader level of _9cial/economic influence, family socioeconomic status is hypothesized to play an influencing roleJ Inasmuch as parental alcoholism.has been associated.with aggressive behavior in children and adolescents (Reeves et al., 1987; Stewart et al., 1980), this attribute is used to identify a subset of children who can be expected to be both dispersed quite widely on the aggression dimension, and also among whom are a substantial number who are at the upper extremes of the population on this dimension. Additionally, study of aggressive behavior within this population is particularly relevant given increasing evidence that child aggression is precursive to the development of alcoholism among these children as adults (zucker & Fitzgerald, 1991). LITERATURE REVIEW Although existing research tells us something about individual, parental, family, and ecological correlates of aggressive behavior in young children, much of the exploration in this area has been done with school aged children and adolescentsuj The following literature review covers the research on both preschool and school aged children. Except where specifically noted, the literature on adolescent aggression is not included. I. Aggressive behavior in preschool children A number of studies have explored the aggressive behavior of normal children aged two through six. The focus has primarily been on behavior outside the home, and data collec- tion has ranged from direct behavioral observation (Patterson, Littman, & Bricker, 1967) to teacher (Kohn.& Rosman, 1972) and clinical (Kagan & Moss, 1962) ratings. In this literature, and for the purposes of the present study, aggression is defined.in interactional terms as behavior intended to harm or irritate another persgn. Examples of such behaviors are "Hitting, taking of objects (from other children), and verbal assaults" (Fagot, 1984, pp. 389) and "attack(ing) others (hitting, kicking, pushing, or throwing) or physically 6 attempt(ing) to take another’s possessions" (Cummings et al., 1985, pp. 498). Patterson et al. (1967) further differentiate aggressive behaviors as relatively rare, high amplitude responses in a broader category of assertive behaviors which have in common a "demand characteristic". Individual differences Marked individual differences in aggression level have been demonstrated by age three (Olweus, 1979). Aggressive behavior has also been found to be continuous over time, with stability coefficients as high as 0.76 for an interval of one year and 0.69 for five years (Olweus, 1980). These results remain relatively consistent across studies despite consider- able methodological and theoretical variation. This continu- ity' has been. particularly' documented. in, boys, who also demonstrate higher frequencies of aggressive behavior than girls (Fagot, 1984; Maccoby & Jacklin, 1980). An early study (Jersild & Markey, 1935) reported a modest negative correlation between intellectual level and aggression in preschool children. Recent studies of young children, although using an arbitrary cut-off point in IQ as exclusion- ary criteria (e.g., Campbell et al., 1986), have not examined IQ as an independent variable. One might expect intellectual ability to influence the likelihood of aggressive behavior in several ways. Children with lower IQ may experience greater frustration than their peers as they struggle with developmen- tal goals. Thus, the preschool child with a low IQ may have 7 difficulty mastering tasks that allow him to be more autono- mous and the school-aged child may have difficulty with tasks facilitating a sense of industry. As the child who has learned an aggressive response style grows older, he is less likely to be skilled in generating alternative behaviors, and more likely to find himself in a peer group of children with similar limitations. Lower intellectual level may therefore increase the risk that a child will become aggressive. And aggression may then decrease the likelihood that a child.will encounter opportunities to develop his/her intellectual abilities. One would therefore anticipate that intellectual competence is an even more salient correlate of aggression as the child.grows older; Studies of school aged children (Eron, Walder, Huesmann, & Lefkowitz, 1978; Farrington, 1978), juvenile delinquents (Hirschi & Hindelang, 1977), and antiso- cial adults (Kandel, Mednick, Kirkegaard-Sorensen, Hutchings, Knop, Rosenberg, & Schulsinger, 1988), support this supposi- tion. Several of these studies will be discussed in the next section of this paper. Parents of Aggressive Preschool Children Much of what is known about the parents of aggressive preschool children comes from more general studies of psycho- logical development (e.g. , Kagan & Moss, 1962) and child-rear- ing practices (e.g., Sears, Maccoby, & Levin, 1957). The focus in these studies has typically been upon maternal behavior. 8 Kagan and Moss (1962) rated mothers of five year old children on hostility, restriction, protection, and accelera- tion. Ratings of these behaviors were based on observations and interviews over the developmental periods of birth to three years, three to six years, and six to ten years of age. Maternal hostility was seen in criticism of the child and in hostile statements’ expressed directly to the child, or to other adults about the child; statements included expressions of dissatisfaction with the child as well as those of active rejection. Maternal restriction referred to the mother’s attempts to force the child to adhere to her standards. Protection was the degree to which the mother differentially rewarded dependent overtures and prevented independent development. Finally, maternal acceleration was the demon- stration of excessive concern regarding the child’s develop- ment, a tendency to push the child beyond his/her abilities, and to express excessive concern with his achievement level. Of these four variables, maternal hostility was the best correlate of children’s aggression towards peers during childhood. Maternal restrictiveness during the ages of three to ten was the most consistent correlate of these children’s aggressive behavior as adults. Sears et a1. (1957) rated maternal child-rearing practic- es on five dimensions, i.e., disciplinary techniques, permis- siveness, severity, temperamental qualities, and positive inculcation of more mature behavior. Mothers of five year old 9 children responded to a series of 72 open ended questions during a two hour interview. Ratings were given for permis- siveness of aggression toward parents, among siblings, and toward other children. The handling of incidents of aggres- siveness toward parents was rated for severity of punishment. Mothers’ reports of amount of aggression exhibited by the child at home, excluding aggression toward siblings, were then compared with reported child-rearing practices to determine relationships between the two. Analysis revealed that mothers who were both the most permissive and also responded to aggression with the most severe punishment had the most aggressive children. Obversely, mothers who were the most non-permissive but the least punitive had the least aggressive children. The authors discussed these results as possible evidence of increased frustration experienced by the child who is severely punished for what has been a satisfying experience without being taught acceptable, alternate responses. Since mothers supplied information on both child-rearing practices and child behavior, these measures were not indepen- dent. Potential bias in the report of child behavior was explored by examining possible influences on mothers’ percep- tions of this behavior. Significant correlations were found between reports of high aggression in the children and high child-rearing anxiety, low self-esteem, dissatisfaction with current life situation, low value for the mother role, low 10 esteem for husband, and high disagreement with husband about child-training matters. Although the relationship between severe punishment and aggressive child behavior is intuitively and logically appealing, reviews of the literature (Baumrind, 1978; Radke- Yarrow, Campbell, & Burton, 1968) reveal considerable ambigu- ity regarding this relationship. Radke-Yarrow et al. examined the results of their own.methodological study and a number of other studies using the same or similar interview questions and coding categories as those used by Sears et al. (1957). Neither frustration, punishment, nor permissiveness of aggression were consistently found to be correlated with aggression in children. The authors cited a number of methodological factors (e.g., differences in setting, and target. of aggression) as contributing' to ‘the: discrepant findings, but also concluded that many of the hypotheses regarding the assumed.relationships between childhood aggres- sion, frustration, punishment, and reward in the rearing practices of the mother had not been substantially supported. While also reporting conflicting findings regarding the effects of punishment on children’s behavior, Baumrind (1978) stressed evidence supporting the counter-intuitive nature of parents’ ability to reinforce behavior contrary to what they are modeling. She observed that children punished aggressive- ly (but not brutally) for aggression become less rather than more aggressive. 11 Baumrind’s (1978) qualification regarding level of aggression involved in the punishment may account, at least in part, for the discrepancies noted above. When punishment is considered in the broader, cross-generational context of family violence, there is evidence that abusive, punishing parents produce violent children (Straus, Gelles, & Steinmetz, 1980). This evidence is tgenerally' demonstrated. through increased rates of aggression toward siblings and higher rates of child and spouse abuse when the child becomes an adult. The effects of SES as a potential moderating variable in the effect of discipline should be considered. Baumrind’s (1978) subjects were primarily middle class. Radke-Yarrow et al. (1968), however, reviewed studies representing a broader range of SES. It is possible that parents from different SES groups experience different demands on their time and atten- tion, and/or have different expectations of their child’s behavior. The need to consider SES when examining child aggression is discussed later in this review. Patterson (1982) offers a more fine-grained, interac- tional analysis of the use and effect of punishment. He sees the use of contingent, nonviolent forms of punishment as essential in the control of antisocial, coercive child behavior, but also stresses the importance of other parental behaviors which mediate its effectiveness, that is, nurtur- ance, consistency, and rule statements. He points out that parents of normal children tend to ignore most coercive child 12 behavior. As a result, the behavior is short—lived. Parents of antisocial children tend to "matter", which lengthens and escalates coercive episodes. Extremes in punishment are then used to temporarily stop these coercive behaviors, but the behaviors are sufficiently successful such that coercive process becomes a primary mode of interaction. This is consistent with findings that elementary school children nominated as more aggressive by their peers tend to be more confident that aggression will produce tangible rewards and reduce aversive treatment by others (Perry, Perry, & Ras- mussen, 1986) . In like manner, antisocial-aggressive adoles- cents appear to hold a set of beliefs about aggression that differs from their nonaggressive peers (Slaby & Guerra, 1988) . They tend to see aggressive responses as more appropriate, more self-enhancing, and less likely to cause suffering in the victim. i Ecological Variablesj 1 From a broader perspective, one might expect certain environmental or ecological factors to exert either a direct or indirect influence on childhood aggression. A parent’s ability to provide consistent parenting and to monitor child behavior would be affected by conflicting demands on time and attention and by preoccupation with concern over meeting basic needs and handling other stressors (e.g., Elder, Liker, & Cross, 1984). Conversely, the child whose environment is unstable and/or chaotic is more likely to experience few 13 controls, inconsistent expectations, and more troubled role models (Patterson, 1982). Research on the potential effects of several ecological factors is reviewed below. Socioeconomic status. Most researchers have mentioned SES of the children involved in their studies. This has, however, been done with varying degrees of clarity. An early study by Jersild & Markey (1935) contains comments on inherent SES differences between three groups of preschool children observed in their study. Two of these groups were in nursery schools, an indication that they came from relatively "superi- or" homes with parents who were well educated and had higher- paying jobs. The third group attended a day nursery school supported largely by public funds. IParents in this group‘were described as more likely to be divorced and to have less skilled employment. Children in the latter group were more likely to swear and to exhibit other activities assumed to have been learned at home, e.g., spanking one another when playing house. They also hit more frequently and escalated more quickly from verbal demands to physical aggression. A more recent study (Campbell et al., 1986) reports an association between lower SES and both hyperactivity and aggression in.parent-referred.problem.preschoolers. Children in this study were recruited from pediatrician’ 5 offices, toddler groups, and mothers’ day out programs. They were initially assessed at ages two and a half to three, and 14 subsequently at ages four and sixu The authors report a range of SES from lower-class unskilled workers to upper-middle- class professionals. Attrition from the problem group over the three year period was thirteen subjects (over 25%), many of whom were from lower SES families. These drop-out families were described as not only significantly different in social class from.others in.the problem group but as characterized.by more family disharmony, psychosocial stress, geographic relocation, and unstable employment. This is especially noteworthy in light of the fact that, although the families included in the study represented a broad range of SES, subjects were recruited in such.a‘way as to eliminate families who were not sufficiently functional to access structured programs such as those described. Nevertheless, the findings in this study support an inverse relationship between SES and aggression. The majority of studies examining aggression in normal groups of preschool children have involved a restricted range of SES, with subjects from primarily middle or upper SES groups (Block, Block & Harrington, 1974; Emmerich, 1966; Kagan & Moss, 1962; Martin, 1954; Patterson et al., 1967). Excep- tions are studies by Kohn & Rosman (1972), where all of the children attended a publicly-funded day care center, and Fagot’s (1984) study of two year old children who reportedly represented a range of families from working class to profes- sional. Fagot.did not examine SES as an independent variable. 15 Given the variability in subject selection and other method- ological differences in these studies, the ability to general- ize findings across SES groups is limited. Nevertheless, the impact of SES on parental ability to meet a family’s basic needs and on the time and energy needed for positive parenting point.to a need to carefully consider SES when examining child behavior. Additional family stressors. Campbell et al. (1986) discovered that SES, family stress, and family size each contributed significant independent variance to mothers’ ratings of both hyperactivity and aggression in their three year old children. stressors included marital instability, separations and/or divorce, family conflict, chronic parental mental or physical illness, and unemployment of one or both parents. Neither stress nor family size were significantly related to maternal ratings of aggression when these children were age six. Failure to find a relationship after age six may be attributable to a decrease in time spent at home once the child.enters school or to the influence of persons outside the home on child behavior. Generalization of findings from this study to a normal population is limited due to the nature of the sample (i.e., identified by mother as problematic). The study does, however, provide evidence for a potential relationship between certain family stressors and aggression in the very young child. 16 Summary - Aggression in Preschool Children Based on the above studies, it appears that as early as preschool age, children have developed.patterns of aggressive behavior which remain stable over time. Boys demonstrate higher frequency and greater continuity of aggressive behav- iors. There is also evidence of an inverse relationship between intelligence (within a normal range) and aggression. Parental criticism and hostility appear to be related to childhood aggression. The relationship between parental discipline and aggressive behavior in children is less clear, with some researchers taking the position that aggressive disciplinary measures reduce aggression in the child, and others finding that punishment increases aggressive child behavior. Interactional, social learning formulations of discipline situations help to resolve some of the apparent ambiguity in the relationship between punishment and child aggression. Relationships have also been tentatively demonstrated between aggression and SES, family stress, and family size. II. Aggressive Behavior in the School-Aged Child Further information about correlates of aggressive behavior comes from studies of slightly older children. In the following section, longitudinal studies of aggression in school-aged children as well as studies of aggressive behavior as it relates to conduct disorder, hyperactivity, and antiso— cial behavior in this older age group are reviewed. 17 Longitudinal studies. One of the most comprehensive studies of aggression is a longitudinal project begun in 1960 (Eron et al., 1971; Lefkowitz et al., 1977). Subjects were in the third grade (modal age = eight) at the onset of the study and have currently been followed for over 20 years. Peer ratings on aggression, aggression anxiety, success in aggres- sion, and popularity were obtained in the classroom. other classroom measures included activity level, IQ, role expecta- tions, and various aspects of identity (i.e., occupational aspirations, expressive behavior, and games/activities preference). For both boys and girls, IQ was significantly negatively correlated with aggressiveness. Parents were administered a 286 item questionnaire. Questionnaire items were categorized under 41 variables, ranging from questions regarding household composition and geographic mobility to parental aggression and disharmony. These questionnaires were designed to sample hypothesized relationships between aggression in the children and level of parent punishment, instigation (i.e., frustrating conditions in the home likely to instigate aggression), identification (internalization of parental values and modeling of parental behaviors), and various sociocultural variables. At the time of the initial assessment, the authors found that more punitive fathers had more aggressive children. The relation- ship between mothers' discipline and child aggression was in the hypothesized direction but not significant. Of the 18 instigators, rejection was most strongly correlated with aggression, followed by moderate correlations between child aggression.and.parental disharmony and lack.of nurturance. In this regard, rejection by fathers was more highly correlated with aggression than was punishment by fathers. Internaliza- tion was measured by confessing behaviors reported by each parent. In general, high reports of confessing behavior were correlated with lower aggression for both boys and girls. Modeling was determined by comparing aggressive behavior in children with self-ratings of parents’ aggressive attitudes. Fathers and mothers who rated themselves high in aggressive attitudes had boys who were rated more aggressive by their peers. This trend was more pronounced in low than in high social status categories. Of particular interest was the finding that children who had internalized the directives of their parents (as evidenced by greater confessing behaviors) were less aggressive than those who had not. The magnitude of this negative relation appeared to increase as parental use of physical punishment increased. That is, boys who identify strongly with their fathers tended to be less aggressive the more they were punished for aggression. The opposite was also true, with punishment.apparently serving as an.instigator when identification was not present. This finding may help to further clarify some of the ambiguity reported above in studies of the relationship between aggressive punishment and aggressive behavior in children. 19 Although these original findings supported the research- ers' theoretical hypotheses and add significantly to what is known about the relationship between parental behaviors and child aggression, careful attention should be paid to the nature of the data. All parent variables were obtained in the context of a single interview, response format was essentially closed vs. open-ended, and range of behaviors sampled was limited. For example, parental aggression was measured by responses to 12 items eliciting opinions on statements evocative of aggression (e.g., "Horses that don’t pull should be beaten and kicked"; "I easily lose patience with people", pp. 228). Parental disharmony was measured via "Yes/No" responses to ten questions, including disagreement about raising children, disagreements regarding what to do with leisure time, satisfaction with how spouse handles money, and whether self or spouse ever leave the house during an argu- ment. These limitations in richness and range necessarily limit interpretation and generalizability of findings. Longitudinal results of this study (Eron, 1987) revealed that aggression manifested during peer interactions in elementary school, irrespective of gender, predicted later aggression, criminal behavior, number of moving traffic violations, convictions for drunk driving, spouse abuse, and severity of punishment of the subject’s own children. Of the initial four classes of learning conditions, identification and certain SES variables (e.g., parents’ educational level 20 and father’s occupational status) had persistent effects over a ten year period. IQ, initially included as an instigator based on its hypothesized relationship with frustration, was consistently correlated with aggression in both boys and girls. Its predictive power, however, diminished over time. Low identification of child with parent was a potent predictor of aggression, as was lack of evidence of a "guilty con- science". Thus, those children who gave some evidence of having identified with their parents and having internalized society’s standards of behavior at age eight were less aggressive ten years later than those who did not. Further, prosocial behavior at age eight, as measured by items indica- tive of jpopularity ‘with. peers and. aggression avoidance, predicted prosocial behavior 22 years later as measured by occupational and educational attainment, low aggression, social success, and good mental health. Data from a second longitudinal study begun several years later (Farrington, 1978) included parental interviews and information from.public records, and identified.precursors of aggression in boys at age 14. Aggressive behavior was based on teacher ratings at ages eight, ten, 12, and 14, by self report at ages 16 and 18, and by police report at age 21. At age eight, correlates of later aggression were low family income, harsh parental attitude and discipline, poor parental supervision, marital disharmony, daring behavior, and low IQ. Although the authors point to the weakness of longitudinal 21 surveys in representing gross relationships between variables at the end of long causal chains, they also observe that their findings are consistent with others examining family back- grounds of aggressive preadolescent and adolescent boys. Longitudinal study of archival data from the Berkeley Guidance Study, Institute of Human Development at the Univer- sity of California, Berkeley, also supports the covariance of problem behaviors and family relationships (Elder, Caspi, & Downey, 1986). Two behavior patterns with aggressive charac- teristics, and considered likely to be influenced by family interaction, were identified and measured when the children were five to seven and eight to ten years old. These were difficult child and temper tantrums. The former pattern was measured by averaging five-point ratings of three types of behavior: quarrelsome (chip on the shoulder, instigating quarrels with no apparent provocation); negativitistic (compulsive, habitual urge to do the opposite of what was expected); and irritable (explosive and overreactive). The temper tantrum pattern was measured by ratings on severity and frequency of tantrums. Path analytic models were constructed focusing separately on difficult behavior and temper tantrums and.held separate for mothers and fathers. IParental variables were jpersonal instability, ‘marital ‘tension, and. punitive parenting. Loss of income, which contributed to parental instability in the fathers, was defined as an exogenous construct. Defiant, out of control child behavior was found 22 to Ibe associated. with arbitrary' and extreme: discipline, marital tension, and parental instability. Analyses of longitudinal data from this data set also provide support for the hypothesis of continuity of aggressive behaviors across time for both boys and girls (Elder, Caspi, & Downey, 1986) and for a relationship between explosive behavior in childhood and negative adult outcomes such as downward socioeconomic mobility and marital conflict (Caspi, Elder, & Bem, 1987). Although differences in methodology make comparisons problematic, longitudinal studies of aggression in children who were in middle childhood.at the time of initial assessment generally support the relationship between harsh parental discipline practices and greater aggression in the children. Rejection by the parent was also related to increased child aggression, however, and it is unclear to what extent harsh parental discipline and parental rejection are orthogonal or inter-related. Evidence is also provided for the mediating or interac- tive effects of identification with the parent on the effects of discipline. Here again, however, certain ambiguities exist. Essentially, it is unclear to what extent internaliza- tion of parental values and modeling of parent behaviors can be considered measures of the same construct. The logical interpretation of the data presented by Eron et a1. (1971) would be that a child who identifies with a parent internal- izes the values expressed through discipline rather than 23 modeling the act of discipline. That is, he/she is able to differentiate between the spirit and letter of the law. Expression of guilt over wrongdoing, which supposedly measures such internalization, and.perceived similarities in expressive behavior between parent and child would seem to be mutually exclusive criteria in instances where the parent is physical punitive or abusive. Internalization of societal values and prosocial behaviors at age eight appears to be related to lower aggression in childhood and is predictive of lower aggression in adulthood. Child aggression also appears to be correlated with parent aggression and/or volatility and with marital conflict. SES can be seen as contributing indirectly to child aggression through its impact on paternal behavior. Finally, data from studies of the school-aged child support an inverse relation- ship between IQ and aggression. Aggression and conduct disorder. Rutter’s (1978) review of four epidemiological studies of conduct disorder in children aged 10 to 15 adds in a general way to what is known about the relationship of familial correlates of aggressive behavior. Although aggression is often descriptive of disorders in conduct, the latter category is broader in nature, and frequently subsumes but is not synonymous with aggression. The studies in question took place in London and the Isle of Wight, and involved both normal populations and children newly referred to a psychiatric clinic. Psychiatric 24 diagnoses of conduct disorder were derived from parent and teacher accounts. From information on family influences, Rutter derived a six factor Family Adversity Index, comprised of severe marital discord, separations from parents, mental disorder in the mother, father’s unlawful behavior, overcrowd- ing or large family size, and unskilled/semiskilled status of father. Rutter found that higher index scores were correlated with psychiatric disorder in the children. Further, he discovered that if the child experienced only one stressor, there was no increase in psychiatric risk. Examination of children who were at risk but not diagnosed as conduct disordered revealed a number of ameliorating factors. In addition to single vs. multiple stressors, these were compen- sating good circumstances outside the home, temperamental features of the child, heredity (an interaction of genetic vulnerability and environmental stress), a good relationship with one parent within the home, and change in family circum- stances or increased harmony over the course of middle to late childhood. Although these factors are not specific to aggression, they suggest directions salient to the development of a heuristic model of child aggression. Aggression and hyperactivity. Additional information about correlates of aggressive behavior in childhood comes from the literature on hyperactivity. A decade ago, Cantwell (1978) directly addressed the evidence for an association between hyperactivity in childhood and the development of 25 antisocial behavior in childhood, adolescence, and adulthood. This evidence came from childhood histories of antisocial adults, retrospective studies of hyperactive children as adults, and prospective studies of hyperactive children. Although. it. is