 

 

 

' LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

.1 r: I" k
a T
.1‘ H “j I; .F: F

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 cJCIRC/DateDuopes-p. 15

THE DEVELOPMENT OF EARLY CONSCIENCE AMONG A SAMPLE OF
CHILDREN EXPOSED TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: CHILD TEMPERAMENT AS A
MODERATOR OF MATERNAL DISCIPLINE AND MOTHER-CHILD
ATTACHMENT

By

Michael A. Semel

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Psychology

2004

ABSTRACT
THE DEVELOPMENT OF EARLY CONSCIENCE AMONG A SAMPLE OF
CHILDREN EXPOSED TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: CHILD TEMPERAMENT AS A
MODERATOR OF MATERNAL DISCIPLINE AND MOTHER-CHILD
ATTACHMENT
By

Michael A. Semel

This study offers partial support for Kochanska’s (1997) model describing the
normative development of earlier conscience in a sample of preschool children (n=103)
considered at risk via their exposure to domestic violence. Exposure to domestic
violence was related to both heightened temperamental fearfulness (R2 = .05, F = 4.82)
and heightened temperamental impulsivity (R2 = .05, F = 4.92). Heightened
temperamental impulsivity was in turn related to lower scores on the more self-regulatory
dimension of conscience (R2 ;= .33, F = 59.45). Children with high levels of
temperamental fearﬁIlness were more inﬂuenced by power assertive discipline practices,
as measured by Holden’s (1996) PRCM, in developing the active moral regulation/
vigilance dimension of early conscience than were more fearless peers (R2 change = .04,
F = 4.26). Children with high levels of temperamental fearfulness were more inﬂuenced
by power assertive discipline practices, as measured by the Problem Situations
Questionnaire, an instrument developed for use in this study, in developing the affective
discomfort dimension of early conscience than were more fearless peers (R2 change =
.04, F = 3.67). Children in the sample were powerﬁJlly inﬂuenced by attachment security
in the development of active moral regulation/vigilance using both the AQS Security (R2

= .25, F = 31.44) and the Pederson-Moran Secure Base (R2 = .16, F = 18.73) scales.

High scores on the Pederson-Moran Secure Base scale also predicted high levels of
affective discomfort (R2 = .04, F = 3.76). Contrary to Kochanka’s model, more fearful
children with high Pederson-Moran scores showed lower levels of active moral
regulation/vigilance than their more fearless peers with similarly high Pederson-Moran
scores (R2 change = .07, F = 8.44). Attachment security was by far the most powerful
predictor of early conscience development regardless of other factors. The study also
served to validate the Problem Situations Questionnaire as a reliable research instrument
(alpha for each factor analytically derived subscale ranges ﬁ'om .72 to .86). The measure
has many of the same properties as other parent discipline measures that were utilized but
has the advantage of including an additional dimension of parent discipline, response
cost, which was uniquely predictive of the affective discomfort dimension of conscience.
Somewhat surprisingly, post-hoe analyses conducted to examine the direct relationship
between domestic violence and both parent discipline and attachment found no
Signiﬁcant relationships. The study provides ﬁirther empirical evidence for the powerful
protective role that a secure attachment may play in buffering the indirect effects of
exposure to domestic violence on early conscience development. The ﬁndings suggest
that clinical interventions that target the mother-child attachment relationship and that
assist parents in matching discipline to the child’s temperament may be particularly
useful in mitigating the effects of domestic violence on the development of early

conscience, regardless of other factors.

In memory of Frances Cohn

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This project could not have been completed without the assistance of a number of
important individuals. Dr. Alytia Levendosky provided invaluable support, guidance,
and wisdom ﬁ'om inception to the ﬁnal stages of project completion. My friend and
colleague, Dr. Alissa Huth-Bocks was a crucial collaborator. Without her hard work and
organizational skills this project would never have been completed. Dr. Holly Brophy-
Herb provided critical assistance and feedback at the later stages of the project. Dr. Gary
Stollak provided many thoughtful contributions to this work from its earliest stages and
even more thought provoking discussion. His focus on parenting behavior not only
added much to this project but also to my grth as a clinician and as a parent. My
chairperson, Dr. Robert Caldwell, patiently guided me from early on in my graduate
career, through my master’s thesis, and ﬁnally through the completion of my doctoral
dissertation. His kindness, respectfulness, and deep sense of integrity have provided me
with a wonderful model that I will carry with me for the remainder of my professional
life. Finally, I would like to thank my wife, Cathy. Her love and support is felt each and
every day. This project could never have been completed without her understanding and

encouragement.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................. vii
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................ viii
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 1
CHAPTER 1
THEORETICAL AND EMPIRICAL MODELS OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT ......... 5
CHAPTER 2
ATTACHMENT AND CHILD BEHAVIORAL DIFFICULTIES ........................... 18
CHAPTER 3
TEMPERAMENT AND “GOODNESS OF FIT” .............................................. 28
CHAPTER 4
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND TEMPERAMENT ........................................... 32
CHAPTER 5
HYPOTHESES ...................................................................................... 36
CHAPTER 6
METHODS ........................................................................................... 40
CHAPTER 7
ANALYSES .......................................................................................... 50
CHAPTER 8
DISCUSSION ........................................................................................ 68
APPENDIX .......................................................................................... 76
REFERENCES ..................................................................................... 1 14

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Demographic Characteristics of Sample .............................................. 41
Table 2. Results of Principal Components Analysis of PRCM-R—

Factor Loadings and Scale Reliability ................................................. 47
Table 3. Results of Principal Components Analysis of PSQ—

Factor Loadings and Scale Reliability ................................................. 49
Table 4. Regression Analyses Examining Relationships Between

Demographic Variables and Dependent Variables ................................... 51
Table 5. Exposure to Domestic Violence Variables Predicting

Temperamental Fear and Irnpulsivity ................................................. 54
Table 6. Temperamental Irnpulsivity Variable Predicting

Dimensions of Early Conscience Development ..................................... 55
Table 7. Pearson Correlations Between Problems Situations Questionnaire

Scales and Revised Parent Response to Child Misbehavior Scales

and Attitudes Toward Spanking Scale ............................................... 57
Table 8. Parent Discipline Variables Predicting Early Conscience

Development ............................................................................ 58
Table 9. Hierarchical Regression Analyses Examining Discipline x Fear

Interaction Eﬁ’ects on Early Conscience Development ............................ 60
Table 10. Attachment Variables Predicting Early Conscience Development ............... 65

Table 11. Hierarchical Regression Analyses Examining Attachment x

Fearfulness Interaction Effects on Early Conscience Development .............. 66

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Theoretical Model Describing Predicting Relationships
Between Variables ....................................................................... 3

Figure 2. Scatter Plot Indicating Distribution of CBQ F earfulness
Dimension x Severity of Violence .................................................... 52

Figure 3. Graph Depicting CBQ Fearfulness x PRCM Power Assertion
Interaction ............................................................................... 61

Figure 4. Graph Depicting CBQ Fearfulness x PSQ Physical Punishment
Interaction ................................................................................ 63

Figure 5. Graph Depicting CBQ Fearﬁllness x Pederson-Moran Secure
Base Interaction ......................................................................... 67

viii

INTRODUCTION

The problem of violence among America’s youth is perhaps among the most
important facing our nation. One only need turn on the local news on any given evening
to glimpse the scope of the problem: young perpetrators of violence are using
increasingly lethal methods, with apparent disregard for the consequences of their
behavior. Osofsky, Werers, Hann, and Pick (1993) underscore the striking prevalence of
violence and have shown that children who witness chronic levels of community violence
become emotionally desensitized and tend to treat everyday aggression with indiﬂ‘erence.
How widespread is the problem? Research by Bell and Jenkins (1993) has shown that
among a sample of inner-city, African-American children, most have had ﬁrst hand
encounters with shootings by the time they are 5 years old.

How, then, are we to stem this increasing tide of violent behavior? Recent work
has emphasized the importance of early intervention. Since the age of onset of
problematic behavior has been shown to have important implications for prognosis
(Patterson, DeBaryshe, & Ramsey, 1989), early intervention with preschoolers may be
crucial for preventing later difﬁculties, especially when there are multiple factors
contributing to risk (Sameroff, Seifer, & Zax, 1982). While problems of violence must
ultimately be addressed via a biopsychosocial framework, one clear and important source
of inﬂuence on early development is parents. Heller, Baker, Henker and Hinshaw (1996)
have already established parenting style as an important predictor of later behavioral
difﬁculty among a sample of at-risk preschoolers but the mechanisms through which
these potentially protective effects occur remain unclear. One source for beginning to

address this question may be found in research that has been conducted with a normative

developmental sample. The developmental literature has made some important in-roads
into understanding the processes which allow the child to internalize the values of parents
and of the larger society so that he or she may exhibit control over the self-gratifying and
antisocial impulses, and enhance the components of empathic responding which all
children possess.