now' generally' agreed. that. hyperactivity, especially as the diagnostic category' has been used in America, is descriptive of a heterogeneous group of children, initial studies addressed hyperactivity as a more unidimen- sional syndrome. Examination of the families of hyperactive children compared to controls revealed a significantly higher percentage of fathers who were alcoholic and/or antisocial and mothers who were alcoholic and/or met criteria for a diagnosis of hysteria (Cantwell, 1972; Morrison & Stewart, 1971). A number of subsequent studies have examined hyperactivi- ty and aggression as separate but intertwined or overlapping dimensions of behavior (Loney, Langhorne, & Paternite, 1978; Milich, Loney, & Landau, 1982; Milich, Widiger, & Landau, 1987; Prinz, Connor, & ‘Wilson, 1981; Stewart, Cummings, Singer, & DeBlois, 1981; Walker, Lahey, Hynd, & Frame, 1987). Subjects in these studies were ages five through 14. Aggres- siveness in hyperactive children powerfully predicted aggres- sive and delinquent behavior in adolescence, while level of activity was only a weak predictor of school achievement (Loney et al., 1978). Further, psychopathology in parents of hyperactive children was associated with children’s conduct disorder rather than their hyperactivity (August & Stewart, 26 1983; Reeves, Werry, Elkind, & Zametkin, 1987; Stewart, DeBlois & Cummings, 1980). A detailed description of these studies follows. Stewart et al. (1980) interviewed parents of 126 boys between the ages of five and 15 who were admitted to a psychiatric clinic or ward and subsequently diagnosed as unsocialized aggressive; unsocialized aggressive and hyperac- tive; hyperactive; and other (phobic neurosis, depression). Of the whole group, 28% of the fathers were diagnosed antiso- cial personality, 21% alcoholism or drug abuse, 9% affective disorder, 4% other disorders or undiagnosed, and 38% no disorder. Approximately half of the fathers in the antisocial personality category also met the criteria for alcoholism, but were counted under only the former diagnosis. Diagnoses of mothers of the whole group were: neurosis (hysteria, anxiety, phobic), 15%; antisocial personality, alcoholism, or drug abuse, 5%; affective disorder, 33%; other disorders and undiagnosed, 6%; and no disorder, 41%. When the children were divided into two groups, that is, those who were unsocialized aggressive and those who were not, significant differences emerged between the two groups of fathers while trends appeared for the mothers. In the former group, fathers more often had antisocial personalities or were alcoholic; mothers were more often neurotic. Interestingly, this association did not hold for the high SES families. One possible explanation was that boys were affected most by having an antisocial 27 father and a neurotic mother, a combination which occurred most often in the lower SES families and in those with larger numbers of children. In any event, "knowing that a boy’s natural father was antisocial or alcoholic quite accurately predicted the boy's diagnosis if he came from a poor family or a sibship of two or more" (pp. 290). No association was found in this study between parental disorder and hyperactivity. A second study (August & Stewart, 1983) tested the hypothesis that subtypes of childhood hyperactivity could be defined given family history data. Parents of a group of 95 hyperactive boys ages five to 13 were interviewed, and the boys subsequently separated into two groups based on the presence or absence of parental diagnosis in the antisocial spectrum (i.e., antisocial personality, alcohol and/or drug abuse, hysteria). In the majority of cases, the father received the positive diagnosis. Three mothers were diagnosed with hysteria and one with alcoholism. Subsequent examination of the children on a variety of factors revealed two relative- ly distinct groups. That is, children whose parents were diagnosed in the antisocial spectrum were rated significantly higher on aggression, noncompliance, antisocial behavior, and egocentricity. They also tended to have brothers and sisters who had similar problems. These findings are consistent with an additional study by Reeves et a1. (1987) in which aggression was subsumed under the diagnosis of conduct disorder. In this study, 105 28 children aged five to 12 with diagnoses of anxiety (ANX), attention deficit (ADDH), conduct (CD), or oppositional (OPP) disorders were compared with each other and with normal subjects. The primary aim of the study was to examine the validity of the four DSM-III major diagnostic categories by studying a number of their correlates, with one main hypothe- sis being that the disorders were different from each other and from normal children in a number of areas, including background, family, and social ecology (i.e., age, sex, social class, family characteristics, and family history of disor- ders). The range of diagnoses per child.was from one to five. CD and OPP resembled each other and seldom occurred in the absence of ADDH; In order to have groups of adequate size for analysis, all those children with ADDH and an additional diagnosis of either CD or OPP were combined into an ADDH + CD group. Ultimately, three groups (ADDH, ADDH + CD, and ANX) plus their matched control groups were compared. No differ- ences were found in a number of areas. That is, in neuro- development, minor physical anomalies, speech, and handedness, all diagnostic groups resembled their normal control groups. Of specific interest to this review are comparisons between the ADDH group and the.ADDH + CD group. 'These groups general- ly resembled each other more than they differed in sex ratio (boys predominant); age of onset and presentation; frequency of perinatal insults; psychosocial stress; and handicap in cognition and achievement. In all areas, they were at a 29 disadvantage when compared with ANX and normal subjects. The ADDH + CD group, however, was most clearly distinguished by the occurrence, in a third of the cases, of severe, adverse family backgrounds, including alcoholic/antisocial fathers. The other two diagnostic groups did not differ from normal groups in this regard. ADDH + CD children in this study also functioned the worst socially. Agreement regarding increased dysfunction in children diagnosed with ADDH and CD comes from a comparison of specific patterns of antisocial behavior in conduct disordered children with or without coexisting hyperactivity (Walker et al. , 1987). Children with ADDH + CD were lower in SE8 but did not differ from the CD group in sex, race, or IQ. More children in the ADDH + CD group engaged in physical fighting; they also exhibited a greater frequency of CD symptoms, and engaged in a higher total number of these symptoms. The literature on aggression and.hyperactivity therefore significantly adds to and/or substantiates what we know about correlates of aggression in school aged children. That is, compared. to children. in other' diagnostic categories and control children, aggressive children are more likely to have fathers and mothers who are diagnosable in the spectrum of antisocial disorders - antisocial personality disorder, alcoholic, other drug dependence, and hysteric. There is also additional evidence of an inverse relationship between aggression and SES. 30 Aggression and antisocial behavior. In a similar manner to the work reviewed above, researchers have begun to differ- entiate subcategories of antisocial behavior. Examination of this research also adds to our knowledge of correlates of aggressive behavior in children. Loeber and Schmaling (1985a) performed a meta-analysis of 28 factor and cluster-analytic studies of child psychopatholo— gy to identify patterns in antisocial behavior. Ages of the children in these studies ranged from two to 18. The analysis yielded one dimension, subsequently labeled overt—covert antisocial behavior, that accounted for 69% of the variance in the data. At the overt end, this dimension consisted of confrontive antisocial behaviors such as arguing, temper tantrums, and fighting (all of which fall within the opera— tional definition of aggression used in the present research). At the covert end were concealed antisocial behaviors such as stealing, truancy, and fire setting. Both patterns of antisocial behavior have noncompliance as a keystone. The authors, however, point to the implications of differing developmental pathways in terms of differential prevention and treatment programs. Although the above research does not examine correlates of aggression, a companion paper (Loeber & Schmaling, 1985b) does differentiate mixed and pure forms of antisocial child behavior and its correlates in a group of 10 to 17 year old boys. This research is based on the overt-covert dimension 31 delineated above (Loeber & Schmaling, 1985a), with fighting and theft representing the covert and overt poles of the dimension. These behaviors were chosen as the defining criteria for four groups of juveniles: boys who fought.but did not steal; boys who stole but did not fight; boys who stole and fought; and boys who did neither. It was hypothesized that boys in the exclusive fighter group would exhibit higher levels of overt antisocial behaviors than those in the other groups; those in the exclusive theft group would exhibit higher levels of covert behaviors; and boys in the versatile group would be more likely to be delinquent and to engage in higher rates of overt and covert antisocial acts“ The authors further hypothesized.that.boys in the versatile.group‘would.be the most disturbed on measures of family process. Full support was found for the first hypothesis; partial support for the second. The versatile antisocial youths scored highest among all groups on almost all overt and covert antisocial behaviors, and in terms of delinquent acts. These boys also came from families with the most disturbed child- rearing practices. That is, they were significantly less likely to be monitored by the parents and more likely to be rejected by their mothers. Although analyses did not reveal the significance of differences between the exclusive fighter and exclusive theft groups on family variables, mean scores indicate that the exclusive fighter group received less monitoring, less discipline, and greater maternal rejection, 32 than did the boys at the covert end of the antisocial dimen- sion. Summary - Aggression in School Aged Children Broadening our area of exploration to include school aged children adds information regarding a number of familial and environmental correlates of aggression. Harsh discipline and/or parental rejection and multiple stressors are apparent- ly correlated with higher aggression in normal and antisocial children. Parents of aggressive hyperactive or conduct disordered children are more likely to be diagnosed antisocial than parents of their non-aggressive counterparts. These children also experience more dysfunctional parenting. Obversely, there is evidence of a relationship between internalization of societal values, prosocial behaviors, and lower rates of aggression. There is some evidence that children who identify more closely with their parent or parents are less likely to be aggressive. The data supporting this finding is somewhat ambiguous, however. Other potential mediators of aggression are positive relationships and/or circumstances outside or within the home, and the temperament of the child. Children with lower IQ appear more likely to be aggressive, although it could be expected that this relation- ship in middle childhood is mediated or sustained by other factors in the child's learning experience or social environ- ment. There is also additional support for a relationship between SES and aggression. 33 |Stftement of the Problem and Hypotheses Tl Much of what we know in detail about childhood aggression comes from studies of children who are school aged or older. Although there is evidence that aggression remains stable over time, and that aggressive families beget aggressive children, there is little clear evidence of how aggression functions and/or develops in the critical developmental years of early childhood. The present study examines predictors of aggres- sive behavior during this period. The literature suggests that boys whose fathers are antisocial (e.g., antisocial personality disorder, alcoholic, drug dependent) are at particular risk to be aggressive. Examination of the correlates of aggression in this population should therefore allow ample opportunity to observe a range of aggressive behavior not only in the children, but also in their parents and in the parents’ family of origin. LCertain influences which have more of a biologically based component (e.g., IQ) as well as some which have a more clearly1environ- mental etiology (e.g., SES) arelalso to be Emamined, given that the literature indicates they make some contribution to aggressive outcomesj A model incorporating a number of these aggression-specific and exogenous factors will guide the re- search. Aggression-Specific Relationships: \ [There is considerable evidence that aggressive children are more likely to have parents who are themselves aggressive. i ' -\ / I I 34 Parents of these children are also more likely to be antiso- cial, either by personality or by virtue of involvement with alcohol or drugs. 1. It is therefore hypothesized that a direct relation- ship exists between parental aggression and antisocial behavior, and child aggression. A relationship has been established between marital violence and child aggression. 2. It is hypothesized that marital violence will be significantly correlated with child aggression, both in the parental and grandparental generations. Although there is some ambiguity about the relationship between harsh discipline and child aggression, there is sufficient evidence of a connection to warrant exploring this issue in this research. 3. It is anticipated that, even among‘ a preschool population, harsh parental discipline practices (i.e., parent—to-child aggression) will be associated.with aggressive child behavior. This relationship will also be found between harsh.grandparental discipline.practices (i.e., grandparent to parent-as-child aggression) and parent aggressionlj Exogenous relationships: An inverse relationship has been found between IQ and aggressive behavior. 4. It is hypothesized that high levels of aggression will be related to lower IQ in both parents and children. 35 Finally, a relationship has been found between socioeco- nomic status and aggression. 5. It is anticipated that SES will be a significant factor in the development of aggression, with children in lower SES families being at greater risk. SES will be examined as a continuous independent variablelj What is proposed here is the first step in the construc- tion of a multilevel, interactional model, which would ultimately consider biological, psychological, and social factors. At a molecular level, aggression in the child is related to various individual characteristics. Parent characteristics are related in a similar manner to parental aggression, and in turn to child aggression. Interpersonal violence within the family, maintained- -across‘vgenerations, also contributes to child aggression. Finally, environmental or ecological stressors affect the probability of aggression in the parent and, through the parent, the child. The work proposed herein examines first the relationship of grandparent to parent and then parent to chileJ'A comprehensive model, which would require mapping a complete cross-generational structure from grandparent to child, is considerably beyond the scope of this project. I} A‘, V) ‘- I f: i”: 'J k/ f’o i I p fffiif‘i ‘. ."‘/ a; .' “,6 '1 4 11 17>]. I/;/t( <1. I I {41. . METHOD Rationale The Michigan State University Longitudinal Study (Zucker et al., 1984; Zucker, Noll, & Fitzgerald, 1986) utilizes a high risk design to study the factors that may contribute over time to the development of a variety of behavioral disorders, but most particularly alcoholism, conduct disorder, and drug abuse/dependence, in initially preschool aged male children. Risk is established by way of paternal alcoholism, with special interest given to male children, as the highest probability target children for development of these disor- ders. Families within this project therefore provide optimal opportunity to test the hypotheses of this research. Procedure Recruitment. Families were recruited through all district courts in the Greater Lansing metropolitan area. Potential recruits were all convicted drunk drivers with a blood alcohol level of 0.15% or higher (or 0.12% or higher if this was a second or more documented drinking related legal problem), who had a biological son between the ages of 3-0 and 6-0 currently living with them (the target child), who were of nonhispanic caucasian heritage, and who were in intact families at the time of first contact. Later evaluations, at 36 37 two separate assessment points, verified that fathers met Feighner diagnostic criteria (Feighner, Robins, Guze, Wood- ruff, Winokur, & Munoz, 1972) for probable or definite alcoholism. The limited ethnic/racial composition was dictated by the fact that census data in the area we were accessing indicated that other ethnic and racial groups would represent under 10% of the sample. Given the extensive literature demonstrating a relationship between patterns of alcohol involvement and ethnic/racial status, and that we could not effectively analyze for such differences with the study sample size, a decision was made to exclude such variation rather than have it contribute to error. Probation officers in the courts asked men who met the above criteria for permission to release records, names, and phone numbers to the research staff. When contacted by staff, respondents were told that the study had no connection to the courts and that all information collected was confidential. Of the total number of men contacted by probation officers, 79% agreed to have their name and phone number released to the project. K/Families were visited in their homes by the project field coogdinator, who screened for suitability for the project and recruited the family.« It was explainedfthat the project focuses on family health and child development in families with a variety of backgrounds and health problems. {Families were given detailed information about project procedures, and 38 time was spent answering any questions which arose. If the family agreed to participate, the appropriate consent forms were signed. Ninety-two percent of the families consented to participate. Although formal consent was not obtained from the target child, informal assent was obtained,J Furthermore, where the child’s direct participation was required, a willingness to engage with project staff was presumed to be additional evidence of the child’s voluntary involvement. Subjects Subjects in this study are one hundred and nine of these alcoholic families; in particular, study respondents include the alcoholic father, the mother (who may or may not be alcoholic), and their preschool-age son. (If more than one son is in the 3.0 to 6.0 age range, this choice is made randomly). Although these families typically have more than one child, at the Time 1 data collection point (upon which this study is based), no data other than demographic informa- tion are collected on the other children in the family. Parents in.the families had been married or living together as a couple for an average of nine years, and there were an average of two children per family. Parents’ mean age was thirty-one years for fathers and twenty-nine years for mothers. Mean IQs of parents (based on estimated Verbal and Performance IQ derived from WAIS-R Information and Digit Symbol subtests) were 88 for fathers and 95 for mothers. Mothers’ IQ was significantly higher than fathers’ IQ. 39 Children in the sample ranged in age from twenty-seven to eighty-five months, with a mean age of fifty-three months. The mean.IQ of the children (Stanford-Binet, 3rdeevision) was looz’iSocioeconomic status was determined using the Revised 1.4' - ,1— T ”Duncan Socioeconomic Index (TSEI2). Duncan codes were assigned.to fathers and.mothers individually, based on current occupation. For the purpose of sequential ranking, unemployed (usually coded 00.0) was recoded to 13.0 and. Homemaker (usually coded 99.9) was recoded to 22.0. In instances where the father’s code was highest, this code was used for the family. In instances where the mother’s code was higher, an average of the two codes was used. Duncan codes for the families in this research range from 13 to 79, with a mean of 29.22, indicating a blue collar sample with an occupational classification in the semi-skilled to skilled range. Table 1 shows the sociodemographic characteristics of the sample in greater detail. Cross-generational socioeconomic status information can be found in Table 2. Duncan code means for paternal grandfa- ther and grandmother were 29.90 and 25.66, respectively. Corresponding means for maternal grandfather and grandmother were 33.67 and 25.89. When compared with paternal grand- fathers’ SES, fathers’ obtained SES was significantly lower (t=2.47, df=108, p < .05). 1Mothers’ obtained SES was signifi- cantly higher than maternal grandmothers’ SES (t=-2.06, df=108, p < .05). Finally, current family SES was lower than 40 Table 1 Sociodemographic Characteristics of the Sample (N=109 families) E S.D. Range Family Variables Family SES‘ 29.22 13.23 13.0-79.0 Years Married or Coupled 8.65 3.27 2-21 Number of Children 2.31 .89 1- 5 Parent Variables Fathers Age (in years) 31.17 4.70 22.25-47.58 Estimated Full Scale IQb 87.89 12.08 66-129 Family of Origin SES 30.80 15.46 13.0-86.6 Mothers Age (in years) 29.02 4.41 20.75-40.42 Estimated Full Scale IQc 95.00* 14.63 63-132 Family of Origin SES 33.98 17.29 17.5-8824 Child Variables Age (months) 53.41 13.88 27-85 IQd 100.22 15.02 67-144 * p < .001, two-tailed. ' Revised Duncan Socioeconomic Index (TSEIZ). b Based on estimated Verbal and Performance IQ derived from WAIS-R Information and Digit Symbol subtests. ° Mothers’ IQ is significantly higher than fathers’ IQ (t=-5.18, df=108). ‘ Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale, 3rd Revision. 41 Table 2 Cross-Generational Socioeconomic Status (N=109 families) i SD Range Father’s Family of Origin Paternal grandfather 29 . 90 16 . 09 13.0-86.6 Paternal grandmother 25 . 66 9 . 77 14.5-70.9 Father’s family of origin 30.80 15.46 13J>86£ Mother’s Family of Origin Maternal grandfather 33.67 17.85 IL54£u4 Maternal grandmother 25.89 9.15 16A+709 Mother's Family of origin 33.98 17.29 ILSdBa4 Current Family Father ' 26.21* 12.77 13.0-79.0 Mother b 28.68* 12.89 13.8-82.5 Family ° 29.22* 13.23 13.0-79.0 * p < .05, two-tailed. ' Fathers’ SES is significantly lower than paternal grandfathers’ SES (t=2.47, df=108). ” Mothers’ SES is significantly higher than maternal grandmothers’ SES (t=-2.06, df=108). ° Current family SES is significantly lower than SES of mothers’ family of origin (t=2.51, df=108) but not fathers’ family of origin. 42 SES of mothers’ family of origin (t=2.51, df=108, p < .05) but not fathers’ family of origin. These comparisons suggest a downward socioeconomic drift for'theialcoholic fathers in this study and, consequently, for their families. It is possible that, within this larger picture, the mothers’ gain in SE8 may reflect an attempt to counter the downward drift in family income. Testing proceduresldata collection. Data collection for each family involved nine contacts, for a total of approxi- mately eighteen hours of contact» Given that the larger study involves both alcoholic and nonalcoholic families, assessments were conducted with the examiner(s) being blind to family diagnostic status. The majority of these contacts occurred in the family’s home. The family came to the university on two occasions, once for’ a series of structured. parent-child interaction tasks, and the other for a complete medical screening of the child. The complete assessment included (1) extensive developmental measures on the target child; (2) questionnaire, interview, and self-report data completed by each parent; and (3) ratings on mother, father, and child, done by each other and by project staff. Currently, each family is compensated $250 for their participation. Tests and Measurements Multiple assessment instruments are utilized in the MSU Longitudinal Study. Of particular interest to this research are instruments measuring individual characteristics of 43 children (i.e., intelligence and. aggression) and. parents (i.e., intelligence, aggression, alcohol and drug use), and marital and parenting characteristics (i.e., marital conflict and disciplinary practices) of both parents and grandparents. Measuring Intelligence Parents. An estimate of intellectual functioning of the parents is obtained from the Information and Digit Symbol sections of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale - Revised (WAIS-R) (Wechsler, 1981). The WAIS-R is composed of eleven tests, six verbal and five nonverbal. When given in its entirety, the WAIS-R yields a verbal, performance, and full-scale IQ. INorms for the WAIS-R are based on groups considered representative of the United States adult popula- tion. Age range of the WAIS-R is 16 years 0 months through 74 years 11 months. A stratified sampling plan, based on the 1970 United States Census and subsequent population reports, insured that representative proportions of various classes of adults 'would be included in, the standardization sample. Reliabilities for the three IQs, computed for each test using split-half or test-retest computations, are very high across all age groups, with average coefficients of .97, .93, and .97 for Verbal, Performance, and Full Scale IQs, respectively. Reliability coefficients for the Information subtest average .89 across all groups; coefficients for the Digit Symbol subtest average .82 across all groups. Initial evidence of validity of the WAIS-R stems from procedures used to determine 44 the content of the original 1939 Wechsler-Bellevue Intelli- gence Scale (W-B). The eleven tests constituting the final battery of the W-B Scale are maintained in the WAIS-R. These tests were selected for inclusion based on their correlations with other established tests of intelligence and with empiri- cal judgments of intelligence, ratings by experienced clini- cians, and.empirical studies.of several groupswwhose intellec- tual level was known. Studies have related WAIS scores and measures of academic success. Comparisons of means for groups of various levels of educational attainment consistently show that average WAIS scores for individuals with lower levels of education are lower than scores for individuals with higher levels. The present study used single subtest estimates to obtain Verbal and Performance IQ estimates, which in turn were used to derive a full scale IQ estimator. For the age group most represented in this research, the WAIS-R Information subtest correlates .87 with Verbal IQ and .83 with Full Scale IQ and the Digit Symbol subtest correlates .64 with Perfor- mance IQ and .61 with Full Scale IQ. Childpen. Children’s intelligence is measured using the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale - 3rd Revision, Form L-M, 60 97 o s. The Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale (Terman & Merrill, 1973) is widely used in the assessment of intelligence in children ages 2 through 18. It makes use of age standards of performance, and provides a measure of general mental adaptability. Reliability coefficients for the 45 1960 revision are in the .905 for subjects in.most age groups. Criterion validity of items and their distribution was established by evaluation of percentage passing items and tests at each age level. The 1972 standardization group consisted of a representative sample of 2,351 children, with approximately 100 subjects at each Stanford-Binet year level. The sample was stratified at each age level to ensure propor- tionate representation of all ability levels. The 1972 standardization group contained minority children whose primary language was English. Measuring Aggpession. Papepts. Parents respond individually to several instruments which inquire about aggressive behavior. These are the Antisocial Behaviop Checklist (Zucker & Noll, 1980a), the piagpostic Interview Schedule (Robins, Helzer, Croughan, & Ratcliff, 1981; Robins et al., 1985), and the California Q;§ep (Block, 1961). The Aptisocial Behavior Checklist (ASB) is a 46 item inventory of behaviors involving ten different homogeneous content subscales, which include parental defiance, adolescent delinquent behavior, job related antisocial behavior, etc. (Zucker’& Noll, 1980a). Both parents complete this checklist, which.is administered.by asking the frequency of participation in different adventures and activities during the respondent’s lifetime (see Appendix A). This instrument is a revision of an earlier antisocial behavior inventory utilized in the 46 Rutgers Community Study (Zucker & Fillmore, 1968; Zucker & Barron, 1973), modified so that items are salient for adult antisocial activity. Reliability and validity studies with populations ranging from college students to jail inmates has shown adequate test retest reliability (.81 over four weeks). The coefficient alpha is .84. It differentiates among groups with. major' antisocial behavior' histories (prisoners) 'vs. individuals with minor offenses in district court vs. univer- sity students. The Diagnostic Interview Schedule (DIS) (Robins et al., 1981, 1985) is an individual semi-structured interview which queries subjects about a broad range of behaviors they may have exhibited during childhood, adolescence, and/or adult- hood, The DIS contains a number of questions about aggressive behavior in.both childhood and.adulthood,'which.pertain.to the diagnosis of antisocial personality. The California Q-set (CQ) (Block, 1961) consists of 100 items administered in a Q-sort format with a forced-choice, nine step, diamond shaped distribution. It was designed to permit comprehensive personality descriptions of adults, in a form which allows subsequent quantitative comparison and analysis by knowledgeable, psychologically-minded observers. In the MSU Longitudinal Study, the instrument is completed by project. interviewers (most. often. advanced. doctoral level clinical psychology