The current investigation targets a group of at-risk preschool children and
examines how child characteristics and the parent-child relationship lead to the
development of conscience. Theoretical models presented by Hoffman (1983) and by
Grusec and Goodnow (1994) have suggested the need to apply a contextualist approach
to the study of the processes involved in the internalization of values governing moral
behavior. More recent work by Kochanska (1993, 1997a) has pointed to child
temperament, mother-child attachment, and maternal discipline style as crucial predictors
of internalization among a normative sample of 4 year-old children.

The current study adapts Kochanska’s model for use with children at-risk for
experiencing behavioral difﬁculties by virtue of their exposure to domestic violence. The
study empirically tests the theoretical model presented in Figure 1. Kochanska describes
early conscience as a multifaceted construct involving the child’s ability to engage in
self-regulatory behavior, the child’s concern for proper conduct, the child’s experience of
discomfort with the distress of another, and the child’s empathic response to the distress
of another. All of these behaviors take place in the absence of some external monitor and
for this reason represent more than simple compliance. The current investigation offers
an additional component to the normative developmental model that Kochanska and her
colleagues have developed. Speciﬁcally, the study examines the ways in which

witnessing domestic violence (and risk in general) may inﬂuence certain dimensions of

 

 

 

 

  

33:65 332:; wcoﬁa 3528522 “.3062.“
Scum 9:22:52 Olll. mcmntowou Eve:— 1330.80: H ”jam

eeceac .

Seam wooin—
neeeeeo
Hausa
‘l.....
3:28:00 “nogcoqaoh 3:20;

 

beam .. EEO All utmoEoQ $53535

 

Seascape.
230-3053

child temperament. There is virtually nothing in the literature that has examined the
relationship between temperamental fearfulness and risk, particularly risk resulting ﬁom
exposure to domestic violence. The study, then, ﬁirthers our understanding of the
mechanisms through which early conscience develops in a population that is at
heightened risk for developing the kinds of behavioral difﬁculties associated with
inadequate conscience development. In this way we may be better able to focus the kinds

of early intervention efforts that have proven to be so crucial.

Chapter 1

THEORETICAL AND EMPIRICAL MODELS OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT

Clinicians and researchers have long attempted to understand the developmental
processes that lead to the development of conscience. While the nomenclature adopted
by different perspectives might suggest that their ﬁameworks are incompatible, all of the
theorists seem to agree that conscience (or at the very least the precursors of conscience)
develops early in childhood.

Freud (1935) was among the ﬁrst to identify and label some of the structural
components of conscience. He identiﬁed a structure that he termed the “super-ego”
which watches, criticizes, and compares the self to what he calls the “ego-ideal.” In this
way, Freud observed, the actual ego is continuously measured against the ego-ideal and
the self-criticizing faculty of “conscience” emerges through this process of comparison.
How then does the ego-ideal develop? Freud noted that it arises in the individual through
a process of identiﬁcation with parents, those who have trained the child, and through
other aspects of the social environment. The ego-ideal, then, develops as the child
internalizes the collective inﬂuence of parents and the social environment as a model
against which his or her behavior may be compared.

Building upon the psychoanalytic tradition, Kohlberg (1969) employed what he
termed a “cognitive-structuralist approach” to moral development. He identiﬁed six
stages of moral development. In stage one, Kohlberg’s categorization for individuals
having an obedience and punishment orientation, moral decisions are dependent upon the
external power of another or upon the desire to avoid trouble. During stage two,

individuals have a naively egoistic orientation and make determinations about right and

wrong based primarily on satisfying the needs of the self and occasionally the needs of
others. Kohlberg classiﬁed the ﬁrst two stages as making up the ﬁrst level of moral
development as the moral value lies in external and/or “quasiphysical needs” rather than
in personal values and standards.

The third stage of development Kohlberg termed the good-boy orientation. The
good-boy orientation is characterized by decision-making which is based on seeking the
approval of or attempting to please others. During stage four, the authority and social-
order maintaining orientation, the individual makes moral judgments based on “doing
one’s duty” and maintaining the social order for its own sake. Taken together, stages
three and four comprise the second level of moral development as the moral value lies in
performing “good or right roles” and in maintaining the conventional order.

Stage ﬁve, according to Kohlberg, consists of a contractual legalistic orientation.
Here moral duty is deﬁned in terms of adherence to arbitrary rules or contracts, created
for the sake of agreement with general attempts to avoid violating the rights of others or
the welfare of the majority. In Kohlberg’s sixth and ﬁnal stage, named the conscience or
principal orientation, the conscience is used as a directing agent for moral decisions
which are based on the principles of a universal and consistent code of conduct extending
beyond simple social rules. Kohlberg’s ﬁnal two stages make up the third level of moral
development and are both characterized by the moral value lying in conformity by the
self to “shared or shareable standards, rights, or duties” (p. 179).

Both Freud and Kohlberg can be thought of as structuralists in that each believed
that there are internal control mechanisms that are formed over the course of
development. From Freud’s perspective, while the development of the ego-ideal may

occur very early in childhood, the superego develops only as a reaction to the Oedipus

complex as a means of checking the sexual impulses directed towards the mother. He
postulated that there are dramatic differences, however, in the development of superego
for boys and for girls. Freud suggested that girls develop penis-envy, direct sexual
impulses towards their fathers, and that there is little incentive for the Oedipus complex
to ever be ﬁllly resolved. In Freud’s view, then, girls never undergo superego
development to the same degree as their male counterparts. Freud saw Oedipal issues as
developing just prior to the latency period for both sexes, roughly between the ages of
four and ﬁve. In contrast, Kohlberg viewed the capacity to experience internalized guilt
as developing somewhat later, in preadolescence or late childhood.

To a large extent Kohlberg’s position hinges on his connection of moral
developmental theory to the cognitive theories of Piaget. Kohlberg argued that moral
development is parallel to cognitive development in that both are stage theories that
involve an invariant sequence of increasingly complex structural integration. He
observed that the ability of the individual to take the perspective of others, to understand
the logic of reciprocity, emerges at the same time as children achieve Piaget’s cognitive
developmental stage of concrete operational thought. Kohlberg made similar connections
between a child’s ability to make judgments based upon the intentions of others, rather
than simply upon behavioral outcome, and higher order cognitive development.

Kohlberg’s theory of moral development broke from Freudian developmental
theory, then, in several important respects. Kohlberg viewed psychoanalytic theory as
“maturational” in the sense that development occurs via organismically induced factors
(which are, of course, subject to ﬁxation or regression as a result of some environmental

insult). In contrast, Kohlberg’s theory suggests that moral development occurs through

the complex interplay of factors that are partially organismic (cognitive developmental
factors) and partly environmental.

One clear source of environmental inﬂuence is, of course, the family. From
Kohlberg’s perspective, however, the primary contribution of the family was not the
teaching of moral behavior in the traditional sense. Instead, he viewed the family as
providing for the child an abundance of role-taking opportunities that are crucial to moral
development. In this way, Kohlberg understood families per say as nonessential since
any situation where role-taking opportunities are provided will enhance moral
development. Ultimately, however, Kohlberg argued that while socialization agents such
as parents may have imparting internalized moral standards on children as their goal,
these standards develop as a natural trend independent of the expectations and practices
of these agents.

While maintaining the view that moral behavior is the reﬂection of a set of
internalized moral standards, Hoffman (1983) took issue with Kohlberg’s de-emphasis on
the importance of parenting behavior. Hoﬂinan sees moral action as an individual’s
attempt to achieve an acceptable balance between egoistic and moral motives within the
self. He believes that internalized norms are activated whenever an individual
contemplates acting in a manner that may cause harm to another. Hoffman identiﬁed
three different characteristics of an internalized norm. First, the norm has a cognitive
dimension. Included in this component are an individual’s understanding of the
consequences which one’s behavior may have on someone else, an evaluation of the
lightness or wrongness of a particular act, as well as the reasons for these judgments.
The second component of a norm that Hoffman identiﬁes involves its ﬁlnction as a

“moral motive.” A norm has a moral motive when it is experienced by the individual as

having a compelling quality not based on a fear of punishment. Finally, the norm must
be experienced as deriving from within oneself without the individual having any
conscious awareness as to its origins.