graduate students) following administra- tion of the DIS. The CQ is based on observations during that 47 interview. Items having face validity for aggression on these three instruments were independently rated for overt aggression, covert aggression, and oppositional behavior by three expert raters. Items rated as overt aggression by at least two raters were used to create an aggression scale. Children. Several instruments used in the assessment process, and containing ratings by mothers, fathers, and observers, measure child aggression. The Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) (Achenbach, 1978; Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1979; 1981) consists of 118 behavior problems and 20 social competence items, and is completed by both parents. Responses to the CBCL are scored for social competence and behavior problems utilizing the appropriate Child Behavior Profile. Separate editions of the Child Behavior Profile have been developed and standardized for each sex at ages 4-5, 6-11, and 12-16. The profile developed for males, ages 4-5 was utilized for all children in this study, including those under age four and over five years 11 months. The pattern of scores on the CBCL yields a profile of the child’s behavior problems, dichotomized between the two general factors of internalizing and exter-nalizing. This dichotomy has been demonstrated to be highly robust with numerous instruments across raters and situations (Achenbach, 1978; Edelbrock & Achenbach, 1980). Profiles are a result of factor analysis systematically applied to completed check- 48 lists. For 4-5 year old male children, there are eight factors, ranging from Social Withdrawal to Delinquent. The CBCL has been normed on both clinical and normal samples, and preliminary investigation of stability and reliability indicates that the CBCL is satisfactory for both referred and nonreferred children. Follow-up stability, across all sex/age groups for six months has been .71-.73; for eighteen months it has been .59 (Edelbrock 8 Achenbach, 1978; Achenbach 8 Edelbrock, 1979). Test-retest reliability of the CBCL across all age/sex groups is above .80 (Achenbach 8 Edelbrock, 1979, 1981). Where both parents have been given the CBCL to complete independently, interparent agreement for all boys has been .79 (Achenbach 8 Edelbrock, 1979). Items from three CBCL profile scales (i.e., Aggressive, Delinquent, and Other Problems) have face validity for aggression and were used in construction of the aggression scale used in this research. A second instrument containing child aggression items is the Chi d ehavior Ratin Scale - Preschool Version (Noll 8 Zucker, 1985), which was developed for use in the MSU Preven- tion of Conduct Disorders Program (Zucker et al., 1990). Both parents complete this scale, which contains 69 items descrip- tive of positive (37 items) and negative (32 items) child behaviors. Parents are asked to endorse each item by indicat- ing how often their child does the particular behavior. Response format is a seven point Likert scale ranging from 49 Never to Always. Parents are also asked to list six of the positive behaviors they would like to see their child increase and six of the negative behaviors they would most like him to decreased The scale contains a number of items descriptive of overt aggression (see Appendix B). In contrast to the CBCL, items focused on discrete, explicit behaviors (rather than symptoms); in fact, the instrument has already been used extensively to evaluate a parent training program for a reduction of conduct problems among aggressive children. The California Child Q-set (CCQ) (Block 8 Block, 1969) also contains items reflective of child aggression. This Q-set was derived from the California Q-set (CQ) (Block, 1961) and uses language descriptive of children’s personality. It consists of 100 items administered in a Q-sort format with a forced-choice, nine step, diamond shaped distribution. The instrument is completed by advanced doctoral level graduate student assessors following a two-hour developmental assess- ment of each child. Staff are trained in child assessment and have been specifically trained in the use of the CCQ. Items on the CCQ, CBRS, and CBCL with face validity for aggressive behavior were independently rated for overt aggression, covert aggression, and oppositional behavior by three judges. Items rated "overt aggression" by at least two of the three judges were used to construct a composite aggression scale. Finally, child aggression was measured using The Minia- 50 ture Situations Test (MST) (Santostefano, 1978). This test is a means of directly measuring the delay, directness, and social appropriateness of aggressive expression. Children are told that they are going to play a game, that each game has three parts, all of which they can play, and are instructed to play first the part they feel like playing most of all. The children then play five three-part games, each part varying in level of aggression. Responses are scored based on the sequence in which the actions were performed, and scores are weighed for directness and impulsivity. Low scores indicate impulsivity and directness (developmental immaturity); high scores indicate indirectness and delay (developmental maturi- ty). The MST is administered by an advanced graduate student trained in child assessment, and is done near the end of a two hour in-home developmental assessment. The MST therefore occurs at a time when rapport is optimal and inhibition can be considered at a minimum. Measuring alcohol and drug involvement. Current and long—term alcohol and drug involvement is measured individually for each parent using several question- naires administered at different points in the assessment process. Parents are given an extensive Drinking and Drug History (Zucker 8 Noll, 1980b), the Short Form of the Michigan Alcohol Scpeening Test (SMAST) (Selzer, 1975), and are asked about drinking and drug use during the Diagnostic Interview 51 Schedule (Robins et al., 1981, 1985). The SMAST is imbedded in a health history questionnaire; questions regarding drug use have been added to the SMAST for the purposes of this project. From the multiple sources of information regarding alcohol use, a score is obtained that is indicative of lifetime alcohol problems (Lifetime Alcohol Problems Score (LAPS)) (Zucker, 1991). LAPS provides a cmmposite score derived from 'three component subscores: (a) the jprimacy component, involving the squared inverse of the age at which the respondent reported first drinking enough to get drunk; (b) the variety component, involving the number of areas in which drinking problems are reported; and (c) the life percent component, involving a measure of interval between.most recent and earliest drinking problems, corrected for current age. Scores are standardized separately for' males and females within the project sample. This measure is unrelated to current drinking consumption in problem drinking samples and has been shown to be a valid indicator of differences in long term severity of drinking difficulty in a wide variety of areas (Zucker, 1991). Measuring marital conflict and discipline practices. Parents. Parents are given the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS) (Straus, Gelles, 8 Steinmetz, 1980), an instrument previously used in national survey work, assessing the incidence of spousal violence (both self to spouse and spouse to self), parent violence to child, as well as child violence 52 to parent. Several of the items were regrouped to shorten the interview, but the basic structure of the instrument follows closely on the original version (see Appendix C). To encour- age accuracy of reporting, this instrument was interviewer administered approximately three-quarters of the way through the administration of the NIMH Diagnostic Interview Schedule (DIS)(Robins, Helzer, Croughan, 8 Ratcliff, 1981; Robins et al., 1985). Since the DIS with this population typically takes about two hours to administer, maximal rapport with the interviewer existed at the time the CTS was given. The internal consistency of the CTS has been examined by two techniques: item analysis and the alpha coefficient of reliability (Straus, 1979). Based on a pilot study of 385 couples, the mean item-total correlation was .87 for the Husband-to-Wife violence index and .88 for the Wife-to-Husband Violence Index (Straus, 1979). The alpha coefficients for the national sample were .83 for Husband-to—Wife Violence Index, .82 for Wife-to-Husband Violence Index and .88 for the Couple Violence Index. Analyses of interest to this research refer specifically to (1) spousal violence during the past year, in particular to reports of violence to spouse, for both husbands and wives (i.e., husband violence to wife and.wife violence to husband), and (2) violence to child, for both father and mother (i.e., father violence to child and mother violence to child). 53 Grandparents. As part of the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS) (Straus, Gelles, 8 Steinmetz, 1980) parents were asked about exposure to violence in their own childhood, either as witness to spousal violence of their parents, or as recipients of parental abuse. Information obtained in this manner was used to develop measures of grandparents’ marital conflict and the use of aggression by the grandparents in disciplinary practices with the parents. RESULTS An assumption basic to this data analysis is that there is a substantial range of aggressive behavior in this popula- tion, as well as substantial variation in the individual and environmental attributes being examined. Other work with this data set (Reider, 1987, 1991; Weil, 1987) has shown that the variables disperse on a continuum of problem severity rather than in a dichotomous, presence/absence manner, and that data analytic procedures based on this assumption are therefore appropriate. In addition, the availability of multiple measures of aggression in the children and the parents provides an opportunity for the development of composite scales that are more descriptive of this variation. Data analysis therefore began with scale construction and valida— tion. Causal models of relationships between primarily aggression-specific factors in the grandparent-parent and parent-child generations were then developed and tested. Confirmatory factor analysis was utilized in the construction of scales. Path analysis was then used to test causal models. Analyses were accomplished with PACKAGE (Hunter 8 Gerbing, 1982; Hunter, Cohen, 8 Nicol, 1987) and ITAN (Gerbing 8 Hunter, 1988). 54 55 Confirmatory factor analysis allows for the testing of hypothesized clusters by multiple-groups centroid factor analysisc Hunter and. Gerbing (1982) indicate that the unidimensionality of’a scale is evaluated in terms of substan- tiveiand statistical criteria” Substantively, analysis of the meaning of items on the scale should reveal homogeneity in content. Two additional tests for unidimensionality of a cluster are 1) internal consistency and.2) external consisten- cy or parallelism. Communalities are used in the diagonal, and represent the reliability of each variable. Internal consistency requires that the correlations among the items ‘within a cluster form either a flat matrix or a Spearman Rank 1 matrix. When the cluster analysis utilizes communalities, an additional test of internal consistency is available; that is, a cluster should correlate more highly with its own cluster true score than with any other cluster true score. Parallelism or external consistency is established if vari- ables purporting to measure the same thing correlate not only with each other but in a similar manner with other variables. A.path.model represents a set of predicted relationships within the data which is derived from a theory specifying the underlying causal processes. Path analysis is appropriate where the relationship between variables is linear and the proposed model is recursive. The path analytic procedure systematically combines the use of partial and multiple correlational techniques to study the causal relationships 56 among a set of variables (Hunter 8 Gerbing, 1982) . It estimates the magnitude of the relationships between vari— ables, and uses these estimates to give information about the underlying causal processes. With these techniques, one can measure both direct and indirect effects of one variable onto another (Asher, 1976). Path analysis is an application of multiple regression, in which the entire structure of linkages between independent and dependent variables can be described. Because the analysis assesses the logical consequences of a structural model that is theoretically driven, the cause-eff- ect relationships posited.by the theory determine the order in which. variables are placed. within the :model. Multiple regression is then used to determine the influence of each variable.on other variables that follow'it in the hypothesized causal order. Each arrow in the model represents a hypothe- sized path of causal influence, and regression can estimate the relative strength of each separate path. If a variable has only one antecedent variable, then the path.coefficient is the simple correlation between the dependent variable and its antecedent. If there is multiple causation, then the path coefficients are beta weights rather than simple correlations. I. Developing a composite measure of child aggression. The 18-item child aggression scale subjected to initial data analysis consisted of items rated by at least two of three judges to have face validity for overt aggression. Two of the items were from the California Child.Q-set (CCQ) (Block 57 8 Block, 1969), five were fromithe Child.Behavior Rating Scale - Preschool Version (CBRS), and eleven were from the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) (Achenbach, 1978; Achenbach 8 Edelbrock, 1979; 1981) (see Appendix D). Scores on the CCQ and CBRS were recoded such that higher scores corresponded with greater difficulty. That is, CCQ ratings 1 through 5 (ranging from "extremely nondescriptive" to "neither nonde- scriptive nor descriptive" of the child) were scored zero, and ratings 6, 7, 8, or 9, indicative of increasingly descriptive behavior, were scored 1, 2, 3, or 4, respectively. Similar- ly, CBRS items were recoded to a scale of 0 to 6 rather than 1 to 7, since a rating of 1 indicated that the child "never" exhibited a particular behavior. Single scores obtained on the Miniature Situations Test (MST) (Santostefano, 1978) were also reversed to correspond with the direction of the other three scales. Low MST scores ordinarily indicate greater levels of aggressive behavior; high scores are reflective of lower levels of overt aggression. Scores on items from the four child aggression instruments were then summed by instru- ment, and correlations were obtained to determine the likeli- hood that the items could be combined in a single scale. These correlations can be found in Table 3. The MST was significantly correlated only with fathers’ CBCL score, and even that was a low order relationship. This association may reflect a somewhat different view of aggres- sive behavior for fathers vs. mothers; it is not possible to 58 Table 3 Correlation Matrix for Child Aggpession Measures (N=109 families) Mother Mother Father Father CBCL CBRS CBCL CBRS CCQ MST Score Score Score Score Score Score Mother CBCL Score Mother CBRS Score .59** Father CBCL Score .43** .40** Father CBRS Score .34** .54** .55** CCQ Score .24* .25* .14 .25* MST Score .09 .13 .22** .12 .11 * p g .01, ** p g .001. All one-tailed. NOTE: CBCL=Child Behavior Checklist. CBRS=Child Behavior Rating Scale. CCQ=California Child Q-set. MST=Miniature Situations Test. 59 confirm or reject this hypothesis with the current data. However, more generally the correlational pattern indicates that the MST content taps a largely different domain than do the other measures. In addition, correlation of the CCQ to other aggression measures was variably significant. That is, the correlations of the observer-rated CCQ scores with mothers’ and fathers' ratings on the CBRS and mothers' ratings on the CBCL were low but significant, while the CCQ and fathers' CBRS correlation was not significant. The absence of consistent, positive correlations between MST, CCQ, CBRS, and CBCL scores may also reflect differences in parent versus observer ratings of child aggressivity. In the interest of obtaining a homogeneous aggression scale, the two CCQ items and the MST were excluded from further analyses. Mother and father ratings on the CBCL and on the CBRS were then pooled and the two resulting instrument-specific scales were examined for reliability. Coefficient alpha on the 11 item CBCL scale (n=218) was .84; coefficient alpha on the 5 item CBRS scale (n=218) was .82. Subsequent cluster analysis of a 16 item scale combining CBCL and CBRS items and holding mother and father ratings separate demonstrated reliability of .88 (n=109) for each. Confirmatory factor analysis further indicated that each 16 item scale met criteria for internal consistency and parallelism. That is, the correlations among the scale items formed either a flat matrix or a Spearman Rank 1 matrix, and items within each 60 scale correlated in a similar manner with other scales (See Table 4 for item-to-cluster loadings). Mother and father rating scales were correlated .59. II. other composite aggression measures: Constructing scales to measure aggressive behavior in parents and grandparents. A. Parent aggression. A parent aggression scale was constructed utilizing a process similar to that involved in construction of the child aggression scale. Items with face validity for aggression were abstracted from several instru- ments used in the assessment process. These instruments were 1) The Antisocial Behavior Inventory (ASB); 2) the Diagnostic Interview Schedule (DIS); and 3) the California Q-sort (CQ). Twenty items thus selected were independently rated by two of three judges to measure overt aggression. There were fourteen items from the ASB, four from the DIS, and two from the CO. (See Appendix E). Scores on the CQ were recoded to correspond with the other scales. That is, CQ ratings 1 through 5 (ranging from "extremely nondescriptive" to "neither nonde- scriptive nor descriptive") were coded zero, and ratings 6, 7, 8, and 9, indicative of increasingly problematic behavior, were scored 1, 2, 3, or 4, respectively. Item scores were summed by instrument for each parent, and a correlation matrix was then obtained (see Table 5). ASB and DIS scores were significantly correlated for both mothers and fathers. CQ scores were not consistently significant with the other scales. That is, CQ scores for fathers were 61 Table 4 Item-Factor Loadings of Child Aggression Items Father Mother Item Ratings Ratings NO. (N=109) (N=109) 1. Argues a lot. .54 .59 2. Cruel to animals. .47 .43 3. Cruelty, bullying, or meanness to others. .63 .67 4. Destroys things belonging to his/her family or other children. .57 .45 5. Gets in many fights. .61 .59 6. Physically attacks people. .66 .51 7. Screams a lot. .58 .66 8. Swearing or obscene language. .57 .41 9. Temper tantrums or hot temper. .51 .67 10. Threatens people. .51 .49 11. Unusually loud. .50 .61 12. Argues or fights with brothers, sisters, friends. .58 .56 13. Pushes, hits if doesn’t get way. .63 .70 14. When angry, mad, frustrated: has temper tantrums, yells, cries, screams, jumps up and down. .44 .50 15. When angry, mad, frustrated: destroys property (tears books, breaks toys, throws things). .55 .57 16. When angry, mad, frustrated: hurts others (pushes, kicks, hits). .70 .62 .NOTE: Items 1 through 11 are from ‘the Child Behavior Checklist. Items 12 through 16 are from the Child Behavior Rating Scale. 62 Table 5 Corpelation Matrix for Parent Aggression Measures (N=109 families) ASB DIS CQ ASB -* .35*** .12 DIS .63*** -- .16* CQ 022* 007 -- NOTE: Correlation coefficients above the diagonal are for mothers and below the diagonal are for fathers. * p g .05, ** p 5 .01, *** p 5 .001. All one—tailed. ASB=Anti~social Behavior Inventory. DIS=Diagnostic Interview Schedule. CQ=California Q-set. 63 significantly correlated with ASB scores (r=.22, p < .05) but not with DIS scores (r=.07, p g .23). For mothers, CQ scores were significantly correlated with.DIS scores (r=.16, p‘g .05) but not with ASB scores (r=.12, p.g .10). As in the construc- tion of the child.aggression scale described.above, a decision was made to drop CQ scores from further scale construction. ASB and DIS items were summed across parents by instru- ment and tested for reliability, Coefficient alpha for the 14 ASB items was .80; coefficient alpha for the four DIS items was .59. Preliminary cluster analysis of the 18 adult aggression items revealed different patterns of response for ‘mothers and fathers. Three clusters were identified for each parent, and were subjected to further confirmatory factor analysis. Although the items loading on each factor differed somewhat by parent, the factors were parallel in nature. The first factor for each. was reflective of aggression and defiance of the parent toward their own parents. The second reflects aggression in school for mothers and aggression via fighting for the fathers. The third factor contained items indicative of high level, lifetime antisociality. Although the second of these factors appears to be qualitatively different for mothers and fathers, it can be argued that both are manifestations of aggression representative of the same developmental period. This factor is therefore referred to as "Nonfamilial Adolescent Aggression" in both the mother and the father models examined in this research. Items on each.parent 64 aggression scale loaded more highly on that scale than on other scales. Coefficient alphas for the three parent aggression scales (i.e., parental defiance, nonfamilial adolescent aggression, and lifetime antisociality) for mothers were .72, .72, and .78, respectively. Coefficient alphas for the corresponding scales for fathers were .83, .60, and .87, respectively. (See Table 6 for item-to-cluster loadings). Correlations between the parent aggression scales, both within and between parents, can be found in Table 7. B. Parents’ marital aggression. Marital aggression was measured using the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS) (Straus, Gelles, 8 Steinmetz, 1980). This instrument asks about ways in which the subject resolves conflict with his/her spouse. Analyses in this paper are based on measures developed by Reider, Zucker, Noll, Maguin, and Fitzgerald (1988) for use with this population. That is, they refer specifically to spousal violence during the past year, in particular to reports of one’s own violence to spouse, both for husbands and wives (i.e., husband violence to wife and wife violence to husband). Severity and Cumulative Intensity are the two violence scores used: the Severity measure is a Guttman scale of the CTS items (the most severe forms of physical violence have higher scores). A subject’ 5 Severity score is the highest level of physical violence to spouse reported during the past year. Cumulative Intensity is a summation score, based on the product of level of violence intensity times 65 Table 6 Factors and Item Loadings for Parent Aggression Items Factor Loadina Fathers 1. Parental defiance: Defied your parent’s authority (to their face) .85 Cursed at your parents (to their face) .85 2. Nonfamilial adolescent aggression: Did you ever get into trouble at school for fighting? .67 Before age 18, did you ever get into trouble with the police, your parents, or neighbors because of fighting (other than for fighting at school)? .67 3. Lifetime antisociality: Been suspended or expelled from school for fighting. .64 Taken part in a gang fight. .77 "Beaten up" another person. .60 Snatched a woman’s purse. .83 Rolled drunks just for the fun of it. .62 Taken part in a robbery involving physical force or a weapon. .70 Resisted arrest. .68 Have you ever used a weapon, like a stick, knife, or gun, in a fight since you were 18? .58 Mothers 1. Parental defiance: Defied your parents authority (to their face). .54 Hit your parents. .57 Cursed at your parents (to their face). .96 2. Nonfamilial adolescent aggression: Cursed at a teacher or principal (to their face)? .76 Hit a teacher or principal. .76 3. Lifetime antisociality: Been suspended or expelled from school for fighting? .48 Snatched a woman’s purse. .92 Rolled drunks just for the fun of it. .49 Taken part in a robbery involving physical force or a weapon? .84 Resisted arrest. .49 66 Table 7 Correlations Between Parent A ression Factors N=109 families) Mother Mother Mother Father Father Father LA PD NAA LA PD NAA Mother PD Mother NAA .41** Mother LA .31** .39** Father PD -.06 -.20 -.18 Father NAA —.24 -.15 -.09 .49*** Father LA -.17 -.07 -.10 .36** .69*** * p g .05, H p g .01, w: p g .001. NOTE: PD=Parental defiance. NAA=Nonfamilial adolescent aggression. LA=Lifetime antisociality. 67 frequency of the violence, summed across all levels of violence items. Thus, one receives a higher score for both more frequent spousal violence and for higher levels of it, and the measure reflects this combined influence. The Marital Aggression scales used in the present research are comprised of these two items (i.e., Severity and Cumulative Intensity), with separate scales for mothers and fathers. Mother’s Severity and Cumulative Intensity scores correlate .65, and form a scale with coefficient alpha of .79. Father’s Severity and Cumulative Intensity scores correlate .56 and form a scale with coefficient alpha of .72. Since each scale consists of only two items, item-to-cluster loadings for Severity and Cumulative Intensity are identical. These loadings are .81 for mothers and .76 for fathers. Mother and father Marital Aggression scales are correlated .47. C. Parents’ disciplinary practices. Parent-to-child aggression was measured in a manner similar to Marital Aggression. That is, Severity and Cumulative Intensity scores were calculated using information on conflict resolution between.the parent and.their preschool age son, as reported on the.Conflict.Tactics Scale (CTS) (Straus, Gelles, 8 Steinmetz, 1980). A subject’s Severity score is the highest level of physical violence against the target child reported during the past year. Qppulative intensity is a summation score, based on the product of level of violence intensity times frequency 68 of the violence, summed across all levels of violence items. Two item scales comprised.of Severity and.Cumulative intensity held separate for :mothers and fathers demonstrated. poor reliability (i.e., coefficient alphas were .46 and .39 for mothers and fathers, respectively). Three of the four items were also found to load more highly on the cluster of the other parent than on their own cluster. Severity and Cumula- tive intensity scores for mothers and fathers were then combined. Reliability (coefficient alpha) of the resulting four item scale was .63. This scale was used as a measure of Family Discipline. (See Table 8 for item-factor loadings). D. Grandparents’ marital aggression. Questions regard- ing grandparents’ marital conflict were among those added to the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS) (Straus, Gelles, 8 Steinmetz, 1980) for purposes of this research” Each.parent responded to a general question asking whether, as they were.growing, there were ever occasions when their parents hit each other, threw things at each other, or used violence with each other. If the response to this question was negative, they were asked if there were occasions when their parents yelled at each other or verbally abused each other. If either of these queries obtained a positive response, further information was obtained regarding kind of disagreement, frequency of disagreement, respondent’s earliest age at which disagreement occurred, oldest age.at'which it occurred, and typical circumstances for disagreements. 