The discipline encounter is viewed by Hoffman as the most crucial aspect of
parenting behavior for fostering moral internalization. In Hoffman’s view, it is only
during the discipline encounter that an explicit connection is made between norms,
egoistic desires, and the child’s behavior. While emphasizing the importance of the
discipline encounter, he was careful to distinguish it from a moral encounter where no
outside intervention is necessary and an individual responds in accordance with
internalized standards of conduct. While acknowledging that any particular encounter
will often have multiple components, Hoﬂinan identiﬁed three general types of parent
discipline: power assertion, love withdrawal, and induction. Power assertive discipline
relies heavily on physical force, deprivation of privileges, direct commands, or threats.
Love withdrawal involves the utilization of nonphysical techniques such as the
deprivation of affection, attention, and/or the expression of anger as a consequence for
some transgression. Induction, the third general type of discipline, makes use of
explanation geared toward helping the individual understand how his or her behavior
caused discomfort or distress for another. Inductive techniques, then, are the most likely
to arouse both empathic distress and an awareness of being the causal agent for another’s
difﬁculties. Hofﬁnan believes that it is under these particular circumstances that an
individual is likely to experience guilt.

As noted earlier, Hoffman believes that any given discipline encounter will
contain power-assertive, love-withdrawal, and inductive components. He went even

ﬁrrther to suggest that there is an optimal combination for the use of these components.

Hoffman believes that in order for a discipline encounter to be eﬁ’ective, it must produce
both cognitive and affective responses in the target of the discipline. He described the
necessity of achieving an “optimal level of arousal” so that the inductive component of
the discipline encounter can be delivered effectively. Power-assertive and love-
withdrawal techniques tend to produce aﬁeaive arousal but discipline encounters which
rely too heavily upon these techniques are likely to lead the individual to have difﬁculty
processing the inductive component of the encounter because they are overwhelming.
This type of encounter is therefore unlikely to lead to a cognitive response. Similarly,
techniques that produce too little affective arousal may allow the individual to tune out or
otherwise ignore the inductive component of the discipline encounter. The cognitive
response is crucial for Hoﬁ‘man as he sees it as the only time when the explicit
connection is made between external parental or societal standards, the individual’s own
desires, and how the transgression has led to a conﬂict between these standards and
desires.

Three types of motives may therefore be aroused in discipline encounters. The
ﬁrst is a fear/anxiety response related to the implications for the individual for his or her
deviant act. This motive is likely to be aroused by the power-assertive and love
withdrawal properties of the discipline encounter. The second type of motive involves
the individual’s reaction, or anticipated reaction, to the consequences for the victim of a
deviant action. This reaction contains some component of empathy or of empathy-based
guilt. The ﬁnal type of motive that may be aroused during a discipline encounter
involves the individual’s desire to maintain harmony with the disciplinalian. Hoﬂ’man
identiﬁed this component as being ever present, although heightened somewhat during a

discipline encounter as a result of some external expression of disapproval.

10

While Hoffman was careﬁil to distinguish the discipline encounter ﬁ'om the
“moral encounter” what is the relationship between them? Hoffman stated that discipline
encounters develop into moral encounters through changes in the individual’s memory of
the discipline encounter over time. He postulated that when discipline makes heavy use
of inductive processes, memories regarding the external source of the message gradually
fade in such a way that the individual begins to attribute the source of the moral message
to internal factors. To support this, he cited the research of Tulving (1972) and Craik
(1977) that suggests that information gets coded into memory as either episodic or
semantic memory and that information that is encoded undergoes different levels of
processing which varies with the nature of the information. Hoffman suggested that
because inductive discipline makes connections between a given behavior and the
consequences of that behavior, the discipline message is coded into semantic memory
and may be analyzed at a deeper level. Because of the increased amount of information
processing to which inductive discipline messages are subjected, Hoﬁ’man suggested that
as additional inductive discipline messages become integrated with earlier memories over
time, there is an increased likelihood that the messages will become disassociated ﬁ'om
their source. When the sources of messages are salient, they are more likely to be
attributed to external agents. Memories for which the source is vague or otherwise
unclear, as would be the case for a memory created via an inductive discipline message,
are more likely to be attributed to having been derived internally.

Because Hoﬂ’man believes that affect is just as important as the content of the
message in understanding internalization, he attempted to incorporate emotion into his
model as well. As was discussed earlier, induction is likely to produce affective

responses such as empathy, guilt, and anticipatory guilt. But what happens with these

11

emotional experiences? Hoffman suggested that emotion could be coded into memory as
well. He hypothesized that content and aﬁ’ect are coded in memory together where they
form “hot” or “emotionally-charged” cognitions. In this way future moral decision-
making draws upon memories related both to the rule or norm itself as well as to the
affect that has previously been associated with some normative transgression.