69 Table 8 Item-Factor Loadings of Parent Discipline Items Factor Item Loading Father-to-child Severity .61 Father-to-child Cumulative Intensity .44 Mother-to-child Severity .60 Mother—to-child Cumulative Intensity .54 70 Forty-three (39.4%) of the 109 mothers in this study reported no marital conflict between their parents. Twenty- two (20.2%) reported their parents yelled at each other or verbally abused each other. Forty-four (40.4%) reported physical violence between their parents. Of the 109 fathers in this study, thirty-three (30.3%) reported no parental conflict. Thirty-three (30.3%) reported verbal conflict between their parents and forty-three (39.4%) reported physical conflict” Frequency of the conflict, earliest age at which it was reported, and duration of time over which the conflict took place are detailed in Table 9. A scale was constructed containing the four items detailed above: type of aggression (none, verbal, physical); frequency (incidents per year); earliest age (reverse scored such that younger ages obtained higher scores); and duration of time over 'which. the conflict occurred" Reliability (coefficient alpha) of this scale was .85 for mothers and .77 for fathers. Item-factor loadings can be found in Table 10. Mother and father scales were correlated .17. E. Grandparents’ disciplinary practices. Questions regarding discipline received as a child were also incorporat- ed into the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS) for the purposes of this research. In the interview, each parent responded to a general question asking whether they recalled being physically punished or abused by their parents when they were a child or teenager. If the question was endorsed, they were further Table 9 Descriptive Statistics for Grandparents’ Marital Aggression Variables E S.D. Range Fathers (n=76) Frequency of conflict (occurrences per year) 34.45 68.46 - 365 Earliest age reported 6.96 2.97 - 16 Duration of conflict (number of years) 7.66 5.62 - 28 Mothers (n=66) Frequency of conflict (occurrences per year) 59.62 99.35 - 365 Earliest age reported 6.76 3.10 - 17 Duration of conflict (number of years) 7.47 5.92 - 26 72 Table 10 Item-Factor Loadings of Grandparent Marital Conflict Items Father Mother Item (N=109) (N=109) Type of Aggression (None, Verbal, Physical) .68 .81 Frequency (Times per year) .38 .55 Earliest Age Reported .98 .85 Total Duration (years) .71 .88 73 asked by whom they had been punished/abused, for what kind of disagreement, how or what had happened, frequency of occur- rence, earliest and oldest ages at which this occurred, and typical circumstances for these occasions. Of the one hundred and nine mothers in this sample, thirty-one reported no punishment; four reported punishment that was not physical (e.g. , grounding, threatening, withdraw- al, yelling); thirty-two reported having been spanked; forty-two reported more serious physical punishment/abuse (e.g., being beaten, hit, whipped, belted). Seventeen of one hundred and nine fathers reported no punishment; three reported punishment that was not physical; thirty-one reported having been spanked; fifty-eight reported more serious physical punishment/abuse. Four-item scales were developed for mothers and for fathers, utilizing information about primary type of punish- ment (i.e. , severity), frequency of occurrence (days per year), earliest age at which punishment was reported, and duration of time over which the punishment occurred. Primary types of punishment, initially coded 1 through 7, were (in order of increasing severity): threatening to hit/throw something at child; throwing/smashing/hitting/ kicking something but not at child; throwing something at child; pushing/grabbing/shoving/slapping/hitting/spanking child; using belt, switch, 2x4, fly swatter, yard stick on child; kicking/biting/ beating up child; and threatening or using 74 knife/gun or burning or torturing child, respectively. Since only one of the subset of subjects utilized in this research (i.e., alcoholic families) endorsed any of the first three (milder) types of punishment, these were grouped with "no punishment" responses and recoded as 1. The subsequent types of punishment were recoded 2, 3, 4, and 5. Descriptive statistics for the other three items on these scales (i.e., frequency of occurrence, earliest age, and duration of time) are given in Table 11. Reliabilities (coefficient alpha) for the four-item.scales were .79 for mothers and .78 for fathers. Mother and father scales were correlated .04. Item-cluster correlations can be found in Table 12. It should be noted in examining internal consistency of these clusters that reported frequency' of occurrence shows ‘the lowest. item-to-cluster loading for both mothers and fathers. It is of particular interest that frequency of occurrence of physical punish- ment/abuse reported by fathers during their own childhood and adolescence loads more highly on the aggression cluster descriptive of fathers’ own aggression during adolescence, than it does on this cluster. These scales are entered in the path models as "Grandparent to Parent-as-child Aggression". III. Computation of correlation matrices. The composite scores of aggression detailed above, together with several single-item variables, were utilized in computing correlation matrices preparatory to testing two theoretical path.models. The first of these models addresses Table 11 Descriptive Statistics for Grandparent to Parent-As-Child Aggression Scale Items x s . D . Range Fathers (n=92) Frequency of occurrence (events per year) 54.39 85.02 - 365 Earliest age reported 6.17 2.78 - 15 Duration of aggression (number of years) 7.03 2.99 - 13 Mothers (n=78) Frequency of aggression (events per year) 23.28 47.91 - 365 Earliest age reported 6.50 2.77 - 15 Duration of aggression (number of years) 6.24 3.49 - 14 76 Table 12 Item-Factor Loadings of Grandparental Discipline Items Fathers Mothers (N=109) (N=109) Severity of discipline .73 .77 Frequency (Times per year) .38 .39 Earliest Age Reported .81 .79 Total Duration (years) .87 .86 77 hypothesized paths between grandparental and parental aggres- sion. The second model addresses hypothesized relationships between the aggression of the parents and their own preschool aged children. The models were tested separately for mothers and for fathers. Single item variables were: mother, father, and child IQ; mother and father LAPS; and SES of mothers' and fathers’ family of origin and of current family. A correla- tion matrix produced by ITAN (Gerbing 8 Hunter, 1988) correct- ed cluster scores and subsequent correlations between cluster scores for attenuation. Where correlations were generated between cluster and single item scores, one-sided corrections for attenuation were performed. Corrections for attenuation were necessary because path or regression analyses completed on uncorrected correlations misrepresent the true relation- ships between variables. The correlation matrix of variables utilized in analyzing the grandparent-to—parent models, and containing both mother and father variables, are given in Table 13. The correlation matrix of variables used in the parent-to-child models, and containing both mother and father variables, are given in Table 14. Reliability figures used in one-sided corrections for attenuation are presented in Table 15. For the sake of completeness, a correlation. matrix containing grandparent, parent, and child variables can be found in Appendix F. IV. Building the causal models. A. Relating grandparental to parental aggression. The 78 Table 13 Correlation Matrix of Variables for Grandparental- to-Parental Aggression Relationships GPPCA GPMA FYSES IQ PPD PNAA PLA GPPCA -- .29 .20 .06 .40 -.15 -.02 GPMA .44 -- -.11 -.11 .46 -.05 .12 FYSES -.03 -.07 -- .35 .25 -.05 .0 IQ .0 -.14 .33 -- .0 -.20 -.09 PPD .16 .18 .20 -.05 -- .41 .31 PNAA .43 .23 -.18 -.26 .49 -- .39 PLA .22 .09 -.18 -.21 .36 .69 -- NOTE: Correlation coefficients above the diagonal are for mothers and below the diagonal are for fathers. All correl- ations corrected for attenuation. GPPCA=Grandparent to parent—as-child aggression. GPMA= Grandparent marital aggression. FYSES=Family-of—origin SES. PPD=Parent parental defiance. PNAA=Parent nonfamilial adolescent aggression. PLA=Parent lifetime antisociality. Table 14 79 Correlation Matrix of Variables for Parent-to-Child Aggression Relationships PPD PNAA PLA LAPS PIQ AGCHLD AGMAR CHILDIQ RATCAG FYSES PPD .49 .36 .48 -.05 .16 .35 -.25 .44 -.15 PNAA .41 .69 .57 -.26 .09 .45 -.25 .34 -.20 PLA .31 .39 .47 -.21 .14 .25 —014 .13 .60 .29 .17 -.10 .19 .61 .35 -.10 PIQ .0 -.20 -.09 -.08 -.31 -.21 .40 -.07 .43 AGCHLD .10 .19 -.02 .37 -.26 .42 -.26 .38 -.12 (continued) 80 Table 14 (cont’d) AGMAR CHILDIQ RATCAG FYSES PPD .36 .01 .23 -.16 PNAA -.10 -.18 .25 -.15 PLA -.16 -.08 .03 -.12 LAPS .18 .14 .40 -.07 PIQ -.02 .38 -.15 .40 AGCHLD .41 -.26 .52 -.12 AGMAR -- -.11 .0 -.08 CHILDIQ -.13 -- -.09 .33 RATCAG .43 -.25 -- -.20 FYSES -.20 .33 -.24 -- NOTE: Correlation coefficients above the diagonal are for mothers and below the diagonal are for fathers. All correlations corrected for attenuation. PPD=Parent parental defiance. PNAA=Parent nonfamilial adolescent aggression. PLA=Parent lifetime antisociality. PIQ=Parent IQ. AGCHLD=Combined mother-father to child aggression (discipline). AGMAR=Marital aggression. RATCAG=Rating by the parent of child aggression. FYSES= Current family SES. 81 Table 15 Reliability of Variables Used in One-Sided Corrections for mew Reliability Variables Mother IQ .92 Father IQ .92 Child IQ .87 Mother LAPS .85 Father LAPS .88 Mother's Family SES 1.0 Father’s Family SES 1.0 Current Family SES 1.0 82 grandparent and parent data were examined separately for mothers and fathers, in a theoretical model which can be found in Figure 1. The dependent variable in this model is parental lifetime antisociality. It was posited that grandparents’ marital aggression would be directly linked to the parents’ parental defiance. A path was also posited leading from grandparents' marital aggression to SES and then to parents’ parental defiance. A link was also predicted between grand— parent marital aggression and aggression toward the parent as a child (i.e., aggressive discipline). It was anticipated that the three measures of parental aggression would form a path in an assumed chronological order; that is, paths were posited from parental defiance, to nonfamilial adolescent aggression, and then to lifetime parental antisociality; an additional path was posited from parental defiance to lifetime antisociality. The positioning of parent IQ into the model was guided by research with this population (Noll, Zucker, 8 Curtis, under review) suggesting that a strong relationship between socioeconomic status and home environment may serious- ly affect cognitive development. other research relating lower IQ to greater physical aggressiveness (e.g., Eron et al., 1971; Lefkowitz et al., 1977) is also supportive of this hypothesized path. IQ was therefore entered in such a way as to measure an indirect contribution of SES to parental aggression through parent IQ. The model also accommodates the direct influence of SES and IQ on aggression. This path model 83 IFigure 1 oretical Model of Grand arenta - - a ental Transmission 2f Aggression Grandparent Marital Aggression Grandparent k//////// Family IIParent-as-child SES Aggression \\\\\\\\\S / Parent Parental Defiance Parent Parent IQ Nonfamilial / Adolescent Aggression Parent Lifetime Antisociality 84 was tested separately for mothers and for fathers. For each of the models tested, information provided in the figure presents path coefficients (beta weights), the level of their significance, percent of variance accounted for, and a test of overall fit of the model. Overall fit was assessed by using the chi-square goodness-of—fit test (Hunter, 1983). This was done to compare the observed matrix to the reproduced matrix for each of the path models, based upon the paths specified by each model. This test determines how well the observed matrix approximates the reproduced matrix. A goodness-of-fit test demonstrating no significant differences supports the theoretical model in that no significant devia- tions of the observed correlations from the reproduced correlations were found. Model Relating Grandparental-to-Maternal Aggression. A test of the theoretical model for mothers and their parents can be found in Figure 2. The goodness-of—fit test was not significant (X2=8.54, df=11), indicating that the model adequately fit the data. As expected, grandparent marital aggression was significantly linked to parents’ parental defiance (.42, pg.05). However, the additional indirect paths anticipated through "grandparent to parent-as-child" aggres- sion and SES were not found. The coefficient for a path from grandparental marital aggression to SES was not significantly different from zero. There was a trend for a path from "grandparent to parent" aggression to parents’ parental 85 Figure 2 Path Model Relatin Grand arental-to-Mate nal A ression Grandparent Marital Aggression .29** -.11 / Grandparent .42*** to Family Parent-as-child SES Aggression .23+ .25* \/ Parent R2=.35 (.33) >Parental .35*** Defiance .41** Parent é(//////// IQ Parent -.20 .18 Nonfamilial Adolescent A99ression<;\\\\‘ R2=.21 (.19) .32* Parent Lifetime < R2=.l8 (.16) Antisociality Each path coefficient gives a beta weight. + pS°10I * £35.05, ** IDS-01, *** pSoOOI Variance information: (Adjusted R2) in parentheses. Overall Chi Square=8.54; g;=11, p,s, 86 defiance to be significant (.23, p 5.10). Although the apparently independent path from SES to parents’ parental defiance was helpful in describing a model leading to the dependent variable of parent lifetime antisociality, the path leading from grandparent marital aggression to aggression toward the parent through harsh discipline, without a subse- quent link to parents’ parental defiance, was not. The anticipated links from parental defiance to nonfamilial adolescent aggression, and from nonfamilial adolescent aggression to lifetime antisociality were significant (.41, p 5.05, and .32, p 5.05, respectively). The link from parental defiance to lifetime antisociality was not significant (.18). The anticipated link from SES to IQ was significant (.35, p 5.05) but the necessary subsequent link between IQ and nonfamilial adolescent aggression - although in the anticipat- ed direction - was not significant (-.20). IQ therefore fails to contribute to the model for mothers. The absence of a significant link leading from "grandparent to parent—as-child" aggression to parental defiance was unexpected and ultimately the most problematic in understanding the model. A link was subsequently entered from "grandparent to parent-as-child" aggression to nonfamilial adolescent aggression. The path coefficient for this link was significant (-.36, p 5.05). A trimmed model, which includes this link and from which links not significant at the .10 level or above have been dropped, more closely fits the data (see Figure 3). The goodness-of- 87 Figure 3 Fina Path Model Relatin Grand arental-to-Maternal A ression Grandparent Marital Aggression Grandparent to Family Parent-as-child .42*** SES Aggression .23+ 0 25* \i Parent -.37* Parental ‘4 R2=.35 (.33) Defiance . 56*** Parent Nonfamilial ‘4 R2=. 29 (. 27) Adolescent Aggression .39** Parent Lifetime Antisociality Each path coefficient gives a beta weight. + p<.10, * p<.05, ** p<.01, *** p<.001 Variance information: (AdjusteleH in parentheses. Overall Chi Square=5.77; df=7, n.s. 88 fit test for this model was also nonsignificant (X2=5.77, df=7). Model Relating Grandparental—to-Paternal Aggression for Fathers. A test of the theoretical model for fathers and their parents can be found in Figure 4. The goodness—of—fit test was not significant (X2=9.03, df=11), indicating that the model adequately fit the data for fathers as well as for mothers. The strong link present for mothers between grand— parent marital aggression and parental defiance was not present for the fathers. Similarities to the mother model were found in examining hypothesized paths from grandparent marital aggression to parental defiance through intermediary factors of "grandparent to parent-as-child" aggression and SES. That is, the path coefficient for the link leading from grandparent marital aggression to "grandparent to parent-as- child" aggression was significant (.44, p 5,01), but the subsequent link to parental defiance was not. Likewise, the path coefficient for the link leading from grandparent marital aggression to family SES was not significant but the subse- quent link from SES to parental defiance was significant (.21, p 5.05). As in the mothers’ model, there was a significant independent path from SES to parental defiance. The antici- pated links from parental defiance to nonfamilial adolescent aggression, and from nonfamilial adolescent aggression to lifetime antisociality, were significant (.48 and .68, respectively, both significant at the .01 level). As in the —!_k 89 Figure 4 Path Model Relating Grandparental-to-Paternal Aggression Grandparent Marital Aggression .44*** -.07 Grandparent to .15 Family Parent-as-child SES Aggression ' ‘ .10 \l .21* Parent R’=.08 (.06) %Parental .33*** Defiance .48*** Parent IQ Parent .03 Nonfamilial -.24+ Adolescent Aggression\ R2=.30 (.28) ,53*** Parent Lifetime < R2=.48 (.47) Antisociality Each path coefficient gives a beta weight. + p540, * pg.05, ** p$.01, *** p$.001 Variance information: (Adjusted R2) in parentheses. Overall Chi Square=9.03; df=11, n.s. 90 mothers’ model, the link between parental defiance and lifetime antisociality was not significant. The anticipated link between SES and IQ was significant (.33, p 5.01), as it was for the mothers, and the link between IQ and parent aggression was only a trend (-.24, p 5.10) in the anticipated direction. As in the mothers’ model, the anticipated path from "grandparent to parent-as-child" aggression to parental defiance was not found. A link was subsequently entered from "grandparent to parent-as-child" aggression to nonfamilial adolescent aggression. The path coefficient for this link was significant and positive (.36, p 5.01). A trimmed model, which includes this link and from which links not significant at the .10 level or greater have been dropped, also fits the data (see Figure 5). The goodness-of—fit test for this model also was nonsignificant (X2=6.43, df=13). Summary of Grandparent to Parent Relationships. Although the proposed path model linking grandparental to parental aggression adequately fits the data for both mothers and fathers, a trimmed. model, informed by the data, is more satisfactory in understanding these relationships. Strong similarities appear in the final mother and father models. In each case a sequential relationship was demonstrated between the three parent aggression factors, such that parental defiance is linked to nonfamilial adolescent aggression, which in turn is linked to more serious, lifetime antisociality. Among the various grandparent aggressive behaviors, marital 91 Figure 5 Final Path Model Relatin Grand arental-to-Paternal Aggression Grandparent Marital Aggression .44*** Grandparent to Family Parent-as-child SES Aggression ' .20* Parent .33*** .36** Parental Defiance .42** Parent IQ Parent é:///’/:T24:TT Nonfamilial Adolescent Aggression <$~1Li\_-§§ R2=.42 (.41) ..69*** Parent Lifetime Antisociality Each path coefficient gives a beta weight. + p_<_.10, * pg.05, ** p5.01, *** pg.001 Variance information: (Adjusted R5 in parentheses. Overall Chi Square=6.43; df=13, n.s. "I r. 92 aggression is linked to aggressive child discipline regardless of sex of child. However, the subsequent path from aggressive discipline by the grandparents to aggressive behavior by the parent is different, depending on the sex of the parent-as-ch- ild. The data show a trend for aggressive discipline by mothers’ parents to be linked to reciprocal aggression (by their female children) at home. This trend is not demonstrat- ed for the fathers. Of even greater interest is the finding that, for mothers, aggressive discipline by their parents is linked to lower levels of aggression outside the home (i.e., at school). For the fathers, quite the opposite appears to be true. That is, aggressive discipline is linked to higher levels of aggression outside the home (i.e., fighting, both at school and in the community at large). For both mothers and fathers, a significant path from SES to aggression toward their own parents can be established. It should be noted that this path is not in the anticipated direction. That is, the literature supports a negative relationship between SES and aggression. The correlation matrix (Table 13) indicates that low-level correlations in the anticipated direction exist at the level of nonfamilial adolescent aggression and lifetime antisociality, but not at the level of parental defiance. Finally, in the case of the fathers, but not the mothers, a trend toward a path from lower IQ to higher levels of nonfami- lial adolescent aggression was found. Variance accounted for in the second, out-of-home 93 aggression factor was 29 percent for mothers and 42 percent for fathers. It should be noted that the 29 percent repre- sents variance accounted for by two antecedent variables; the 42 percent.represents variance accounted for by three anteced- ent variables. B. Parent and child aggression. The parent and child data were examined separately for mothers and fathers, utilizing theoretical models that included both aggression- specific and exogenous variables. In order to allow for greater clarity in deciphering the multiple paths posited in these models, they are presented in two stages: 1) paths posited from exogenous to aggression-specific variables; and 2) paths posited among aggression-specific variables. Figures 6a and 6b, and 8a and 8b show these analyses of the models for mothers and fathers, respectively. The dependent variable in the parent-child models is child aggressivenessa INon-aggression-specific variables were parent IQ, family SES, and child IQ. Consistent with the theoretical grandparent-to-parent model, a link was antici- pated between parent IQ and parents’ nonfamilial adolescent aggression. In the parent-to-child models, a link was also anticipated between parent IQ and marital aggression. A direct link was expected from family SES to child aggressive- ness and an indirect link from family SES to the same variable through its link to child IQ. Finally, a direct link was expected from child IQ to child aggressiveness. An indirect 94 link was anticipated from parent lifetime antisociality to child aggressiveness through the link from parent lifetime antisociality to child IQ. In addition to the three variables descriptive of parent aggression utilized in the grandparent-to-parent models (i.e. , parental defiance, nonfamilial adolescent aggression, and lifetime antisociality) , lifetime level of alcoholic difficul- ty (LAPS) , marital-aggression, and family-aggression-to-child (family discipline) were aggression-specific variables anticipated to have paths, either direct or indirect, to child aggressivity. It was anticipated that parent lifetime antisociality would be linked to the family’ s aggression toward the child, and that this in turn would be linked to child aggressivity. It was also expected that parents’ parental defiance would be linked to lifetime alcohol related difficulty. Additional paths were posited leading from problematic alcohol involvement directly to child aggression, and indirectly to the same variable through the effect of alcohol problems on parent lifetime antisociality and family- aggression-to-child. Parents’ parental defiance was expected to be linked to marital aggression, and in turn to both family-aggression-to-child and child aggressivity. Parent aggression was thus expected to be linked to a pattern of problematic alcohol use, marital aggressiveness, aggressive child discipline, and ultimately to aggressive behavior in the child. Mother and father models were basically identical, 95 with the exception of an additional path in the father model from lifetime alcohol problems to marital aggression. Model Predicting Maternal-to-Child Relationships. The goodness-of-fit test of the theoretical model for mothers and children was not significant (X2=14.21, df=23), indicating that the model adequately fit the data. Among the exogenous variables, mother's IQ was linked significantly (.39, p 5.01) to the family’s level of achieved SES; achieved SES, in turn, was linked to the child's IQ (.33, p5.01). A trend was also found for a path from mother’s IQ to less aggressive disci- pline of the child (-.23, p 5.10). Beyond this, however, none of the posited paths from parent IQ, family SES, or child IQ to the aggression-specific variables were significant. (See Figure 6a). Among the second set of variables, the anticipated paths were found from mother’s in-home aggression as a child to her marital aggression (.36, p 5.01), and from marital aggression to aggressive discipline (.35, p 5.01). Similar paths led from mother’s in—home aggression to level of her lifetime alcohol problems (.60, p 5.01), and from lifetime alcohol problems to aggressive discipline (.30, pg.05). Aggressive discipline was the only variable linked directly to child aggression, although a trend was found for alcohol problems (.25, p 5.10) and marital aggression (-.28, p 5.10) to have a direct link as well. (See Figure 6b). It should be noted, however, that the actual correlation between mothers’ marital 96 Figure 6a Model Linking Exogenous Maternal Variables to Child Outcome Measures Parent Nonfamilial Adolescent Aggression -.20 Parent Parent .09 Lifetime IQ Antisociality . 39*** .02 Family Marital SES Aggression .33*** -.23+ Family Child Aggression IQ to Child Child Aggression Each path coefficient gives a beta weight. + ps.10, * pg.05, ** p$.01, *** p$.001 97 Figure 6b Path Model for Parent-to—Child Relationships: Model Linking Mate nal A ression-S ecific Factors to Child Outcome Measures Parent Parental Defiance .60*** Nonfamilial Adolescent .21 LAPS .36** Aggression .32:\\\\ -.05 Parent R2=. 18 (. 16) s Lifetime Antisociality -.06 .04 .30* Marital .25+ Aggression Family Aggression to Child -.28+ x.53** Child Aggression Each path coefficient gives a beta weight. + p$.lO, * p_<_.05, ** pg.01, *** 135.001 Variance information: (Adjustedjfifi in parentheses. Overall Chi Square=13.29; g;=21, n.s. 98 aggression and child aggression was zero. This path was therefore subsequently dropped from the model. Mothers’ life- time aggression was not linked to either level of aggressive family discipline practices or to level of aggressive behavior in the child. The variables in the model account for 31 percent of the variance pertaining to aggressive discipline (family aggression to child) and 40 percent of the variance pertaining to child aggression. Figure 7 shows the trimmed model, in which all path coefficients are significant at .10 or higher (X2=6.28, df=8). This model contains no exogenous variables, but describes a core process of mother’s aggression in her child- hood/adolescence being linked both to alcohol problems and marital aggression, which are in turn linked to family ag- gression‘toward.the child” Family aggression toward.the child is then linked to child aggression” .Alcohol problems are also directly linked to child aggressivity. In this model, 26 percent of the variance in aggressive family discipline and 32 percent.of the variance in child aggression are accounted for. Mode; Ppedicting Patepnal-to-Child Relationships. The goodness-of-fit test of the theoretical model for fathers and their childrennwas:not.significant (X2=13.29, df=21), indicat- ing that the model adequately fit the data. Consistent with the mother’s model, exogenous variables were found to contrib- ute little. The trend for fathers’ IQ to be linked to lower levels of fathers’ nonfamilial adolescent aggression (-.24, p 99 Figure 7 Final Path Model of Maternal Influences Upon Child Aggressiveness Parent Parental Defiance 1:41** . 60*** Parent on-familial Adolescent Aggression 35** N Marital Aggression .36** .31* .24* Family Aggression .\ to Child .43** Child Aggression<< R2=.32(.31) R2= .26(. 24) Each path coefficient gives a beta weight. + p$.10, * p5.05, ** p$.01, *** p$.001 Variance information: (Adjusted R2) in parentheses. Overall Chi Square=6.28; df=8, n.s. 100 ‘5.10) was identical to that found in the.grandparent-to-parent model for fathers. For fathers as well as for mothers, a path led from father's IQ to family SES (.41, p 5.01) and then to child IQ (.33, pg.01), but did not subsequently lead to child aggression. (See Figure 8a). Among the aggression-specific variables (see Figure 8b), paths leading to child aggression differed considerably from paths in the mothers' model. One similarity was a path from parents' parental defiance to lifetime alcohol problems (.26, p<.05, for fathers). Neither the path from lifetime alcohol problems (LAPS) to aggressive discipline nor the path from LAPS to child aggression was significant, however. In the fathers' model, a path was found from alcoholic difficulty to marital aggression (.56, p 5.01) , which in turn is linked to aggressive child discipline. None of the variables in the model were directly and significantly linked to child aggression. (See Figure 8b). The variables in the model account for 23 percent.of the variance pertaining to aggressive discipline and 30 percent of the variance pertaining to child aggression. An alternate model, containing fewer paths and taking into account a direct path from fathers’ parental defiance to child's present-day aggression more closely and cleanly fit the data (Xz=5.95, df=12; see Figure 9). This model demon- strates consecutive links from father’s early parental defiance and nonfamilial adolescent aggression to alcohol use (.26, p 5.05, and .44, p 5.01, respectively), marital aggres- 101 Figure 8a Path Model for Parent Child Relationships: Linking Exogenous Paternal Variables to Child Outcome Measures Parent Nonfamilial Adolescent Aggression -.24+ Parent Parent .12 Lifetime IQ Antisociality .41***\L Family Marital SES Aggression .33***\L Family Child Aggression IQ ' to Child Child Aggression Each path coefficient gives a beta weight. + p5.10, * pg.os, ** pg.01, *** pg.001 102 Figure 8b Path Model for Parent-to-Child Relationships; Model Linking Paternal Aggression-Specific Factors to Child Outcome Measures Parent Parental Defiance .26* Parent Nonfamilial Adolescent Aggression .07 ,53*** Parent R2=.48 ( .47) > Lifetime Antisoc- ialit LAPS , 56*** Marital .04 .12 Aggression .24 Family ggression to Child (.2. Child Aggression Each path coefficient gives a beta weight. + p$.10, * pg.os, ** p_<_.01, *** 135.001 Variance information: (Adjustedififi in parentheses. Overall Chi Square=13.29; g;=21, n.s. 103 Figure 9 Fipal Path Model of Paternal Influences Upon Child Aggressixeness Parent Parental Defiance l. 48*** Parent Nonfamilial .26* Adolescent Aggression T;Z::\“‘\\\\$> LAPS .39*** .61**:z//// Marital Aggression .37** Family Aggression to Child ‘&\::23+ .32** Parent IQ Child Aggression < R2=.29 (.28) Each path coefficient gives a beta weight. + p$.lO, * pg.os, ** pg.01, *** pg.001 Variance information: (Adjusted R2) in parentheses. Overall Chi Sguare=5.95; g;=12, n.s. 104 sion (.37, p 5.01), aggressive discipline (.37, p 5.01), and child aggression (.32, p5.01). The posited path from father's aggression in his parental home to his son’s current aggres- sion was also significant (.39, p 5.01). Finally, in.much the same way as the trend toward an inverse relationship of fathers’ IQ to their nonfamilial adolescent aggression contributed to the final path model of grandparent-to-parent relationships for fathers, the trend toward an inverse relationship of fathers' IQ to aggressive discipline of their children contributes to the fit of the final path model of parent-to-child relationships for fathers. 131thiS'model, 29 percent of child aggression is accounted for by fathers’ childhood aggression and by aggressive discipline. Summary of Parent-to-Child Relationships. In both of the parent-to-child models, there is a similar overall pattern of linkages progressing across variables from parental aggression to parental alcoholic difficulty, to marital aggression, to aggression toward the child, and ultimately to child aggression. There are striking differences in these paths for mothers vs. fathers, however. For the mothers, their own childhood aggression is linked in a similar manner to both marital aggression and lifetime alcohol problems“ ZFor the fathers, the data indicate that this variable is linked only to lifetime alcohol problems. These alcohol problems are linked to marital aggression. The data also indicate that an important pathway for the transmission of aggression from 105 father to son is a similarity in aggression as a "trait" or characteristic, apparent even at the young age of the children in this sample. It is possible that this is, in part, a biological predisposition. It is also likely that the child is emulating characteristics either exhibited or reinforced in his environment. DISCUSSION The research described herein examines the interplay of a variety of aggression-specific and exogenous variables and their impact on aggressive behavior across three generations in young alcoholic families. Parents at the time of assess- ment were around 30 years of age, their own.parents were about 55, and their children were preschoolers or in kindergarten (ages 3 to 5). In the grandparental generation, aggressivity measures were based on parents' report of the manner in which their own parents handled marital conflict and child disci- pline. In the current parental generation, aggression was examined across a greater number of arenas, and was based on self-report of actions and/or activities in childhood, adolescence, and adulthood, including reports pertaining to the resolution of marital conflict and child discipline. Child aggressivity was based on parental reports of overt aggressive behavior, including temper tantrums, destroying the possessions of others, and arguing or fighting with brothers, sisters, and friends. “The hypotheses guiding the research,0Lfflv derived from the existing literature and from ongoing work with these families, anticipated that aggressivity in the children (both the parents-as-children and the present day 106 AIQ g /"'"" 107 children) would be influenced by aggressive parental behavior, the level of intellectual functioning of both parent and child, and the socioeconomic status of the family. Intezppetive Considerations: Before considering the findings within the context of the existing literature, it is important to look at several factors which affect interpretation and generalization. The nature of the data. As mentioned above, information regarding aggressive behavior of the grandparents was obtained from their adult children. It was therefore retrospective in nature, reaching back over a period of some 15 to 30 years, and represents judgments based on childhood memories. Retrospective data differs qualitatively from data generated from more objective sources. Its reliability depends upon accuracy of recollection, which is subject to distortions caused by events that have occurred during the intervening time. Elder, Caspi, and Downey (1986) also point to the confounding nature of retrospective data obtained from subjects who have assumed the roles of the people they are now describing (e.g. , parenting and marriage). Recollections of parents’ marital conflict and discipline practices, then, are not only filtered through intervening time and events, but may be interpreted and reported differently by these adult children in the light of their now shared experience. Reports of frequency of abusive incidents, age of occurrence, and even 108 the interpretation of an event as benign or abusive are su- sceptible to alteration over time. Data on parent behavior is not only retrospective but self-report in nature. It is therefore subject not only to filtering through intervening time and circumstance but through perception of self. Under conditions of threat it is likely to be under-reported, which itself would operate to truncate the observed relationships. Information regarding child aggressivity is based on parent-report of recent or current child behavior. Since a parent is involved in an ongoing relationship with their child, their report of that child's behavior can be expected to differ from data generated by other sources (e.g. , peers or observers). Differences between observer and parent ratings of child aggression examined during scale construction in the present study support this assumption. The behavior of children is also experienced differently by each family member with whom the child has a relationship for a variety of reasons. This is likely to particularly be the case for the young children being studied here, given that the caretaker role is differentially assumed by mothers and fathers, with mothers spending by far the:greater amount of time interacting with their child. Thus, ratings of child aggressivity can be expected to differ based on the extent to which one parent serves as a primary caretaker. In this regard, Fitzgerald et al. (1991) have suggested that mothers’ perceptions of their 109 young children are "crafted from a richer set of direct behavioral interactions" than are the perceptions of fathers, a factor which would contribute to a differing perception. Many of the families in the present study have also experi- enced significant troubles, including marital conflict and estrangement. Problems in the marriage may serve to alter the relationship between parent and child and thereby intensify differences between maternal and paternal perceptions of child behavior. Finally, it is important to remember that although the subjects in this research are part of a larger, longitudinal study, the data analyzed here were collected.at.a single point in time (approximately speaking. The reality is that this "point", for :many families, extended over' two to three months.) . The multigenerational nature of the data permits us to construct models of causative chain and to begin to attempt an understanding of the evolution of aggressive behavior within the context of the family. At the same time, the retrospective nature of much of the data dictates that the results of this initial work be interpreted with caution. These results may therefore inform the direction of the larger study, but cannot be taken as longitudinal themselves. The nature of the population: The study of aggression within this population was originally proposed because of the association between parental alcoholism and aggressive child behavior as reported in the child aggression literature. It 110 was anticipated that this population would encompass a subset of children who would be both dispersed quite widely on the aggression dimension, and among whom a substantial number would be at the upper extremes on this dimension. An exten- sive body of literature not reviewed in the context of the present research also supports a significant relationship between alcoholism and aggression in the parents (e.g. , Jaffe, Babor, & Fishbein, 1988; Spieker, 1983; Taylor, 1983) and between parental alcoholism and negative outcomes for children in alcoholic families (e.g., Jacob, Favorini, Meisel, & .Anderson, 1978; Rydelius, 1981). Inmgeneral, alcohol consump- tion has been related to violent behavior both within the family (e.g., spousal violence), and outside of the family (e.g., fighting), and co-exists with other behaviors descrip- tive of antisocial personality. Children with alcoholic fathers are more likely to require mental health treatment, become involved in illegal activities, and abuse alcohol themselves. The risk for these difficulties, as well as for lower socioeconomic functioning, continues into adulthood. Recent research also supports a relationship between alcohol abuse and disorders of conduct, including aggression, among adolescents (Monopolis, Brooner, Cruise, Varner, Lininger, & Schmidt, 1991). The alcoholic nature of the present popula- tion, therefore, clearly facilitates exploration of the variables of interest to this research. It may also serve to increase the likelihood of finding effects, given that trou- 111 bled outcomes are more likely to be encountered in this population. The study of aggressive behavior in this population was also considered important within.the context.of’a growing body of literature supporting a contribution of childhood aggres- sion to the later development of alcoholism (see Zucker & Fitzgerald, 1991). A measure of lifetime alcohol problems (LAPS) among the parents was therefore included in the present study to 'measure alcohol involvement, and to track its relationship to the broader antisocial behaviors. Gender-pelated issues: A number of gender-related issues are salient to the understanding of these data. The first, related to mother versus father report of child behavior, was mentioned above. It can be expected that mothers and fathers will experience their children differently not only by virtue of their unique position within the family system but also by virtue of differences in mother-son and father-son related- ness. A second issue, related to the nature of the popula- tion, should be articulated here. ‘While all of the fathers in the present research were alcoholic, alcoholism was neither an inclusionary nor an exclusionary criterion for the mothers. The resulting sample therefore contains a significant number of women with problems related to alcohol (approximately 44 percent make an alcoholic diagnosis) but an even greater number had lesser to no problematic alcohol involvement. The possible impact of these differences will be discussed within 112 the context of the findings. Finally, although all of the children in the current child generation are boys, exploration of aggressive behaviors in the parental generation involves both men and women. Many aggressive behaviors are common to boys and girls during childhood. There is, however, evidence that supports the evolution of differing behavioral paths over time for girls and boys (see the discussion of development issues below). It is therefore reasonable to assume that certain differences between maternal and paternal aggression in this study may be gender-specific. Thus it would also be anticipated that correspondences among father and son ag- gression may differ from correspondences observed for mother and son aggression. Developmental issues: Exploration of aggressive behavior within the present research covers developmental periods ranging from preschool through adulthood, albeit with dif- ferent, but related subjects. A definition of aggression has been adopted that can be measured in overt behavior regardless of age. However, developmental factors form a significant part of the context within which aggressive behaviors are embedded and determine what behaviors are acceptable or normative at any given age or stage. Szegal (1985) has described early stages in the normal development of aggressive behavior ranging from the taking of objects from another child and angry outbursts in response to frustration at age 7 to 12 months, to an increase in hitting, pushing, and throwing 113 objects and the appearance of verbal aggression at age 26 to 33 months, and an increase in verbal aggression and threats by age 33 to 39 months. Fagot (1984) describes a range of aggressive behaviors among a normal preschool population including hitting, taking objects from other children, and verbal assaults. Normative patterns of aggressive behavior over middle childhood and early adolescence have also been studied (Cairns, Cairns, Neckerman, Ferguson, & Gariepy, 1989) . Direct confrontation and physical attacks persist across this developmental time for boys, while social aggres- sion and ostracism increases among girls. The behaviors descriptive of aggression in ‘the current study' must. be considered in terms of their position on a continuum of aggressive behaviors appropriate to any given age. Develop- mental stage is also salient when making comparisons of events that may predict aggression in different groups at points in time that are not. developmentally parallel. (Among' the measures of aggression in this study, the parent measures (although demonstrating a developmental progression) are more situationally defined. The behaviors of the child (aged 3-6) are more developmentally discrete. The interpretive considerations iterated above are considered in an ongoing manner in the following discussion. Comparison of the findings of this research with that of other researchers, as well as generalization of the current find- ings, must be considered with them in mind. 114 Aggression-Specific Relationships: Continuity within generations. Strong relationships were found among aggressive behaviors within the grandparental and parental generations. In both groups, marital aggression and aggressive child discipline were positively related, with aggression toward the marital partner being one way station in the path of aggression toward the child. In the parental generation, relationships were also found among aggressive behaviors.of both mothers and fathers over developmental time. Defiant behavior toward one’s own parents, aggression toward persons outside the family during adolescence, and antisocial behavior over ‘the longer-term life course 'were strongly intercorrelated. Further, a sequential relationship was demonstrated such that defiant behavior toward parents was linked to nonfamilial aggression as an adolescent, and then to lifetime antisociality. These findings are consistent with those of researchers who have described aggression as a stable, persisting characteristic over time (e.g., Elder, Caspi, & Downey, 1986; Olweus, 1980), and provide support for the continuity of aggressive behaviors among girls as well as boys. The current findings are also consistent with the work of researchers who have found that aggression during middle childhood predicts aggression during adolescence and adulthood (e.g., Eron, 1987). Additionally, the persistence of aggres- sion across behaviors among parents and their children suggests the operation of a system that sustains aggressive 115 behavior among its members (see Patterson, 1982). In other words, aggression may also be a supra-individual system characteristic, that is evident among the behaviors of its members. The persistence of the behavior may be driven and maintained in a convergent fashion by both individual and system forces. Magital violence and child aggression. The direct link from marital violence to child aggression hypothesized in this study was observed only in the maternal grandparental-to- parental relationship. A similar link from mothers' marital aggression to their male children’s aggression was not found, at least within the age range of children studied here. In the grandparental-to-parental generation, our data indicate a direct, gender-specific effect of marital aggres- sion. That is, girls react with reciprocal aggression toward their parents, whereas boys do not. It is equally possible that the absence of a relationship between marital and child aggression in the fathers is a feature related to the retro- spective nature of the data and to the fathers' greater "macho" denial of the troubles experienced or witnessed at an early age. Although marital aggression in the grandparental generation is a combined measure of grandfather and grandmoth- er behaviors, it is notable that in the vast.majority of cases the grandfather was reported to be the perpetrator, a feature that may lead to denial on the part of his male children. Further exploration of these hypotheses is not possible within 116 the current parent-child data, due to the absence of girls in the child sample. It will, however, be possible and important to examine reports of trouble experienced during childhood among the younger subjects in this research as they grow older. In general, however, the findings of the present research are consistent with literature reporting the exis- tence of marital disharmony or tension in the backgrounds of aggressive children and adolescents (Elder, Caspi, & Downey, 1986; Farrington, 1978). Qisciplinary practices and child aggression. A path was anticipated leading from aggressive discipline to aggressive behavior in the children. In the grandparental generation, no path was found from aggressive discipline to the earliest measure of aggression, parental defiance, in either mothers or fathers, although a trend in this direction was reported for mothers. The impact of aggressive discipline was seen in the behavior of both mothers and fathers during adolescence, in interaction with persons outside their family. The effect is strikingly different for mothers versus fathers, however. Mothers reporting more aggressive discipline by their parents acted less aggressively, while fathers who were more aggres- sively disciplined were more aggressive. As noted earlier, frequency of parental.discipline loaded highly on the fathers' nonfamilial adolescent aggression factor, indicating the strength of its relationship to fathers' aggression at that point in time. In the current parent-child generation, 117 aggressive discipline was linked to aggressive child behavior, regardless of whether aggression was rated by mothers or fathers. In interpreting these findings, it is important to remember that the children in the current generation are boys. There is, therefore, a consistent pattern among both genera- tions of aggressive discipline being linked to aggressive behavior in male children, although this behavior is reported at an earlier point in time for the sons than for their fathers. Although the literature reviewed earlier examining the relationship between discipline and child aggression was somewhat ambiguous (Baumrind, 1978; Radke-Yarrow et al. , 1968) , there was general agreement that extremely harsh, abusive punishment did contribute to child aggressiveness. Many of the methods of discipline reported by the subjects in this research are clearly described by the terms harsh and abusive. This is true both for methods used by the grandpar- ents and those used by the present-day parents. It was anticipated that the alcoholic nature of the sample would in- crease the range.of disciplinary behaviors. ‘The path from ag- gressive discipline by parents to aggression in their chil- dren, as shown in the familial relationships of both the fathers and their preschool-aged sons, is consistent with the work of researchers exploring this relationship in boys (e.g. , Farrington, 1978). The present study also extends the age of measurable effect to include younger (i.e., preschool-aged) 118 children. The finding of a gender-specific path in the grandparental-to-parental generation contradicts other studies, which found a contribution of aggressive discipline to aggression in both boys and girls (e.g., Elder, Caspi, & Downey, 1986; Eron et al, 1971). It is once again important, however, to consider the nature of the data. In the present study, aggressivity in the parents as children was determined through retrospective self-report after an interim of approxi- mately 10 to 15 years. In other studies, data were obtained through peer (Eron et al. , 1971) or teacher and observer (Elder, Caspi, & Downey, 1986) ratings. The difference in findings between the present study and that of Eron et al. (1971) in regard to girls is particularly striking given the similarity in setting between nonfamilial adolescent aggres- sion (aggressive behavior in school) reported by our own subjects and ratings of school peers in the Eron et al study. It is important to note, however, that discipline in the study by Eron et al. specifically addressed discipline of aggres- sion, rather than discipline in general, a feature which alters the comparability'of the.data.in this particular study. It may be that aggressive discipline in response to aggression may result in higher levels of aggression in girls, whereas aggressive discipline in general may lead to lower levels of aggression. Several hypotheses can be generated regarding the difference in effect for men and women in the present study. For example, the internalization of parental values described 119 by Eron et al. (1971) may be responsible for less aggression in the women in this population during adolescence. An alternate hypothesis, based on the present data, is that the women tended to see their own behavior outside their home as more different from that of their parents, while the men perceived their behavior as similar. It is equally likely that this effect is a feature of developmental differences in the expression of aggression during adolescence. As noted earlier, it is at this time that aggressive behavior in girls is more likely to take the form of social aggression and ostracism, behaviors not measured in this study. Finally, it is possible that, for girls, aggressive discipline impacts in ways not measured in this research. One possibility, based on internalization versus externalization of aggression, may be depression. A link from grandparental discipline to maternal depression, and then to child aggression would provide an alternate route for’ the transmission. of aggression from mothers to sons. Partial support for this hypothesis can be seen in recent work with this sample by Reider (1991), who found that maternal depression contributes significantly to child aggression. Dipect Transmission of Aggpession. The expectation that aggressive parents beget aggressive children was core to this research. The findings discussed thus far have addressed the interactive faces of aggression and their ultimate impact on child aggressivity. These findings can be readily understood 120 from the context of a family system within which the child learns to interact aggressively with others. The findings also include a direct link from aggressive behavior, sugges- tive of a characteristic or "trait" in the fathers, to a similar characteristic or trait in their sons. This aggres- sive "trait" is identified earliest among the fathers (i.e., it shows as parental defiance), and presumably existed at about the same developmental time as the fathers now report aggressive behavior in their sons. As such, it was a part of the fathers’ repertoire long before his children were born. A similar effect has been noted in the longitudinal study of these phenomena (Heusmann, Eron, Lefkowitz, & Walder, 1984). These researchers discovered that "the contemporaneous aggression of the parent does not appear to be as important in determining a child’s aggressiveness as was the parent's own aggressiveness as a child" (pp. 1130). One may conceive of this link in terms of genetic loading or predisposition. It is equally plausible, however, that it is the result of a response style or manner of "being" in the world, that was learned by the father at an early age, shaped and perpetuated through a process of interaction with his environment, and which over time became a powerful force in shaping the father's world, and subsequently the world of his children. We cannot disentangle these effects with the present design. 121 Exogenous Relationships: The role of intellectual level. An inverse relationship was anticipated between IQ and aggression. It was hypothe- sized that some children with lower intellectual functioning experience greater frustration. than) their' peers as ‘they struggle with developmental goals. It was also anticipated that, although this relationship should be apparent in preschool-aged children, it would become even more salient with the passage of time. That is, a more aggressive response style would increasingly limit the development of alternative behaviors, and, for some, result in a process of selection to a more aggressive peer group. A relationship between intelli- gence and aggression has been found in research involving school age children (Eron et al., 1978; Farrington, 1978), juvenile delinquents (Hirschi & Hindelang, 1977), and anti- social adults (Kandel et al., 1988). It has also been found but not systematically explored in preschool children (Jersild & Markey, 1935). The stronger relationships found between IQ and aggression in older children supported the notion that IQ might be more salient to aggression as the child.became older, and would therefore be more highly correlated with aggression among the parents than among the children in this research. It should be noted that Eron, Heusmann, Lefkowitz, and Walder (1984), have reported that partial correlational analysis of the data relating IQ to aggression among subjects in their study revealed that although IQ and.aggression were related.at 122 age 8, the effect of IQ on aggression had occurred prior to that time and did not add to aggressivity beyond that point. Recent analyses of their data support the notion that, beyond the age of 8 years old, aggression serves to limit intellectu- al development (Heusmann, Eron, & Yarmel, 1987).‘ For' both. mothers and fathers, there ‘were low-order correlations, in the anticipated direction, between IQ and adolescent aggression. This relationship approached signif- icance for fathers, and was included in the final model relating grandparental-to-paternal aggression. The link from IQ to aggression is also reflected in the final model of paternal influences on child aggression, where the findings suggest an inverse link from fathers’ IQ to aggressive family discipline. IQ was not linked to aggressive behavior in either the mothers or the children in this research. The findings are therefore consistent with the literature for the fathers only, and support the relationship between intellectual functioning and aggression in men. The relation- ship between frustration and aggression may be the source of this influence. In this particular sample, it is also important to consider the influence of lifetime alcohol problems in the men, which may also have had an effect on intellectual functioning in some of these men as early as ado- lescence. This would serve to heighten the likelihood of a relationship between frustration and aggression among the men but not the women in this sample. It is important to note 123 that although the range of intellectual functioning among this sample was similar for men and for women, the IQ of the women was significantly higher than that of the men. This lends support to an alcohol-related (and in 'this case gender specific) path from IQ to aggression in this sample. It may also be that societally-valued developmental tasks are less closely linked to competition and/or academic achievement for women, and that limitations in intellectual functioning do not necessarily lead to the frustrations experienced by men. To the extent that frustration is a contributor to aggression among males with a lower IQ, we could anticipate that, for some, the influence of intellectual functioning on aggression will linger over time. However, the seeds of this effect, if present during preschool,_ are not detectable, with the measures we used here among the children. It is important to note that the models tested in this research do not address a potential bi-directional relationship between IQ and aggres- sion. Such a relationship would clearly increase the likeli- hood of more positive outcomes in the presence of ameliorating circumstances such as therapeutic intervention. The pole of SES. Researchers have consistently found that higher socioeconomic status is related to lower rates of aggression in children, regardless of age and gender (e.g., Campbell et al., 1986; Eron, 1987). The logical mechanism for such a relationship is the nature of SES as an indicator of parental resources, and in particular of parents' avail- 124 ability for positive, consistent parenting. A relationship has also been found between aggressive behavior during childhood and downward social mobility in later life (Elder, Caspi, & Downey, 1986). The latter effect was seen among the subjects of this research (i.e., the SES of the fathers was lower than that of their own fathers, and the current family SES was lower than SES of mothers’ family of origin). It was anticipated that the effect of SES on aggression would be seen via two paths. A direct path was anticipated between family- of-origin SES and parental aggressivity, and between current family SES and child aggressivity. An additional path was suggested by recent research exploring the relationship between SES and environmental enrichment and, ultimately, cognitive development of children. That is, it was anticipat- ed that SES would be linked to aggression through its effect on IQ in both generations. The data consistently support a positive relationship between SES and IQ. For both mothers and fathers, higher family-of-origin SES was linked to higher IQ in the parent. This path continued across generations, with higher parental IQ being linked to higher SES of their own, second-generation family, and then to higher IQ in their children. The path from SES to aggressive behavior were more complex. For both mothers and fathers, family-of-origin SES was modestly but positiyeiy linked to defiant/aggressive behavior toward parents during childhood. This relationship is not consistent 125 with the findings of other researchers. The relationship observed in the current data suggests a tolerance of, or per- missiveness toward, aggressivity in families where day-to-day practicalities are less of an issue, or among higher SES families. However, this is post hoc speculation and this effect must be replicated. Although aggressive behavior toward parents was linked in a highly significant manner to aggression at later points in time, SES showed either zero or negative, nonsignificant linkages to later measures of parental aggression. The positive relationship of SES to aggression seems, therefore, isolated to a specific arena of interaction for higher SES families. No relationship was found between current family SES and child aggression, a possible effect of the downward drift in SES reported earlier in these second generation families. That is, the presence of fewer high SES families among the current generation would decrease the likelihood of finding a relationship between high SES and higher child aggression. AlcohOl-Specific Relationships: Alcohoi-related paths. For both mothers and fathers, alcohol problems played an important role in the transmission of aggression. For both, defiance toward their own parents during childhood was significantly linked to lifetime alcohol problems. This relationship was especially strong for mothers. Maternal alcohol problems were subsequently linked to child aggression. For fathers, both childhood parental 126 defiance and nonfamilial adolescent aggression were linked to alcohol problems. Lifetime alcohol problems, in turn, were linked to marital aggression. These findings are informative from several perspectives. First, the findings strongly support the etiological significance of