Hoffman’s cogrritive-aﬁ’ective theory of moral internalization is not without its
problems. He has suggested that inductive discipline messages are processed in such a
way that they become incorporated more deeply into memory. The individual attributes
internal origins to these more deeply processed aﬁ‘ective and cognitive messages and acts
in accordance with these memories. Much of Homnan’s processing theory, however,
relies upon a disassociation between the message and the parent as the source of the
message. While Hoffman stated that information regarding the origin of the message
does not get encoded in semantic memory, the evidence upon which he based this
conclusion remains somewhat unclear. Just as induction may require higher level
processing because of the connections that need to be drawn between a given behavior
and the consequences of that behavior, can the same thing not be said for the source of
the message as well? Why is it that the child does not develop a causal association
between the presence of a parent and the use of discipline, especially when the discipline
is likely to contain noninductive components that are particularly likely to induce
aﬁ‘ective arousal? Hoﬁnan, ultimately, oﬁ‘ered no explanation for why these different
causal relationships would come to be processed in such different ways.

Grusec and Goodnow (1994) attempted to incorporate Hoffman’s understanding
regarding the importance of cognitive and affective components and his emphasis on the

vital role that parents play into their own model of internalization. Grusec and Goodnow

12

identiﬁed two distinct mediators of the relationship between parental discipline and
internalization. They argue that the failure to internalize parental values communicated
via discipline may result from either an inaccurate perception of the discipline message
or, alternatively, from active rejection of the parental message. For each of these
mediating links, both cognitive and affective factors may work to either facilitate or
disrupt internalization. For example, cognitive factors may inﬂuence the perception of
the message when an explanation is not delivered in a manner sensitive to the
developmental level of the child. Grusec and Goodnow argue that the cognitive
judgments that a child may make as to the appropriateness of a particular discipline
encounter also work to dramatically inﬂuence the likelihood that the message will be
accepted. Grusec and Goodnow also view affective factors as being crucial. They adopt
Hoﬂinan’s position that certain forms of power assertive discipline, when used at low
levels, may be necessary to suﬁiciently arouse the child to attend to the discipline
message, something which is crucial for accurate perception. When high levels of power
assertive discipline are utilized, there may be an increased likelihood that the child will
become angry and actively reject the parental discipline message.

Grusec and Goodnow identiﬁed several variables (over and above the actual
discipline technique) that need to be considered in order to evaluate the potential
effectiveness of any discipline encounter. They observed that the nature of the misdeed,
the content and structure of the parental discipline message, the nature of the child, and
the nature of the parent are all important to consider in evaluating whether a particular
message will be accurately perceived and accepted. In this way, Grusec and Goodnow

underscored the importance of determining the “goodness of ﬁt” among these four

13

principal variables. The better the ﬁt, the greater the likelihood that discipline will lead
to internalization.

In emphasizing the importance of a goodness of ﬁt between the act, the discipline,
child characteristics, and parent characteristics, Grusec and Goodnow have gone a long
way towards helping us to understand that any discipline encounter must be understood
in the context in which it occurs. “Effective parenting,” as they deﬁne it, is reﬂected in a
good match between each of these variables. Their work may help us to explain why
there may be no single “best method” of parenting for all children in all situations. One
limitation of their discussion of goodness of ﬁt is that it operates on the assumption that
parental messages are intrinsically good and that children accept or reject messages for
reasons that are appropriate for their developmental level. Perhaps because the sample on
which they focus their discussion has undergone a “normative” developmental
experience, little effort is made to apply their contextualist perspective to situations
where the content of the parental message itselfis at odds with the standards of the larger
society or, alternatively, when the child rejects an appropriate message. For example, in
the case of an angry or deﬁant child who has experienced maltreatment, the child may
actively reject parental discipline messages for reasons that have little to do with whether
the content of the message is appropriate or with whether the message is delivered in
such a way as to not induce over arousal. Instead, the child may reject discipline
messages because of problems in the larger context of the parent-child relationship that
dramatically impact the child’s attributions concerning parental intent.