aggressiveness during childhood as a con- tributory link to later alcohol abuse. This relationship is true for both men and women, although it appears that ag- gression during more than one developmental period may lead to subsequent alcohol problems for men, whereas the primary learning for women occurs in aggressive relationships with their parents. The impact of these paths must be viewed from the broader perspective of the sequelae of alcohol problems for the individual and their family, which even within the somewhat limited scope of the current research is substantial. Secondly, alcohol problems are linked to marital ag- gression for men in this sample but not for women. This finding must be examined in light of the nature of the sample (i.e., alcoholism as an inclusionary criterion for the men only). For the men, sustained alcohol abuse appeared to facilitate spouse abuse, possibly through its disinhibiting effect, or through an altered threshold of sensitivity to situational or environmental instigators (see Taylor, 1983). Alcohol involvement did not mediate spousal aggression among the women in this study. This difference may be attributable to the relative lack of problem alcohol involvement in over 127 half of the women, which may result in a range of outcomes more closely resembling those of a normal population. It could be argued that marriage to an alcoholic partner would contribute to more aggressivity in these women. Post hoc analyses were done entering spousal LAPS scores into path models for both mothers and fathers. No links were found in either case. What Do the Data Say? The information shared by the subjects in this research informs us not only in a quantitative, empirical, manner about interactions and relationships among and between generations. It also informs us qualitatively about what takes place between parent and child, and how these events may influence the life course of some of these children and their families. In the first generation: From the recollections of the mothers in this study, we have learned that girls who witness abusive behavior between their parents were more likely to report responding to those parents with defiance and aggres- sion. For the more defiant among these girls, the overtly aggressive patterns of interacting begun at home appear to carry into their interactions in other areas of their lives, lessening the likelihood that they will benefit from associ- ations with significant adults who might provide alternate models for behavior and outcome in adolescence. At a time when girls typically begin to express aggression more verbally or covertly, the behavioral repertoire of these more defiant 128 girls continues to include physical aggression, thereby placing them in a deviant peer group. In contrast, among the girls who are physically punished, there is a decreased likelihood that they will carry aggression into adolescent interactions outside their home. It may be that their aggres- sion takes a more normative (although possibly still extreme) course toward verbal or covert aggression. It is also possible that they are acting out the emotional sequelae of abuse through a process of lost self-esteem and depression. Although we cannot establish these relationships without tracking this process over time, the explanations we are advancing are plausible ones based on the observed associa- tional network. For women raised within a family system where aggres- sivity is the norm, aggression in relationships would be both familiar and expected. Not surprisingly, under those circum- stances, to recreate what one has known in one’s own primary relationships would be one reasonable outcome. It is notable that all of the women in this study have chosen an alcoholic partner, thereby increasing the likelihood that their rela- tionship will involve aggression. Parental defiance was also powerfully linked to first-hand alcohol involvement for many of these women. For some, alcohol involvement may itself be a form.of aggressive, antisocial behavior; For others, it may be an activity shared with their partner, or a means of dealing with emotional pain. For all (in this subset of 129 women), it impacts their future and that of their children. It would seem that, for these women, messages received and practiced in interaction with their family of origin regarding the function and/or acceptability of aggression echo in their own lives across time and circumstance. These data also describe something about what happens between parents and sons. Primarily, we know that more aggressive parental attempts to control or punish are asso- ciated with reports of more aggressive behavior in these sons during adolescence. Among the components of (grand)parental discipline measured here, disciplinary frequency seems to be most intricately connected to the sons' reports of their own adolescent aggression. Parents' marital violence does not appear to be directly linked to their sons' level of aggres- sivity. As noted earlier, this may be a feature of the adult sons' tendency to deny troubles that occurred during child- hood. In this instance, denial would occur around remembranc- es of aggression of their fathers toward their mothers. For many of the more aggressive men in this sample, the consequences of increased aggressivity during childhood included not only problems with peers, school, and others in the community, but an increased likelihood of lifetime problem involvement with alcohol. One could anticipate the introduc- tion of alcohol into their behavioral repertoire in order to comply with a deviant peer group, to feel good, to enable the expression of hostility, or to self-medicate against pain. 130 Whatever the function, it is apparent from our data that alcohol does not serve these men well. To the contrary, alco- hol functions to mediate level of aggressive behavior with their partners. Tn the second generation: The second generation sons differ from their fathers to the extent that all are members of an alcoholic family. Within these families, however, similar patterns of relationship prevail. Among many of the parents, aggression 'toward. each. other is accompanied. by greater aggression toward their sons, forming an integral part of the contextual backdrop to family life. Within this con- text, these sons also behave more aggressively. How Do These Eipdings Fit the Existing Literature?: This research posited a series of specific hypotheses based on the existing literature and ongoing work with the families of the Michigan State University Longitudinal Study (Zucker, Noll, & Fitzgerald, 1986). In the present discus- sion, a number of convergences and divergences with the existing literature have been noted. The following section briefly reviews these comparisons and then explores rela- tionships between the present data and longitudinal studies that have examined aggressive behavior over time. Strengths and limitations of the present data, as well as suggestions for future research, are discussed. 131 General Convepgences and Divergepces. 1) The continuity of aggression. The literature speaks clearly to the existence of aggression as a stable, persisting trait or characteristic over time (Elder, Caspi, & Downey, 1986 ; Olweus, 1980) and to the strong, predictive relationship between early and later aggressivity (Eron, 1987; Huesmann, Eron, Lefkowitz, & Walder, 1984 ; Loney et al., 1978). Findings concerning the present-day parents in this study, although retrospective in nature, clearly are consis- tent with the existing literature, for both boys and girls. It should be noted that, to the extent that aggression is measured in terms of overt, physical acts, the presence of these acts in the behavioral repertoire of girls as they enter adolescence and adulthood may represent greater developmental deviancy than do similar behaviors among boys. 2) Marital disharmony and child aggression. The literature also supports a strong relationship between parental marital disharmony and aggressive behavior in children (Elder, Caspi, & Downey, 1986; Farrington, 1978). The present data generally support a direct path leading from marital aggression to child aggression in the grandparent-to- parent generation, although this effect was found only for mothers. It was suggested that the failure to find a similar link among the men was the effect of denial on the part of men asked to iddentify abusive behavior on the part of their fathers toward their mothers. 132 3) Discipline and child aggression. The existing literature generally supports a relationship between aggres- sive discipline and aggressive child behavior (Farrington, 1978; Elder, Caspi, & Downey, 1986; Eron et al., 1971). The present data support a relationship between aggressive discipline and aggressivity for boys. The findings diverge from the literature in that aggressive discipline was linked to lower levels of adolescent aggression for the mothers. These differences were discussed in terms of the retrospective nature of the data, and developmental and gender-specific issues around the expression of aggression. 4) The direct transmission of aggression. The data support a direct transmission of aggressivity from father to son in the current parent-child generation. This finding is convergent with that of longitudinal research (Huesmann, Eron, Lefkowitz, & Walder, 1984) that revealed a continuity in aggression across generations similar to that found in aggressive behavior in individuals across time. Further, the aggressivity of parents as children proved to be more predictive of their childrens’ aggression than did measures of the parents' current aggressivity. This finding can be interpreted either in terms of genetic loading or disposition, or in terms of the effects of a learned response style that carries forward in interaction across the generations. 5) The role of intellectual functioning. The literature supports a relationship between IQ and aggression 133 in a variety of populations (Eron et al., 1978; Farrington, 1978; Hirschi & Hindelang, 1977; Jersild & Markey, 1935; Kandel et al., 1988). In the present study, no relationship was found between IQ and aggression during preschool age. Among the parents, a trend was found in the anticipated (negative) direction between fathers’ IQ and his adolescent aggression and between fathers’ IQ and aggressive family discipline of their preschool sons. The present findings were divergent from literature (e.g., Eron et al., 1978) reporting this relationship for girls. ‘This divergence was discussed in light of the significant difference between the IQs of the men and women in this study, and the potential relationship between lower IQ and long-term abuse of alcohol. It is important to note that the finding is not descriptive of a direct and inevitable relationship between IQ and aggression, but rather supports the notion that for some of the men in this population, lower IQ tended to be linked with higher aggressivity in specific circumstances. 6) The role of SES. Researchers have consistently found a relationship between socioeconomic status and aggres- sion (e.g., Campbell et al., 1986; Eron, 1987). In all cases, higher SES has been related to lower levels of aggressivity. In the present study, an indirect link was also anticipated between higher SES and lower aggressivity through the path from SES to IQ. A direct, positive link from SES to aggres- sion was found for both mothers and fathers in relation to 134 defiant/aggressive behavior toward their own parents during childhood. It was hypothesized that this effect was due to greater tolerance of aggression among families where day-to- day concerns were less pressing. The anticipated relationship between SES and IQ was found for both men and women and in both generations. No indirect links were found between SES and aggression. Aggressive behavior during childhood has been associated with downward SES mobility in later life (Elder, Caspi, & Downey, 1986). This effect was replicated retro- spectively in this research. 7) Alcohol and aggression. Although no explicit hypotheses were offered regarding the relationship between alcohol problems and aggression, the assumption of a positive relationship was implicit in the selection of the present sample. Exploration of aggression within this population was also considered relevant in light of evidence that aggression has a prominent role in the etiology of alcoholism (Zucker & Gomberg, 1986). In all respects, the findings of the present study are convergent with the existing literature. For both men and women, aggression during childhood was linked to lifetime alcohol problems. These difficulties, in turn, were linked to aggressive disciplinary practices. For mothers, alcohol problems were also linked to child aggression. Differences in alcohol-related paths for mothers and fathers were discussed in terms of inclusionary criteria for the present research. There were striking consistencies in 135 aggressive paths across the populations represented within this research, and between the populations in this research and others within which aggression has been studied. Study-specific comparisons: Two of the longitudinal studies referenced throughout this research are most similar to the present study in terms of emphasis on the family as the context within which aggression develops, and in their exploration of factors involved in the transmission of aggression over time. These studies will be examined in greater detail in relationship to their convergences with and divergences from the present work. 1) A longitudinal study of aggression begun in 1960 (Eron et al., 1971; Lefkowitz et al., 1977) has followed over 200 children (who were 8 years old at the onset of the study) for more than 20 years. Aggressivity in these children was determined by peer ratings done in the school classroom. Parents were also asked to complete a 286 item questionnaire, from which level of punishment, instigating factors (i.e., conditions likely to cause frustration) , identification of the child with parental values and behaviors, and a variety of sociocultural variables were obtained. At the time of initial data collection, more punitive fathers were found to have more aggressive children. A trend was also found in this direction for mothers. High parental aggression (measured by questions regarding aggressive attitudes) was related to aggressivity in boys, and was more pronounced in low SES than high SES 136 families. IQ was negatively correlated with aggression. And boys who had internalized their fathers' values and beliefs were less aggressive than boys who had not. This effect was stronger among boys who received more punishment. Boys who scored low on internalization demonstrated a positive rela- tionship between punishment and aggressivity. A second data collection occurred after 10 years, and a third after 22 years (Eron, 1987) . At ten years, data consisted of peer ratings and self-ratings on several scales of the MMPI. SES and identification had a persistent, inverse relationship to aggressivity over the ten year period. The effects of IQ, while still present, were less predictive of aggression over time. At the third data collection, ten meas- ures of aggressivity were collected, ranging from self and spouse report to Criminal Justice Division records. Peer- rated aggression in both boys and girls was related to later aggression, criminal behavior, drunk driving, spouse abuse, and severity of child punishment. Analyses also revealed that aggression ‘was a stable characteristic not only in ‘the individual but across generations in the same family. Regression analyses done in the process of integrating the findings of this and other research done abroad (Eron, Huesmann, & Zelli, 1988) has revealed that the best predictor to adult aggression and antisocial behavior among the subjects of this study was child aggression. Further, when child aggression was removed, parental variables measured at childs' 137 age eight failed to predict aggression as an adult for boys. For girls, several relationships between parent variables and adult aggression remained. The more harshly girls were punished for aggression at age 8, the more harshly they punished their own children, the more abusive they were toward their spouses (by spouse report), and the more aggressively they tended (by self report) to react in certain situations of adulthood. Further analyses suggest that, with some excep- tions, parental differences seem to be more a response to child aggression than causes of child aggression. These findings led the authors to suggest that if aggression is learned, this learning must take place before the age of 6. "By the time youngsters are six, patterns of aggressive behavior seem so well established that they persist into adulthood despite what must be a wide variety of environmental contingencies and events" (Eron, Heusmann, Lefkowitz, & Walser, 1988, pp. 17). Although the data of the study described above and that of the present study differ considerably, a number of converg- ences can be found. Eron et al. (1971) found a direct relationship between punitiveness in fathers (and a trend in this direction for mothers) and aggression of both girls and boys at age 8. In the grandparent-to-parent generation of the present study, data were not analyzed separately by gender of grandparent. Nevertheless, more aggressive discipline was linked to more nonfamilial adolescent aggression in sons. '1 138 This aggression measure is similar to that of Eron et al. in that the arena of aggression is outside the home. 'The present data also reveal a trend toward a relationship between more aggressive discipline and greater defiance/aggression at home for girls. Aggressive discipline was linked to lower aggres- sion in school for girls. lThis divergent finding is puzzling. Several hypotheses have been suggested to account for this divergence, including developmental differences in the expression of aggression between females versus males during adolescence (e.g., socially acceptable patterns of expres- sion), differing routes for aggressive expression among these girls in particular (e.g., depression), and a difference in behaviors targeted for discipline (i.e., discipline for aggression versus general discipline). If the conclusion reached by Eron, Heusmann, and Zelli (1988) that aggression (and particularly aggression in boys) is learned before the age of 6 is correct, contributions of parental behavior to child aggression among the younger parent-to-child generation in the present study would be of special importance. A path from aggressive discipline to child aggression was found among the preschool-aged, male children in the present study, and suggests learning that occurs at a very early age within the family system. The early effect of (child) IQ on aggression suggested by Eron, Heusmann, Lefkowitz, and Walder (1984) was not replicated among the preschool subjects in the present study, although 139 the tendency of IQ to contribute less independently as a predictor of aggression over time is consistent with the strength (i.e., p g .10) of the inverse contribution of IQ to aggression found in the fathers in the present study. It remains to be seen whether this failure to replicate may be noted in the MSU study as the children become older (which would point to a threshold effect for age) or whether the failure to replicate will continue to stand. Longitudinal results from the Eron et al. (1971) study are replicated in the present data. For both boys and girls, aggression during childhood is linked to aggression as an adult. For fathers, childhood aggression is linked to the aggression.of their preschool-aged sons at.a level of signifi- cance (p g .01) similar to that linking measures of their own aggression over time (p 5 .01 for the link from parental defiance to nonfamilial adolescent aggression, and p g .001 for the subsequent link from nonfamilial adolescent aggression to lifetime antisociality). A similar effect was not present for mothers and sons. 2) Archival data from the Berkeley Guidance Study (MacFarlane, 1938) have been utilized in longitudinal research utilizing life course analysis to explore concomitants in individual and family development over time (Elder, 1974; Elder, Caspi, & Downey, 1986). Data on the first generation (grandparents) were obtained in much the same manner as that of the present study, through retrospective accounts of their 140 adult children. Relationships were considered between three domains within this first generation: personality, marriage, and parenting. A central measure was instability, a behavior- al disposition indexed by averaging scores on two recall ratings, irritability and nervous stability. For both maternal and paternal grandparents, instability was a factor in.marital tension and conflicts. Unstable grandparents were also less likely to be affectionate with their children and more hostile in their parental attitudes. Grandfathers, but not grandmothers, were more assertive of authority. Hypotheses regarding the effects of unstable parents and family environments were explored among the second generation. Ratings representing an average of interviewer's and home observer's judgments were utilized to determine variables descriptive of personality, marriage, and parenting among the second generation parents. Extreme and arbitrary parenting was related to conflicted marriages and discipline conflicts. Unstable fathers and mothers were likely to use extreme and arbitrary discipline with their child. The researchers hypothesized that the pattern of unstable interpersonal interactions experienced, and learned. by ‘these adults as children was implicated in the transmission of trouble. To test the hypothesis that these parents would subse- quently create a conflict-ridden environment which would lead to problem behavior among their (children, the researchers identified two behavior patterns traditionally associated with 141 troubled outcomes, "difficult child" and "temper tantrum". Measures of these patterns were available for two time periods, when children in the third generation were five to seven and eight to ten years old, respectively. Relation- ships were explored between these child characteristics and parent variables of personal instability, marital tension, and punitive parenting. The Great Depression occurred shortly after the birth of these children and was considered an exogenous variable in the research. It was anticipated that economic deprivation would increase problems in the home largely through the fathers’ behavior. Data analyses support- ed the influence of financial hardship on irritable/explosive behavior in the fathers. This behavior also contributed to marital discord, arbitrary discipline, and ultimately to defiant, out-of—control child behavior. Research following these third generation children over the ensuing 20 years has found a continuity of aggressive behavior for both girls and boys (Elder, Caspi, and Downey, 1986; Caspi, Elder, & Bem, 1987). Men rated high on temper outbursts at ages 8 to 10 exhibited an undercontrolled behavioral style at age 30. Women who obtained high scores on "difficult child" and "temper tantrums" became undercontrolled adults. Men who were explosive as children also tended to have downward occupational mobility, erratic work lives, and conflictual marriages. Women who were explosive children tended to :marry' men ‘with a lower socioeconomic status, 142 experience marital conflict, and become ill-tempered mothers. Patterns across generations were consistent with the hypoth- eses that ‘transmission. of ‘troubled. outcomes occurred in interaction between the individual and the family, and took place largely through what the children learned about inter- personal communication within the context of an unstable, conflict-ridden environment. There are many convergences between the data of the present study and the Berkeley Guidance Study. The present study does not contain a variable comparable to "instability". Volatility can be assumed, however, from measures of marital aggression and aggressive child discipline. The data do converge around the finding of a relationship between these two variables in both the grandparental and parental genera- tions. Within the parent generation of the present research, other convergences appear. Marital discord and aggressive child.discipline are again.related. INo link was found.between lower SES and higher aggressivity in the present study. It is likely that the direct effect of lower SES was more dramatic among the men of the Great Depression due to their significant drop (30 percent or greater) in income. Among the men of the present study, a decline in SE8, where it occurred, was more gradual. It is interesting to note, however, that the down- ward occupational mobility among men who were explosive as children, and the tendency for explosive girls to grow up to marry men with a lower socioeconomic status, are consistent 143 with the data of the present study. Also consistent is the continuity of aggressive behavior among both men and women. The Berkeley Guidance Study follows the life course of what is now four generations within the same families. Data for the grandparental generation is similar to that in the present study, involving retrospective accounts of adult children. Much of the parental data in the present study, however, is also retrospective and analyses largely represent retrospective prediction of aggressivity from childhood to adolescence to adulthood within the life experience of the individual. To the extent that the present data replicate data collected longitudinally, the credibility of these par- ents’ reports of their own histories and the relationships discovered in the analyses of them are supported. Li mi tggi ons and strengths of the present study: The limitations of the present study were iterated at the begin- ning of this chapter. Briefly, they lie in the nature of the data (retrospective, self-report, and parent-report) and the nature of the population (all of the men in thejpresent.parent generation are alcoholic). Alcoholism is present in less than half of the women in the present parent generation, and no data were available regarding alcohol involvement among the grandparents. Additionally, the preschool-aged children in the current child generation are all boys, precluding explora- tion of parallel findings across generations among girls. Grandparent data is combined for grandmothers and grandfa- 144 thers, limiting parallel exploration between grandparent and parent variables. Finally, aggressive behavior is explored at several.points in developmental time among the parents and the children. While these developmental phases may in a crude way be regarded as replications, they are in many respects not parallel. There are, nonetheless, consistent patterns within the data of the present study, both across generations and over populations defined by gender and by psychopathology. The broader range of aggressive behaviors inherent in the alco- holic nature of the population provides richer data regarding marital disharmony and parental aggression than is present in a number of other studies. Given the convergent findings noted for the present study, this rich variation is perhaps best viewed as a strength rather than as a limitation. Although the data were collected at a single point in time, they represent a multidimensional, cross-generational view of aggression within the context of the family. The wealth of the data lies in their ability to begin to capture events taking place over three generations. Convergences with the existing literature - both cross-sectional and longitudi- nal - are striking, speaking to similarities in aggressive patterns across populations and developmental periods, and extending existing knowledge in both areas. They also speak to the potential of the larger longitudinal study, of which 145 this data is a part, to add breadth, depth, and richness to the existing body of knowledge on aggression. Qipgcpions fog future pesearch: The present study was proposed as the first step in building a multidimensional model, beginning at preschool age, that would specify the probability of aggressive behavior given the presence of certain conditions or events. The rich, multi-generational nature of the data set has made it possible to examine corre- spondences in aggressive behaviors over a wide range of develOpmental periods within the same set of families, thereby extending what we know about aggressive behavior to the preschool period and adding to what we know about aggressivity across the life span. A comprehensive model of aggressive behavior will require researchers to expand the current arena of exploration to include additional variables at all levels of influence» These ‘would include temperament (at. the biological level), ego control (at the psychological level), and parental warmth (at the social/familial level). Specific questions requiring future research have been raised in the course of this discussion. In each case, explo- ration requires longitudinal study. Where these research questions relate to boys, exploration can be pursued within the context of the longitudinal study currently in process. For example, the data suggest that fathers' retrospective ac- counts of childhood troubles may be affected by denial. This hypothesis can be explored as the children in this study 146 become adults. The data also point to a need to more closely follow the developmental paths of the girls in aggressive families. While boys are traditionally identified as more "at risk" in terms of overt behavioral consequences of aggression, the present data suggest that an aggressive heritage poses behavioral risks for girls as well. Additionally, the data suggest that girls raised in aggressive homes tend to find partners with familiar styles of interacting and recreate families much like those in which they grew up. This pattern among the girls may ultimately contribute to aggression in their sons and similar patterns among their daughters. Finally, if early aggression is the most powerful predictor of later aggression in both boys and girls, the optimal window for intervention would appear to be during'pre- school age. Research documenting intervention modalities and outcome is critical to the intervention process. The Michigan State University Multiple Outreach Program (Zucker, Maguin, Noll, Fitzgerald, & Klinger, 1990; Zucker & Noll, 1987) has been examining the results of intervention with this popula- tion utilizing a social learning model based on the work of Patterson (1982). Results of this examination will add.to our knowledge in this area. Similar research must be undertaken on intervention with girls in populations at risk for aggres- sion. 147 The Heritage of Agggession: The price of the heritage. .Although it is clear from the strength of the relationships in the present research that aggressive behavior is often a discontinuous phenomenon, it is also clear that an aggressive heritage carries high risks and sometimes somber consequences for the individual. These risks are apparently present at an early age. Aggressive interactions within the home heighten the likelihood that boys will experience aggressive relationships at home and in the outsidewworld, as well as problems resulting from alcohol use, and that they will transmit a similar heritage to their children. In like manner, the heritage of aggression increas- es the likelihood of aggressive behavior and troubled rela- ‘tionships for girls. For women as well as for men, aggression may lead to alcohol-related problems, and ultimately to an increased risk in their children for aggression. For both, it may also lead to a lower standard of living, and increasingly fewer life choices. The downward path. Although every child who is raised with aggression does not become aggressive, he or she is exposed to a number of powerful forces within the individual, the family, and the broader environment, which place them at riskg 'This research suggests that individual factors such as lower intellectual functioning may increase the likelihood of aggressive behavior. Other factors may include temperament, impulsivity, and activity level. Cognition may also play a 148 role. Noll (1983) found that children in alcoholic families had developed cognitive structures regarding alcoholic beverages that are significantly different than children from nonalcoholic families. One could expect that children in aggressive families may develop cognitive structures about aggression that differ considerably from children in nonag- gressive households. It has been suggested that intergene- rational transmission of harsh parenting may be the result of "repeated exposure to aggressive parenting (that) provides individuals with a model of the parent role that they use with their own children in a reflexive way, with little awareness of alternatives or concern with rationalization" (Simons, Whitbeck, Conger, & Chyi-in, 1991, pp. 168). This argument would support the function of both cognition and family interaction as transmitters of aggression. Within the family, the child’s actions are increasingly influenced and shaped by the response repertoire of other family members, the strength of reinforcement for aggressiv- ity, and an evolving process of coercion (see Patterson, 1982). Unless interrupted, this process can serve tijerpetu- ate aggressive interactions. Researchers have found that contextual factors also exert an influence that may lead to increased risk for aggressive behavior. Although no direct relationship was found in the present research between lower SES and higher levels of aggressivity, the downward drift in SES among the alcoholic 149 families suggests an indirect effect. For men, the effect of limited ability to provide for their family is often seen in decreased self-concept, increased irritability, and increased risk for aggression (Elder, Caspi, & Downey, 1986). For some of the women in our research, it is possible that economic misfortune may have had an unexpected enhancing effect, insofar as the employment/social status they obtained as adults (presumedly in an attempt to counterbalance the downward drift of their husbands) was comparatively higher than was the socioeconomic status of their mothers. For the children, family struggles with basic needs limit the physical and emotional availability of important people in their lives and the quality of time spent with them. Lesser availability of resources also decreases the likelihood that their home environment. will enrich. and enhance 'their cognitive .and emotional development. Whatever the source of influence, the child is placed at increased risk for maladaptive behavior. Caspi, Elder, & Bem (1987) have described.a process whereby maladaptive behaviors are maintained over time by virtue of their own cumulative effect and.the reciprocal responses of others. 'The cumulative effect of aggression and sequelae such as school failure and limited opportunity for employment is likely to lead in- creasingly to the selection of the individual into environ- ments that maintain the behavior. By age two and a half, aggressive boys in a normal population can be identified as 150 members of a subgroup wherein they are both aggressor and victim (Szegal, 1985) . The power of this environmental selection effect in adulthood was seen during the process of recruiting control families for the present research. Re- cruitment of control families from the same neighborhoods as high-risk families resulted in an increased likelihood that potential controls would exhibit many of the same behaviors, and specifically problems with alcohol, as the high—risk fami- lies (Zucker, Noll, Fitzgerald, Pallas, & Refior, 1991) . Once caught within it's web, the process of environmental selection increasingly limits the options of many aggressive men, women, and children regarding how they will live their lives. For all, models of alternate behaviors are few. Men are likely to have fewer opportunities to halt or reverse economic drift. Women will be less likely to develop relationships with socioeconomically stable partners and more likely to marry "below their station" (Caspi, Elder, & Bem, 1987) . And chil- dren will have fewer opportunities to experience conditions that might facilitate their cognitive and emotional growth and development. Alternate poads. The roads leading into and maintaining a life affected by an aggressive heritage are often easier to identify than those leading in other directions, or represent- ing a more discontinuous, optimistic developmental path. This is due in part to the retrospective nature of studies of persons already identified as troubled. Longitudinal research 151 is the only realistic means of identifying factors within a given population that lead to positive outcomes as well as negative ones, and such comprehensive longitudinal research is rare. IRutter (1985) has.described.protective factors that may alter negative outcomes by virtue of modifying responses to potential hazards. These may be experiences or personal characteristics such as temperament or gender. He also points to the "additive interaction" of events that. place the individual at risk through the co-existence of other factors of risk or vulnerability based on developmental stage and/or timing; 'The aggressive individual is already "at.risk" and is therefore more susceptive to additive interaction effects, such as lower intelligence, economic disadvantage, or the abuse of alcohol. These effects in turn make it less likely that he or she will encounter moderators, such as secure, sup- portive relations, that might insulate them from negative outcomes. A note of caution. The dilemma for the individual "at risk" is therefore thezdecreased likelihood.- imposed.by their membership in a high-risk population - that mitigating factors will occur. For some aggressive children or adults, the actions that place them at risk also distance them from persons and resources in the larger environment that might alter their outcome. The apparent progression of aggressive events detailed in this research suggests the operation of a process within which the downward drift over time may become 152 less random, the risk more continuous, and the path more clearly defined and unalterable. At the same time, it is important to note that factors contributing to decreased risk are not always the obverse of those contributing to risk potentiation. Given that the present study was focused very heavily upon patterns of continuity, it at this point cannot speak to what the operation of protective factors may be. Other analyses in the parent study (e.g. Moses, in prepara- tion) in process will be able to address this question more effectively. For the moment, we simply note that what has been described here is one side of the coin. It behooves us all to turn the coin over, and fully describe its other side as well. SUMMARY AN D CONCLUSIONS The study of aggressive linkages among grandparents, parents, and preschool children in young alcoholic families who are participants in the Michigan State University Longi- tudinal Study has provided an opportunity to examine factors related to the continuity and transmission of aggression. Aggression-specific variables examined in the grandparental generation were marital aggression and aggressive child disci- pline. In the parent generation, aggressivity measures were marital aggression, aggressive child discipline, and indi- vidual measures of aggression, including parental defiance, nonfamilial adolescent aggression, lifetime antisoc-iality, and lifetime alcohol problems. Exogenous variables were soci- oeconomic status and intellectual functioning. Limitations inherent in the data set included the nature of the data (the use of self-report data, retrospective assessments of earlier historical events, and parent-report of child behaviorsfi and the nature of the population. That is, all of the men in the current parent generation were alcohol- ic; the women in the parent generation were not so restricted, although they all were married to alcoholic men. Using a path-analytic strategy and utilizing wave one data, the present study observed continuity in aggressive 153 154 behavior over time for both men and women, and across situa- tions among both the grandparental and parental generations. In both generations, marital aggression was linked to aggres- sive discipline. In the grandparental-to-parental generation, marital aggression was directly linked to defiant behavior toward parents in girls. In the present parent-to-child generation, marital conflict was linked to more aggressive discipline of the child. The data also support a relationship between aggressive discipline and aggressivity in boys, although at different points in developmental time, for these alcoholic fathers and for their sons. For mothers in these alcoholic families, aggressive discipline by their parents was related to less aggression during their own adolescence. A direct linknwas.alsolobserved.between fathers’ defiance toward their parents during childhood and aggressivity in their preschool-aged sons. Inverse relationships were anticipated between both SES and aggression, and IQ and aggression. Additionally, it was anticipated that SES would be indirectly linked (in an inverse manner) to aggression through its relationship to IQ. N 0 relationship ‘was found. between. IQ and aggression. during preschool age. A trend was found in the anticipated direction between fathers’ IQ and both their own adolescent aggression and their aggressive family discipline practices toward their preschool-age sons. Higher SES was linked to higher IQ among both parents and children. No relationship was found between 155 lower SES and greater aggressivity. In the grandparental-to- parental generation, higher SES was related to greater parental defiance in both mothers and fathers. Downward mobility, as indexed by SES, was found among these alcoholic men and their wives. Finally, although no specific hypotheses were posited regarding the relationship of alcohol problems and aggression, aggressive behaviors in early life was linked to alcohol problems in both men and women. For fathers, problems with alcohol were linked to marital aggression. For mothers, alcohol problems were linked both to aggressive family discipline and to aggression in their sons. The results of this study were discussed within the context of the existing literature, and within the special context of two longitudinal studies of aggression (i.e., Eron et al., 1971, and Elder, 1974) in particular. Convergences with the existing literature were striking. Conver-gences with the longitudinal studies were of particular interest given the retrospective nature of the present data. To the extent that the present data replicated the longitudinal findings, support was provided for the credibility of the parents’ reports of their own histories, and of the rela- tionships discovered in the analyses of these reports. Within the present study, consistent patterns were observed, both across generations and among mothers and fa- thers. Although the data in the present study were collected at a single point in time, they represent a multidimensional, 156 cross-generational view of aggression within the context of the family. The wealth of the data lies in its ability to begin to capture events taking place over three generations. In their broadest sense, the findings indicate that the grandparents' marriage, during the middle childhood and adolescence of the present-day parents, predicts retrospec- tively to these parents' adolescence, adulthood, and marriage. The present study was proposed as the first step in building a multidimensional model, beginning in the preschool years, that would specify the probability of aggressive behavior given the presence of certain conditions or events. Future research should explore other variables, at all levels of influence, that may add to this model. The present research suggests other questions to be pursued within the context of the larger longitudinal study. The data also point to a need to more closely follow the developmental paths of the girls in aggressive families. ‘This need is seen not only as it relates to understanding the overt behavioral consequences of aggres- sion for many of these girls, but because it is likely that these girls will recreate the families of their childhood.and, in so doing, continue the transmission of aggression to their children. APPENDICES APPENDIX A Antisocial Behavior Checklist "NCMZ KFMN>H MMIHHN'JO‘O 157 glCHlCAN STATE UNIVERSITY Depart-ent of Psychology East Lansing. HI 48824 Many of us have had adventures during our lives.. tises that were exciting and parefree, even though they eay have been a hit impulsive or happy-go- lucky. Please read each of the following itess. Indicate (with a check) if you have ever done any of the following activities and how often. 'NEVER — you have never done this RARELY - once or twice in your life SOMETIMES - three (3) to nine (9) tines in your.life OFTEN - sore than ten (10) tines in your life PR8 PTl PTZ 9T3 Post 0 r z: I a 5.. .. " 3:5..-5 “008.0 5535-333 l. Shipped school without a legitisate excuse for sore than 5 days in one pphool year. 2. Been suspended or expelled from school for fighting. 3. Been suspended or egpelled free school for reasons other than fighting. 4. Lied to a teacher or principal. 5. Cures! at a teacher oriprincipal (to their face)? 6. Hit a teacher or principgl. 7. Repeated a grade in school. 8. Taken part in a gang fight. 9. ”Beaten up” another person. . j 0" ‘1' l0. Broken street lights. car windows. or car antennaes just for the fun of it. 11. Gone for a ride in a car soseone else stole. 12. Teased or killed an anieal (like a dog or catiijuat for the fun of it. 13. Defied your parent's authority (to their fpse). 1 of 3 ”MC”: "I‘MN>” Mlflilrdrih:::cum IMO-8'10 158 O ' NEVER - you have never done this RARELY - done only once or twice in your life SOMETIMES - done three (3) to nine (9) tines in your life OFTEN - done noru than ten (10) tines in your life 14. Hit your parents. 15. Cursed at your parents (to their face). l6. Stayed out overnight without yap; parent's pernidsion. 17. Run away from hope for nore thpp 24 hours. ~18. Li toiygp£_parenta. r 19. Snatched a wonan's purse. 20. Rolled drunks just for the fun of it. 21. Sppplifted merchandise valued over $25. 22. Shoplifted nercpppdise valued under $25. #- 23. Received a speedipg ticket. 24. Been guestioned by tpe pplice. 25. Iafipnipart in a robbery. 26. Taken pprt in a robbegy involving physical force or a weappp. 27. Beg: arre_sted for a felopy. 28. Resisted arrggt. 29. Been arrested for any other nontraffic police offenses (except fighting or a felony). 30. Been convicted of any nontraffic police offgppe. 31. Defaulted on a debt. 32. Passed bad checks for the fun of it. 33. Ever used an alias? 34. Gone AWOL fron the military. 35. ‘Received a bad conduct or indesirable discharge fron the nilitary. 2 of 3 NMw “MIHHMIOM ZNH‘IO 159 NEVER - you have never done this RARELY - done only once or twice in your life SOMETIMES - done three (3) to nine (9) times in your life OFTEN I done lore than ten (10) tiles in your life 36. Perforned sexual acts for soney. 37. Engaged in homosexual act . 1...- 38. Had intercourse with sore than one person in a siggle day. 39. "Fooled aroun " with other women/nen afteriyou were married. 40. Hit yougypusband/wife during an argunent. 41. Lied to your spouse. 42. Spent.six nonths witpgut any job oripernsngpt hone. 43. Been fired for Egcessive absenteeism. 44. Beep fired for poorijobqperfornance exce t absenteeise). 45. Changed jobs nore thppyJ tines in one year. 46. Lied to your boss. Thank you very such for your cooperation. 3 of 3 APPENDIX B Child Behavior Rating Scale 160 Michigan State University Family Study (101) East Lansing, MI 1/17/87 CHILD BEHAVIOR RATING SCALE-PRESCHOOL VERSION Part A* Respondent's number: Resp: Mom Dad Today's date: Initial PTI PT2 PT3 Final Initials of staff Eval. Eval. member Instructions: We are interested in finding out more about children's behavior at home and how parents feel about these behaviors. For this questionnaire please answer for your child Please read each item (each one describes a single behavior) and then determine how often does this behavior. If he never does it, then circle 1. If he does it always, then circle 7. If your answer is in between these scores, circle the number that fits best. If there are any items that do not apply (such as questions about brothers or sisters and your child does not have siblings) then circle "NA" for "not applicable". Sometimes Never Often Always} . Looks at you when you are talking »4 e4 n) n) to co .5 .5 01 01 O) O) \J \J §§ no h. . Listens to you (minding) 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 NA 3. Answers in a positive tone of voice 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA 4. Asks in nice, polite tone of voice 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 NA 5. Takes turns talking I 2 3 4 S 6 7 NA 6. Holds hands 161 CBRS-Preschool Ver510n page 2 of 9 0') G) e .H U“) L: u C >~ (D 0) 0) m > e u 3 o O ‘H r—i Z U) O 4 H N to A 01 05 \l NA 7. Hugs and kisses 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 NA 8. Sits on lap 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 NA 9. Says ”I love (like) you" to you (parent) with sincerity 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 NA 10. Shows affection spontaneously, without be forced and not for a reward 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 NA 11. Makes and gives pictures, things for you 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA 12. Says please and thank you I '2— 3 4 5 6 7 NA 13. Waits to talk toyou when you're on the phone 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 NA 14. Comforts (sympathizes with) brothers or sisters if they're upset 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 NA 15. Shares toys with brothers or V sisters or friends 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 NA 16. Leaves brothers'lsister's toys and room alone unless he has permission 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA 17. Plays by himself when you are busy. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA 18. Plays and interacts well with friends/brothers/sisters 162 CBRS-Preschool VerSIon page 3 of 9 U) (1) e .H (n L: J.) C >4 0) (D (D (O .'> E U 3 O) O )H H Z U) 0 <1: 19. When playing: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA 3. plays by self 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA b. plays with others 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA c. plays outside more 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 NA d. plays active games 1 3 S 6 7 NA e. plays quiet/creative games 1 3 4 S 6 7 NA f. plays realistic games/role playing 1 2 '3 4 S 6 7 NA 9. playsfantasy games/role playing 20. When angry, mad, frustrated: I 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA a. says why mad without hurting something/someone (uses words) 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 NA b. goes to room and lets emotions out 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 NA c. releases emotions without hurting anyone/anything (hits pillow, kicks ball, etc.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA d. talks out feelings, concerns worries (after calming down) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA 21. Sits and watches T.V. without chattering, getting up 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 NA 22. Sits and watches T.V. and inter- acts with others in the room 163 CBRS-Preschool Version Sometimes Never Often Always 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA 23. 24. 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 NA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 NA 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 NA 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 NA 25. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA 26. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA 27. 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 NA 28. 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 NA 29. 1 2 3 4 5 6 NA 30. 1 2 4 5 6 7 NA 31. page 4 of 9 Is content to play/spend time entertaining self (half hour or more) When being bothered by friends or brothers or sisters (teased, hit, pushed) does he: a. look away, doesn’t answer (ignores them) b. ask an adult for help c. leave and go somewhere else d. use words to work things out Takes time, thinks about it before acting/reacting Tells problem/concern to the person involved in conflict (you, brother, friend...) eats meals by himself brushes teeth by himself is ready to go on time picks up clothes and puts away cleans up own messes 164 CBRS-Preschool Version page S of 9 U) (D E .,... U) L: u C >- (I) CD (D r0 > E U 3 (D O ‘H H Z U) 0 <1: 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 NA 32. washes hands and face 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 NA 33. does chores (assigned tasks) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA 34. turns out lights 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 NA 35. flushes toilet 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 NA 36. is in bed on time and stays in bed 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 NA 37. cleans up just for the sake of keeping order, not for money or other reward Now look over the items you just completed and list the 6 behaviors ygg would most like increased. Please rank them in order, with 1 being the most important, 2 being the next most important, and so on down to #6. You can list by behavior number if you want. 1. 2. 9‘ 9‘ f“ 165 CBRS-Preschool Version page 6 of 9 Undesirable Behavior Checklist For this next list of behaviors, again decide how often your child does each behavior and circle the appropriate number. (0 G) e -o-i 0) L4 u c: >1 0) (D (D (O > e .u 3 a) O ‘H H 2 U) 0 <2 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 NA 38. Ignore you when asked questions or given a direction 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 NA 39. Talks back, sasses when asked question or given a direction 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 NA 40. Talks in a loud voice 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA 41. Talks about irrelevant, unreal— istic topics 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 NA 42. Interrupts 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 NA 43. Asks friends/5isters/brothers, questions not you 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA 44. Only gives physical affection when required to or rewarded 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 NA 45. Pushes away or complains when you initiate touch 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 NA 46. Is embarrassed to touch/hug in front of others. 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 NA 47. Bugs parent when talking on phone or to company 166 CBRS-Preschool VerSIOn page 7 of 9 (D (D e .,.4 U) L: 4.) C >4 0) CD (I) (O > e u 3 o o 44 ~+ Z U) 0 <1? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA 48. Ignores request for help from you or brothers/sisters 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA 49. Only gives presents or makes things for you when told or rewarded 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA 50. Takes things for granted (just expects you to go out of your way for him) 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 NA 51. Nags you to play with him 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 NA 52. Plays with things not supposed to play with (lamp cords, water) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA 53. Gets into things of parents/ to play with (lamp cords, water) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA 54. Gets into things of parents or sisters or brothers that don't belong to him 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 NA 55. Argues or fights with brothers, sisters, friends - , 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 NA 56. Pushes, hits if doesn't get way 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 NA 57. Is loner, isolates self, plays by self 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 NA 58. Is restless, can't sit still (in car, watching T.V.) 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 NA 59. Acts, reacts without thinking 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 NA 60. Constantly bugging you to solve every little problem 167 CBRS-Preschool VerSIOn page 8 of 9 U) (D e 'v-i (n LI 1.! C: >4 0) (1) CD (0 > E I.) 3 (D O u—J v—l Z 'J) O 4 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 NA 61. Whines, cries 62. When angry, mad, frustrated: 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 NA a. has temper tantrums, yells, cries, screams, jumps up and down 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA b. destroys pr0perty (tears books, breaks toys, throws things) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA c. hurts others (pushes, kicks, hits) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA d. stays mad for a long time 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 NA 63. Keeps problems to self 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 NA 64. Takes too much time getting ready (for school, bed, going out) 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 NA 65. Leaves toys, clothes out 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA 66. Complains that ‘is bored' and doesn't find something to do 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 NA 67. Gets up or asks to get up once in bed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA 68. Night wetting or soiling 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 NA 69. Day wetting or soiling 168 CBRS-Preschool Version page 9 of 9 Again, please list 6 behaviors from the above (negative) list of items 38-67 that you would most want decreased or qotten rid pf. Please rank in order with 1 Being the most important, 2 being the next most important, and so on down to #6. You can list by behavior number if you want. 1. 9’ E" 5* F” 9° Number of pages of part 8 attached. Please staple Parts A and 8 together. * Adopted from Hy Hops, Oregon Research Institute, 3/20/85 [behavior.mss] APPENDIX C Conflict Tactics Scale - Revised 169 2450- C‘I(2/87)-1 TO I WED FWIB 018 mm 289- p. 56 la) la raisins child-en, all of than are tronblnsnn sun of the ties. At these tlans, mats and Chilton i sortians ass 9“flornnt ways at trying to settle thou diiinrnncns. l a going to rnad a ist at so: things that (than done Isiah you ad a dispst n or dung-ones“. ath can. I want to astm about I)! .sI . Tnllar hen heI Ofldhl W rahnn m had a disarsnannt withi , MI W Wig". talW r h) dot lam-nation to bat! up his side at things. 0 isn’t in or trind to bring in sunrise to help snttln things. 4.: d) lnssltad or sssrn at m. g M S: s) Salted and/er rnfnsnd to tal! ahast it. 13 E g .. 0 sum ast oi the m- sr humor ms). 31 u an ‘ 3‘. E 3: n O) O‘Ne g: as no 6 o o u . 8.: U I) g 1033 I) bid or said scathing to spite us. i) W to hit Ir thrill scathing at VIII. J) Thrns sr nanhnd nr hlt sr titted scathing, W. t) may; thus s-thlng m. I) Pushed, rahhnd, '- shdnd my slapped 7', hit ran, c sputnd us. I) lisndahnltsnrss. a) Kid“ 7'. DH yes, or heat M Q. o) Throatnnsd to, a astsallr sssd a knife or p a ran. (lal- It never to ll is an, ant if It m; deterred. If it did, cits annnr a; gm snar 1a). m Em. an. or mum «II-"d to is. null! 18) lb nang was t l the m ha sand this aaannr tn ssttlo things? (H ‘fi I-(aassnrnd to tal, ast it; lb and to as! t: if starred firing pa ast year). it) old was( )ths W hn nsnd this annnar tn sattln things? Ell: % irnfigg; «r; to; - nan Wynn Mus. asathlruh/nar). Approx. sully (SOs/nan; ”pros. dallr(350slnar). page 1 of 8 170 2a) Un’vo mint taltod utbout tho ways your child is with you whon‘ tho two at you hauo had a dispstoor 910”? No Is asty about in: II“ pg; "‘0! “a tyou do wring thoso tints. l I going to road alist oi sun things that m aigt htvo mg. For oach out, I would llto you to toll an hInI oiton in tho past you m gid Shis wigh me—v'i -° glut—"nim— (“'2’ 25.4231 Hui fitgn? a) Discussnd tho issuo calaly. b) Got into-nation to hart up your sins of things. rought in or tried to bring in suomo to help sottlo things. '9 v a. v Insult-d or snort at your child. Sultod and/or refund to talt about it. C v e v Stmod out of tho race or housoior yard). g) Criod. bid or and “nothing to spits your child. 7 v i) Thrggggngg to hit or thru snothing at your child. 