What role does the parent-child relationship play in fostering internalization?
Kochanska has examined this question in great detail (Kochanska, 1995; Kochanska,

Aksan, & Koenig, 1995; Kochanska, 1997a). Kochanska (1993) has developed her own

14

theoretical model that draws upon many of Grusec and Goodnow’s propositions
regarding goodness of ﬁt. She argues that child temperament functions as a crucial
moderator of the relationship between maternal socialization and internalization. Since
temperamental differences are readily observed among a normative sample of children,
Kochanska suggested that diﬁ’erent kinds of parental discipline can effectively lead to
internalization. For example, consistent with Hoffman (1983), children who are fearﬁrl
are most likely to internalize discipline that is rather gentle since it is this type of message
that should lead to optimal arousal. In contrast, Kochanska argues that children with
temperaments she describes as “fearless,” may never be suﬂiciently aroused by a parental
discipline technique without the technique simultaneously being viewed by the child as
overly punitive. In the case of the fearless child, Kochanska departs ﬁ'om Hoﬂinan’s
heavy emphasis on discipline and, instead, draws upon Maccoby’s (1983) theory which
asserts that the child’s positive motivation to please the parent will lead to the
internalization of parental and societal norms and expectations regarding “proper”
behavior. Maccoby argued that a mutually positive and responsive orientation between
parent and child fosters both the child’s eagerness and commitment to accept parental
values. One might expect similar desires to please the parent on the part of the
temperamentally fearful child would be an equally important contributor to
internalization as parent discipline. Maccoby’s understanding of how internalization
occurs can be easily distinguished from the views of Hoffman and the psychoanalytic
theorists that, instead, have relied heavily on guilt and anxiety (either actual or
anticipatory) to explain how conscience develops.

In recent work, Kochanska (1997b) has found strong longitudinal support for the

existence of multiple pathways to internalization. She assessed 103 children at 2 to 3

15

years of age and again at age 4 and at age 5. Both behavioral observation and maternal
report measures were utilized to identify the child’s temperamental characteristics. As a
means of assessing Maccoby’s responsiveness dimension, Kochanska administered the
children’s Attachment Q-set developed by Waters (1987), and coded two videotaped
mother-child interaction tasks along dimensions of maternal sensitivity, acceptance, and
cooperation. Mothers’ discipline style was also assessed during the “clean-up” phases of
the videotaped interaction tasks. Intemalization was assessed via cheating games in
which the child was presented with a strong incentive to “win” but was unable to do so
without deviating from the rules, and via the presence of antisocial and prosocial themes
in responses generated to hypothetical moral dilemmas. As predicted by her model, for
fearﬁrl children, Kochanska found a strong relationship between the use of gentle
maternal discipline, which de-emphasized power and internalization. Somewhat
surprisingly, no signiﬁcant relationship was found between the positive/responsive
dimension and internalization for the fearﬁil group. In contrast, for the temperamentally
fearless group of children, attachment security was signiﬁcantly correlated with time 2
measures of conscience. No relationship was found for the maternal responsiveness or
for the maternal disciplinary style dimensions.

Additional analyses were conducted to test for theoretical goodness of ﬁt between
child temperament, attachment security, maternal responsiveness, and maternal discipline
style. As expected, those children for which there was the best ﬁt among the variables
(e.g., fearless children with high maternal responsiveness and high attachment security)
showed the highest levels of conscience development over time. Children for whom
there was a poor ﬁt among the variables (e.g., fearless children with low attachment

security and low maternal responsiveness) showed low levels of internalization.

16

While Kochanska freely uses the term “conscience” as the dimension she is
interested in studying, it seems likely that her understanding of what comprises
conscience may be somewhat different from the conscience that Freud and Kohlberg
describe. Psychoanalytic theorists may tend to think of what Kochanska views as
“conscience” as really only its early precursor since self-generated feelings of guilt may
not emerge until late childhood or early adolescence. Clearly, though, the dimension that
Kochanska is testing has more of an internal component to it than simple compliance to
an external demand since the children she has assessed make decisions based upon an
internalized understanding of “proper” behavior utilizing internal mechanisms of self-
control. Nonetheless, the young children whom she has studied may lack the more
sophisticated mechanisms through which self-generated guilt and anxiety are utilized for
behavioral regulation.

Kochanska’s collective work offers what is perhaps the ﬁrst empirical support for
a comprehensive theory of the development of early conscience. For at least a subset of
children, her work oﬁ’ers partial support for Hofﬁnan’s emphasis on the importance of
achieving an optimal level of arousal in order for discipline to be effective. Kochanska’s
work has also contributed to our understanding of the importance of contextualism as
Grusec and Goodnow have suggested. Perhaps Kochanska’s most important contribution
of all may be her emphasis on the crucial role which the attachment relationship may play
in fostering internalization for those children who because of their “fearless”

temperamental disposition seem to be less responsive to traditional discipline strategies.