1) Throw or hashod or hit or tictod sasthing, mm)“. D 83.11111 "If“ WWW We ' 2d) kuiuus? _ l) Pushud, rubbod, or shovod your child; slappod, hit, or sptntod your child. 2d) buisos? _ a) ”sad a bolt on your chlld. 2d) kuisos? __ u) Kictod your child, hit your child, or boat up your child. 2d) I-uisos? o) Throatunud to, a actually used a tnifo or pin on your child. 2d) hoists? (Zal- If ansunr to Zn Is 33:3, ast ii gvgr occurrnd, and urito humor as ml; undor 2a). (H Eur, m, or MIMI ans-trod to la. ast 2b)I 21:) lieu young was ( ) tho m it was nocossary to sottlu things this way? (H Em not-rod to m, ast 2c; lb hood to ast 2c ii occurrod daring past your). 2:) lino old was ( hog: rm; 3 “no noho used this etunur to settle things? (For ituan t-n asst-rod m, ast 2d): 2d) Did this activity causu any bruisos? Ucro thoy hard though so that ho had to stay in bod or son a doctor? gal; of ii- rm Mover; OucuI 2-3x/yoar; 3-6x/yotr; Approx. aonthly (le/ytarn Approx. woutly (SOs/your); ”pros. dailytwll/yoar) 171 (CT-3) 2e!) (Ii my iton oi j: anusered as m a 2:, ask the iolliuiing at the end): Let no ask a little nore ahout sun oi the disagree-ents that occurred in the last year. (lutoroieuori List iteus iru i-o). iias any alcohol or any other d-ug used during the uost recent tine that this happened? (it yes, note IdIich type oi incident (i-o))x 2e2) that ass the tug? 2e3) the such did you have? (I oi tints, Joints, pills, or dose leoeis) 254) III- lug was it consaed hoiore m disagree-nut uith ( )7 2o5) that was the nature oi the disagreeuent titer you had (tug)? that did you do? 3a) th- to a diiierent area. WM, do you recall ever heing physically punished or ahusnd by your parents W? (Probe eons ii respondent says punishent uas deserond) 3s) (ii nuestiu fl uns an-Inred as as. as! a»: Si) .7 flu? 32) For that kind oi disareeuent? an) the? that happened? it) the oiten did this occur? (nae scale as questions in h 2a) 333) that was your earliest age at edict this occurred? aw that can your oldest age at which this occurred? 337) litre there any typical circnstancos iur these occasions? (prohe ior alcohol In- other song use) 172 (CT-4) it) o i ’t( ) i l ni , were you eoer sexually abused by sueone in your i-ily, or by a neiubor eu- iriend? (It uses“. 3 as Insured as m, as! th): 4h!) hy eta? 02) hi ? that happened? 4h!) lhui oiten did this occur? one) that uas your earliest age at Iiich this occurred? 4b5) that uas your olast age at Iaich this occurred? ens) tiore there any typical circustauces ior thosn occasions? (prohe iur alcohol or other Ih-ug use) 173 3a) line i would like to as! you a iew questions about your relationship W. First, hint long have you been narried? Did you live together beiore that? es _, _)3 i yes, tor has long? __ tin batter how well a couple gets along, there are tines then they disaree on naior decisions, get annoyed about sc-ething the other person does, or Just haoe spats or iiyits because they are in a bad loud or tired, or ior sue other reason. They also use nany diiierent ways oi trying to settle their dliierences. l I going to read a list oi oi sue things Wniwt have done sites you had a dispute. 1 would like you to tell no, ior each one, hInI oiten W in the past year: ? Whiz—— W2... ' " (CT-5) a) Discussed the issue caluly. - b) Got iniornation to back up (his/her) side oi things. c) bouflt in or tried to bring in sneone to help settle things. d) insulted or were at you. o) Salted and/or reinsed to talk about it. i) Stand out oi the run iu' housetiu- yard). g) Cried. h) bid or said snething to spite you. i) W to hit or thrai snething at you. 1) Throw Iu- .ashod or hit or licked soothing, W. I) m threw snething m. I) Pushed, rubbed, or shoued you; slapped you, hit you. It spanked you. n) iisedabeltonyou. n) Kicked you, hit you, or beat you up. o) Threatened to, or actually used a tniie I! go so you. (Sal- li answer to a is an, ant ii it up; occurred. li it did, eu-ite tower as an under 5a). m Em. ion. or m new"! to a, «I an 5b) ilIuI lug ago was the 1M ( ) nonad to settle things in this banner? (Ii Em answered to Sal, ash 5c: lb need to ash 5c ii occurred bring past year). 5:) iii: long ago was the W ( ) used this uanner to settle things? i Neoer; nice; 2-3s/year; host/year; Approx. uonthlytlzx/yoarn hproa. weekly (SOs/yearlihppros. «Imam/rm). . ~--—.-— ‘- s._..—.. _ O 174 (CT-6) sol) (ii any iteu oi i-o anuered as m on he, as! tho iollaiing at the end): Let ne ask a little sure about sue oi the disareeuents that occurred in the past year). (lsteroieweri List iteus iru i-o). llad your spouse used any alcohol or any other tugs airing the aunt recent tine that this happened? Hi us, note edich typo oi incident(i-o))z 3d2) that was the (bug? 5d?) lb ouch did your spouse cons-e? (I oi tints, Joints, pills, or done leuols) out) lhuI long did your spouse cons-e it beiore the diuresuent? SIB) that was the nature oi the disareenent aitor your spouse had (Mg)? that did your spouse a? (Describe in 0th") 175 a.) u. haoe in: mm about the way your spouse is with you when m M 04 n- have no a dispute or disareeueot. the i want to ast you about W and Idiat you do «hiring these tiwes. Yell us has oiteo in the pm, when you and your spouse had a dispute or disagree-ent, m: mm W mumm— a) Discussed the issue calnly. (CT—7) b) hot inioruation to but up your side oi things. c) Douflt in or tried to bring in sneone to help settle things. d) insulted or snore at your spouse. e) suited and/or reiused to talk about it. i) Stuped out oi the run or housetor yard). g) Died. A h) bid or said suething to spite your spouse. i) W to hit or the. snething at your spouse. .i) Throw a- .ashed or hit or Iicled sonthisg, W. 0 $3111.11 “'0' WWW almana- l) fished, rubbed, or shoued your spouse; Slapped, hit or spanhed your spoon» n) lined a belt on your spouse. n) Kicsed your spouse, hit your spouse, or beat up your spouse. o) Threatened to, or actually used a sniie or no a your spouse. (aal- ii anuer to Q is mg, ass ii it up; occurred. ii it did, suite anweer as m; under as). (1‘ inc. m. or Mm: mom to a, u! it): 6b) the long ago was the My; you needed to settle things in this sensor? (ii in; answered to nal, as! an No need to ash is ii occurred bring past your). 6c) the long ago was the W you used this unsur to settle things? W . Never; ace; 2-3t/yuar; Wynn ~prou. nonthlytlzs/yoarn ”pros. weeth (SOs/year); ”pros. dailytafls/year). 176 (CT-8) 78” (If any iten oi L-g answered as m on g, as! the iollowing at the end): Let us as! a little sure about sue oi the disagree-ents that occurred in the last year. (lnteruiswer: List itens irn i-o). iia i th r during the wost recent tine that this occurred? (N m, note which type oi incident(i-o): 7a?) that was the tug? 7a3) lial such was consned? (I oi tints, joints, pills, or dose leuels) 7nd) line long was it cons-ed beiore the disageeoent with your spouse? 7a5) that was the nature oi the disagreenent titer you had (eh-ug)? that did you do? 8) tion to a diiierent subject. M, were there eoer occasions then your “up“ hi3 “ch 9333;, or threw things at each other or used uiolence with each other? (li answer is Q, were there occasions diere they yelled at each other or oerbally abused each other?) (ii I is answered up, as! M): 9a) For that kind oi disareeuents? 9h) iiIuI oiteo did this occur?(once or twice, uonthly, weekly?) 9:) that was your youngest age den this occurred? 9d) that was the oldest age at ediich this occured? 9e) tiers there typical circ-stances ior these occasions? (probe ior alcohol or other tug use) New l’n going to ask you about your sexual experience. (To 015 p. 63- 0. 21?) APPENDIX D Child Aggression Items 177 Child Aggression Items California Child Q-Set 85. 95. Is aggressive (physically or verbally). Overreacts to minor frustrations; is easily irritated and/or angered. Child Behavior Rating Scale 55. 56. 62. Argues or fights with brothers, sisters, friends. Pushes, hits if doesn't get way. When angry, mad, frustrated: a. has temper tantrums, yells, cries, screams, jumps up and down. b. destroys property (tears books, breaks toys, throws things). c. hurts others (pushes, kicks, hits). Child Behavior Checklist 3. 15. 16. 21. 37. 57. 68. 90. 95. 97. 104. Argues a lot. Cruel to animals. Cruelty, bullying, or meanness to others. Destroys things belonging to his/her family or other children. Gets in many fights. Physically attacks people. Screams a lot. Swearing or obscene language. Temper tantrums or hot temper. Threatens people. Unusually loud. APPENDIX E Parental Aggression Items 178 Parent Aggression Items Antisocial Behavior Inventory 2. 12. 13. 14. 15. 19. 20. 26. 28. 40. Been suspended or expelled from school for fighting. Cursed at a teacher or principal (to their face)? Hit a teacher or principal. Taken part in a gang fight. "Beaten up" another person. Teased or killed an animal (like a dog or cat) just for the fun of it. Defied your parent’s authority (to their face). Hit your parents. Cursed at your parents (to their face). Snatched a woman's purse. Rolled drunks just for the fun of it. Taken part in a robbery involving physical force or a weapon. Resisted arrest. Hit your husband/wife during an argument. California Q-set 38. 94. Has hostility toward others. Expresses hostile feelings directly. Diagnostic Interview Schedule (DIS) 201. 202. 217. 218. Did you ever get into trouble at school for fighting? Before age 18, did you ever get into trouble with the police, your parents, or neighbors because of fighting (other than for fighting at school)? Since age 18, have you been in more than one fight that came to swapping blows (other than fights with your husband/wife/partner)? Have you ever used a weapon, like a stick, knife, or gun, in a fight since you were 18? APPENDIX F Correlation Matrix of Grandparent, Parent, and Child Variables 179 Correlation Matrix of Grandparent, Parent, and Child Variables GPPCA GPMA FYOSES PPD PNAA PLA LAPS GPPCA - .29 .20 .40 -.15 -.02 .09 GPMA .44 - -.11 .46 -.05 .12 .35 FYOSES -.03 -.07 - .25 -.05 .0 -.10 PPD .16 .18 .20 - .41 .31 .60 PNAA .43 .23 -.18 .49 - .39 .29 PLA .22 .09 - .18 .36 .69 - .17 LAPS .17 .18 .09 .48 .57 .47 - PIQ .0 -.14 .33 -.05 -.26 -.21 -.10 AGCHLD .11 .38 -.13 .16 .09 .14 .19 AGMAR .21 .35 -.01 .35 .45 .25 .61 CHILDIQ -.24 -.27 .30 -.25 -.25 -.14 .0 RATCAG .18 .20 -.04 .44 .34 .13 .35 FYSESNOW -.11 -.17 .43 -.15 -.20 -.20 -.10 (continued) 180 Correlation Matrix of Grandparent, Parent, and Child Variables (cont'd) PIQ AGCHLD AGMAR CHILDIQ RATCAG FYSESNOW GPPCA .06 -.05 .07 -.09 .11 .04 GPMA -.11 .30 .35 .01 .13 -.10 FYOSES .35 -.23 .02 .29 -.16 .18 PPD .0 .10 .36 .01 .23 -.16 PNAA -.20 .19 -.10 -.18 .25 -.15 PLA -.09 -.02 -.16 -.08 .03 -.12 LAPS -.08 .37 .18 .14 .40 -.O7 PIQ - -.26 -.02 .38 -.15 .40 AGCHLD -.31 - .41 -.26 .52 -.12 AGMAR -.21 .42 - -.11 .0 -.08 CHILDIQ .40 -.26 -.13 - -.09 .33 RATCAG -.07 .38 .43 -.25 - -.20 FYSESNOW .43 -.12 -.20 .33 -.24 - NOTE: Cbrrelation coefficients above the diagonal are for mothers and below the diagonal are for fathers. All correlations corrected for attenuation. GPPCA=Grandparent to parent-as-child aggression. GPMA=Grandparent marital aggression. SES. PPD=Parent parental defiance. PLA=Parent lifetime antisociality. adolescent aggression. PIQ=Parent IQ. aggression (discipline). the RATCAG=Rating FYSESNOW=Current family SES. parent FYOSES=Family-of-origin PNAA=Parent nonfamilial of AGCHLD=Combined mother-father to child AGMAR=Marital child aggression. aggression. LI ST OF REFERENCES LIST OF REFERENCES (Achenbach, T. (1978). The child behavior profile: I. Boys aged 6-11. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, L, pp, 478-488. Achenbach, T., & Edelbrock, C. (1979). The child behavior profile: II. Boys aged 12-16 and.girls aged 6-11 and 12-16. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 31, 223-233. Achenbach, T., & Edelbrock, C. (1981). Behavioral problems and competencies reported by parents of normal and disturbed children aged four through sixteen. Monographs of the Society for Research on Child Development, pp (No. 188). Asher, H. B. (1976). Causal Modeling. Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, No. 07-003. Beverly Hills and London: Sage Publications. August, G. J., & Stewart, M. A. (1983). Familial subtypes of childhood hyperactivity. The JOurnal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 171(6), 362-368. Baumrind, D. (1978) . Parental disciplinary patterns and social competence in children. Youth & Society, _9_(3) , 239-276. Block, J. (1961). The Q-sort method in personality assessent and psychiatric research. Springfield, Ill: C. C. Thomas. Block, J. H., & Block, J. (1969). The California child Q-set Berkeley, CA: Institute of Human Development, University of California. In mimeo. Block, J., Block, J. H., & Harrington, D. M. (1974). Some misgivings about the matching familiar figures test as a ., measure of reflection-impulsivity. Developmental ) Ps cholo , ;p(5), 611-632. 181 182 Cairns, R. B., Cairns, B. D., Neckerman, H. J., Ferguson, L. L., & Gariepy, J-L. (1989). Growth and aggression: 1. Childhood to early adolescence. Developmental Psychology, ;§(2), 320-330. ,2’? ,7Campbell, s. B., Breaux, A. M., Ewing, L. J., & Szumowski, ‘* E. K. (1986). Correlates and predictors of hyperactivity and aggression: A longitudinal study of parent-referred ,- problem preschoolers. Journa of Abnormal Child in Ps cholo , ;1(2), 217-234. Cantwell, D. P. (1972). Psychiatric illness in families of hyperactive children. .Archives of General Ps chiatr , g1, 414-417. Cantwell, D. P. (1978). Hyperactivity and antisocial behavior. Journal of the American .Academv of Child Ps chiatr , L1, 252-262. Caspi, A., Elder, G. H., Jr., & Ben, D. J. (1987). Moving against the world: Life-course patterns of explosive children. Developmental Psychology, 23(2), 308-313. //Cummings, E. M., Iannotti, R. J., & Zahn-Waxler, C. (1985). ’ Influence of conflict between adults on the emotions and aggression of young children. Develo mental Ps cholo , ;;(3), 495-507. Edelbrock, C., & .Achenbach, it. (August, 1978). Child behavio; profile patterns of children referred for clinical services. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the American Psychological Association, Toronto, Canada. (Available from T. Achenbach, Laboratory of Developmental Psychology, Building 15K, National Institute of Mental Health, 9000 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20012). Edelbrock, C., & Achenbach, T. (1980). A typology of child behavior profile patterns: Distribution and correlates for disturbed children aged 6-16. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, p, 441-447. Elder, G. H., Jr., Caspi, A., & Downey, G. (1986). Problem behavior and family relationships: Life course and intergenerational themes. In Sorensen, A., Weinert, F., & Sherrod, L. (Eds.), Human Development: Multidisciplinary ' Perspectives. Hillsdale, N.J.: Elbaum. i/Elder, G. H., Jr., Liker, J. K., & Cross, C. E. (1984). k“- Parent-child behavior in the Great Depression: Life course and intergenerational influences. In P. B. Baltes & O. G. Brim, Jr. (Eds.), Life-s an Develo ment and Beha 'o , (Vol. New York: Academic Press. 183 Emmerich, w. (1966). Continuity and stability in early social development: II. Teacher ratings. Child Development, g1, 17-27. Eron, L. D. (1987). The development of aggressive behavior from the perspective of a developing behaviorism. American Psychologist, g;(5), 435-442. Eron, L. D., Huesmann, L. R., & Zelli, A. (August, 1988). The role of parental variables in the learning of aggression. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association, Atlanta, GA. Eron, L. D., Walder, L. 0., & Lefkowitz, M. M. (1971). Learning of aggression in children. Boston: Little, Brown and Company. toddler children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, ;;(3), 385-396. (gfagot, B. I. (1984). The consequents of problem behavior in Farrington, D. P. (1978). The family backgrounds of aggressive youths. In L. A. Hersov, M. Berger, & D. Shaffer (Eds.), Aggression and anti-social behaviour in childhood and adolescence (pp. 73-93). New York: Pergamon Press. Feighner, J., Robins, L., Guze, S., Woodruff, R., Winokur, G., & Munoz, R. (1972). Diagnostic criteria for use in psychiatric research. Archives of General Ps chiatr , pp, 381-389. Fitzgerald, H. E., Sullivan, L. A., Ham, H. P., Zucker, R. A., Bruckel, S., & Schneider, A. M. (1991). Predictors of behavioral problems in three-year-old sons of alcoholics: Early evidence for the onset of risk. Under review. Gerbing, D. W., & Hunter, J. E. (1988). ITAN: A statistical package for item analysis with correlational data including multiple groups confirmatory factor analysis. 'Unpublished manuscript, Portland State University, Portland, Maine. Hirschi, T., & Hindelang, M. J. (1977). Intelligence and delinquency: A revisionist review. American Sociological Review, 5;, 571-587. Huesmann, L. R., Eron, L. D., Lefkowitz, M. M., & Walder, L. O. (1984). Stability of aggression over time and generations. Develo mental Ps cholo , ;Q(6), 1120-1134. 184 Huesmann, L. R., Eron, L. D., & Yarmel, P. W. (1987). Intellectual functioning and aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, §;(1), 232-240. Hunter, J. E. (1983). Sampling error and path analysis. Unpublished. manuscript, Michigan State University, E. Lansing, MI. Hunter, J. E., Cohen, S. H., & Nicol, T. S. (1987). PACKAGE: A system of routines to do correlational analysis, including path analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, and exploratory factor analysis. Unpublished. manuscript, Michigan State University, E. Lansing, MI. Hunter, J. E., & Gerbing, D. W. (1982). Unidimensional measurement, second. order' factor' analysis, and. causal models. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, 5 (pp. 267-320). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, Inc. Jacob, T., Favorini, A., Meisel, S. S., & Anderson, C. M. (1978). The alcoholics’ spouse, children, and family interactions: Substantive and methodological issues. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 32, 1231-1251. Jaffe, J. H., Babor, T. F., & Fishbein, D. H. (1988). Alcoholics, aggression and antisocial personality. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, g2(3), 211-218. Jersild, A. T., & Markey, F. V. (1935). Conflicts between preschool children . New York City: Teachers College , Columbia University. / Kagan, J.,n & Moss, H. O. (1962). Birth to maturity: A stud s cholo ical develo ment. New York: John Wiley \V/H?// & Sons, nInc. Kandel, B., Mednick, S. A., Kirkegaard-Sorensen, L., Hutchings, B., Knop, J., Rosenberg, R., & Schulsinger, F. (1988). IQ as a protective factor for subjects at high risk for antisocial behavior. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, §§(2), 224-226. Kligman, D. H., Szmuilowicz, J., Choptiany, E., & Sameshima, T. (1980). Aggressive preschoolers: A pilot study. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 2;, 247-249. Kohn, M., & Rosman, B. L. (1972). A social competence scale and symptom checklist for the preschool child: Factor dimensions, their cross-instrument generality, and longitudinal persistenceu iDevelopmental Psychology, §(3), 430-444. 185 Lefkowitz, M. M., Eron, L. D., Walder, L. 0., & Huesmann, L. R. (1977). Growing up to be violent: A longitudinal study of the development of aggression. New York: Pergamon Press Inc. Loeber, R., & Schmaling. (1985a). Empirical evidence for overt and covert patterns of antisocial conduct problems: A metaanalysis. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 13(2). 337-352. Loeber, R., & Schmaling. (1985b). The utility of differentiating between mixed and pure forms of antisocial child behavior. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 13(2). 315-336. Loney, J., Langhorne, J. E., Jr., & Paternite, C. E. (1978). An empirical basis for subgrouping the hyperkinetic/minimal brain dysfunction syndrome. Journal of Abnormal Ps cholo , 81, 431-441. Maccoby, E. E., & Jacklin, C. N. (1980). Sex differences in aggression: A rejoinder and reprise. Child Develo ment, pl, 964-980. Martin, W. E. (1954). Singularity and stability of profiles of social behavior. In C. B. Stendler (Ed.), Readings in child behavior and development (pp. 448-466). New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc. Milich, R. , Loney, J. , & Landau, S. (1982) . Independent dimensions of hyperactivity and aggression: A validation with playroom observation data. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, gl(3), 183-198. Milich, R., Widiger, T. A., & Landau, S. (1987). Differential diagnosis of attention deficit and conduct disorders using conditional probabilities . Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55(5), 762-767. Monopolis, S. J., Brooner, R. K., Cruise, K., Varner, K., Lininger, P., & Schmidt, C. W., Jr. (1991, June). Systematic study of substance abuse and psychopathology in gdolescents. Poster presentation, 53rd Annual Scientific Meeting, Committee on Problems of Drug Dependence, Palm Beach, FL. Morrison, J. R., & Stewart, M. A. (1971). A family study of the hyperactive child syndrome. Biolo ical Ps chiatr , 1, 189-195. 186 Moses, H. D. (in. preparation). Protective factors and resilient outcomes in young children of alcoholic fgthers. Unpublished masters thesis, Michigan State University, E. Lansing, MI. Noll, R. B. (1983). Young male offspring of alcoholic fathers: Early developmental and cognitive differences from the MSU Vulnerability Study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI. g’Noll, R. B., & Zucker, R. A. (1985). Child Behavior Rating \\ Scale. Unpublished manuscript, Michigan State University Vulnerability Study. E. Lansing, MI: Department of Psychology, Michigan State University. F‘xl Noll, R. B., Zucker, R. A., Fitzgerald, H. E., & Curtis, W. J. (1990). Developmental functioning of male offspring of alcoholic fathers: The early childhood years. Unpublished manuscript, Michigan State University, Department of Psychology, E. Lansing, MI. r/Olweus, D. (1979). The stability of aggressive reaction 7 patterns in human males; a review. Ps cholo ical Bulletin, ‘\ 8;, 8512-875. Olweus, D. (1980). The consistency issue in personality psychology revisited - with special reference to aggression. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, lg, 377-390. CPatterson, G. R. (1982). A social learning approach, Vol. ‘1’}: Coercive famil rocess. Eugene, Oregon: Castalia. Patterson, G. R., Littman, R. A., & Bricker, W. (1967). Assertive behavior in children: A step toward a theory of aggression. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Develo ment, ;;(5), Whole No. 113. Perry, D. G., Perry, L. C., & Rasmussen, P. (1986). Cognitive social learning mediators of aggression. Child Development, p1, 700-711. Prinz, R. J. , Connor, P. A. , & Wilson, C. C. (1981) . Hyperactive and aggressive behaviors in childhood: Intertwined dimensions. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 2(2), 191-202. Radke-Yarrow, M., Campbell, J. D., & Burton, R. V. (1968). Child rearing: An ingpiry into research and methods. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc. 187 Reeves, J. C., Werry, J. S., Elkind, G. S., & Zametkin, A. (1987) . Attention deficit, conduct, oppositional , and anxiety disorders in children, II: Clinical characteristics. Journal of phe Amerlcan Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, ;§(2), 144-155. Reider, E. E. (1991). Relationships between parental psychopathology, family conflict, and child behavior pzphlems in young alcoholic faml lies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, E. Lansing, MI. Reider, E. E. (1987). Alcohol involvement and violence: Relationships among alcoholic and nonalcoholic families. Unpublished master's thesis, Michigan State University, E. Lansing, MI. Reider, E. E., Zucker, R. A., Maguin, E. T., Noll, R. B., Fitzgerald, H. E. (1989, August). Alcohol involvement and violence towards children among high risk families. Paper presented at the 97th Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association, New Orleans, LA. Robins, L. N., Helzer, J. E., Croughan, J., & Ratcliff, K. (1981). National Institute of Mental Health Diagnostic Interview Schedule: Its history, characteristics and validity. Archives of General Psychiatry, gg, 381-389. Robins, L. N., Orvaschel, H., Anthony, J., Blazer, D., Burnam, M; A., & Burke, J. (1985). The Diagnostic Interview Schedule. In W. W. Eaton & L. G. Kessler (Eds.) , Epidemiologic field methods in psychiatry: The NIMH epidemiplogic catchment area program. New York: Academic Press Inc. Rutter, M. (1985). Resilience in the face of adversity. hpitish Journal of Psychiatry, 147, 598-611. Rutter, M. (1978) . Family, area and school influences in the genesis of conduct disorders. In L. A. Hersov, M. Berger, & D. Shaffer (Eds.), Aggression and anti-social behaviour in childhood and adolescence (pp. 95-113). New York: Pergamon Press. Rydelius, P. (1981). Children of alcoholic fathers: Their social adjustment and their health status over 20 years. Acta Paediatrica Scandinavica, Supplement 286. Stockholm. Santostefano, S. (1978). A biodevelopmental approach to clihical ch; 151 psychology: Cognitive controls and cognitive gohtrol therapy. New York: Wiley 8 Sons. 188 ((Sears, R. R., Maccoby, E. E., & Levin, H. (1957). Patterns of child rearing. Evanston, Ill: Row, Peterson & Company. Selzer, M. L. (1975). A self-administered Short Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test (SMAST). Journal of Studies on Alcohol, pg, 117-126. Simons, R.L., Whitbeck, L. B., Conger, R. D., & Chyi-In, W. (1991). Intergenerational transmission of harsh parenting. Developmental Psychology, 21(1), 159-171. Slaby, R. G., & Guerra, N. G. (1988). Cognitive mediators of aggression in adolescent offenders: 1. Assessment. Developmental Psychology, 25(4), 580-588. Spieker, G. (1983) . What is the linkage between alcohol abuse and violence. In E. Gottheil, K. A. Druley, T. E. Skoloda & H. M. Waxman (Eds.), Alcoholl Drug Abuse and Aggression (pp. 125-136). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas. Stewart, M. A., Cummings, C., Singer, 8., & DeBlois, C. S. (1980). The overlap between hyperactive and unsocialized aggressive children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 22, 35-45. Stewart, M. .A., DeBlois, C. S., & Cummings, C. (1980). Psychiatric disorder in the parents of hyperactive boys and those with conduct disorder. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 22, 283-292. Straus, M. A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence in the conflict tactics (CT) scales. Journal of Marriage and the Family, Al, 75-88. “9 traus, M. A., Gelles, R. J., & Steinmetz. S. K- (1930)° Behind closed doors: Violghge in thg aw- w"Garden City, NY: Anchor Press/Doubleday. Szegal, B. (1985). Stages in the development of aggressie behavior in early childhood. Aggressive Behavior, Volume II, 315-321. Taylor, S. P. (1983). Alcohol and human physical aggression. In E. Gottheil, K. A. Druley, T. E. Skoloda, & H. M. Waxman (Eds.), AlcoholI Drug Abugg and Aggression (pp. 280-291). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas, Publisher. Terman, L. M., & Merrill, M. A. (1973). Stanford-Binet lntelligence scale: Manual for the third revision. Chicago: Riverside Publishing Company. !,__ 189 Walker, J. L., Lahye, B. B., Hynd, G. W., 8. Frame, C. L. (1987). Comparison of specific patterns of antisocial behavior in children with conduct disorder with or without coexisting hyperactivity. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, §§(6), 910-913. Wechsler, D. (1981) . WAIS-R Manual: Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Weil, C. (1987). Hassles, social supports, symptoms and alcohol involvement: Their interaction in young alcoholic and nonalcoholic families. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, E. Lansing, MI. Zucker, R. A. (1991). Scaling the developmental momentum of alcoholic processes via the lifetime alcohol problem score (LAPS). Alcohol and Alcoholism, Su 1. 1, 505-510. Zucker, R. A., & Barron, F. H. (1973). Parental behaviors associated with problem drinking and antisocial behavior among adolescent males. In M. E. Chafetz (Ed.), Research on alcoholism: I. Clinical problems and special populations. Washington, DC: NIAAA. Zucker, R. A., & Fillmore, K. M. (1968). Motivational factors and problem drinking among adolescents. Paper presented at the 28th International Congress on Alcohol and Alcoholism, Washington, DC. Zucker, R. A., & Fitzgerald, H. E. (in press). Early developmental factors and risk for alcohol problems. Alcohol Health and Research World, lg. Zucker, R. A., & Gomberg, E. S. L. (1986). Etiology of alcoholism reconsidered: The case for biopsychosocial process. American Psychologist, ll, 783-793. Zucker, R. A., Maguin, E., Noll, R., Fitzgerald, H. E., & Klinger, M. (August, 1990) . A prevention program for ,preschool C.O.A.’s: Design. and garly effectsw Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association, Boston, MA. f/Zucker, R. A., & Noll, R. (1980a). The antisocial behavior checkllstu ‘Unpublished instrument, Department. of Psychology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824. 190 Zucker, R. A., 8. Noll, R. (1980b). hpinking and drug history. Unpublished instrument, Michigan State University Vulnerability Study, Department of Psychology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824. Zucker, R. A., & Noll, R. (1987). The interaction of child and environment in the early development of drug involvement: A far ranging review and a planned very early intervention. Dru s & Societ , 2(1), 57-97. Zucker, R. A., Noll, R., Draznin, T., Baxter, J., Weil, C., Theado, D. , Greenberg, G. , Charlot, C. , & Reider, E. (April, 1984). The ecology of alcoholic families: Conceptual framework for the Michigan State University Longitudinal Study. Paper presented at the National Council on Alcoholism. Nationgl Alcoholism Popum. Detroit, Michigan. Zucker, R. A., Noll, R., Fitzgerald, H. E., Pallas, D. M., & Refior, S. K. (1991). Variation in alcoholic disorde; by neighborhood. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Psychology, Michigan State University Longitudinal Study, East Lansing, MI 48824. Zucker, R. A., Noll, R., & Fitzgerald, H. E. (1986). Risk ang coping in children of alcoholics. NIAAA grant AA- 07065, Department of Psychology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824. "”111iiiiiiiiiii