17

Chapter 2

ATTACHMENT AND CHILD BEHAVIORAL DIFFICULTIES

EarJILand Contemporary Understandingﬁf Attachment

Kochanska’s research has underscored the importance of the attachment
relationship, especially for temperamentally “fearless” children. While the literature has
been less attentive to the mechanisms through which the attachment relationship may be
involved in internalization, a large body of literature has already demonstrated that secure
attachment between parent and child early in the child’s life may be crucial for healthy
psychological development.

Erikson (1950) was among the ﬁrst to argue that the development of “basic trust”
by the child towards the mother is one of the ﬁrst tasks of the ego. He argued that the
child must develop a pattern for dealing with the conﬂict between trust and mistrust of
others if he or she is to successfully negotiate his or her environment. The development
of feelings of basic trust towards the mother may be a crucial component of a healthy
attachment relationship. Erikson operated on the assumption that in all, or nearly all,
“normal” families a sufﬁciently strong bond develops between mother and child. He
argued that those children who do experience maternal deprivation are at risk for
developing severe psychopathology later on in life.

Bowlby (195 8) also identiﬁed the importance of the attachment relationship for
later human development. He adopted an ethological-evolutionary perspective that
emerges from experimental work with nonhuman primates and with other animals.
Bowlby built upon earlier animal research that had emphasized the adaptive ﬁlnction of

mother-infant bonding behavior and applied this work to human beings. He noted that

18

many psychiatric disturbances seem to result from either the lack of opportunity to form
aﬁ’ectional bonds or from repeated and/or lengthy disruptions of bonds that have been
formed. At the time that Bowlby was building his initial theory, he pointed out that there
were few controlled studies in place to test for the causal relationships between the
disruptions that clinicians had identiﬁed and later disorder. Indeed, this work was to
come some time later. Nonetheless, Bowlby was able to make use of retrospective data
and his own observational skills to help form a substantial foundation for later empirical
work.

Ainsworth and Bell (1970) observed the difﬁculty of assessing attachment
behavior in a naturalistic manner given the contextual variability of such behavior. In an
effort to acquire some “shortcut” for studying parent-child attachment, they developed
the classic “Strange Situation” experimental manipulation. In the Strange Situation, one
year-old children undergo seven separate periods of brief separation and reuniﬁcation
with their mothers and with confederate strangers. The child’s behavior is monitored and
coded along the broad dimensions of exploratory behavior, search behavior, proximity-
and contact-seeking behavior, contact-maintaining behavior, proximity- and interaction-
avoiding behavior, and contact- and interaction-resisting behavior. Individual diﬂ‘erences
between children were most readily observed during the reunion episodes that followed
maternal separation.

Ainsworth and Bell identiﬁed two distinct patterns of child behavior that emerged
over the course of the experimental task. Most typical of the children in their White,
middle-class sample was attachment characterized by the re-initiation of exploratory
child behavior upon reuniﬁcation with the mother. Children in this group seemed to be

able to utilize their mothers as a “secure base” from which to continue their healthy

19

exploration of the play environment. In contrast, a sub sample of children observed
during this initial study simultaneously engaged in contact-resisting and contact-
maintaining behaviors. Ainsworth and Bell describe this group as ambivalent in their
attachment. The children seem to want to be held and comforted while, at the same time,
they angrily resist contact, perhaps as a defensive reaction to the earlier separation.

Ainsworth and Bell’s results are strikingly parallel to Bowlby’s original
understanding of the evolutionary beneﬁt for expressing anger following separation from
a caregiver. From an ethological perspective, Bowlby understands this “punitive”
behavior to be highly adaptive for maintaining proximity to the caregiver in that it may
decrease the likelihood of future separations that might place the infant at risk.

Later work by Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, and Wall (1978), established three
broad classiﬁcations of attachment behavior: secure, ambivalent, and avoidant. The
addition of the avoidant coping group emerged from the identiﬁcation of a group of
children who show no indication of distress at their mother’s departure, actively explore
the play environment, and are ﬁiendly to the unfamiliar adult who remains in the room.
Upon the return of the mother, children in the avoidant group respond by failing to greet
her, diverting attention away from her, and, initially, by moving away when their mother
approaches. Main (1990) has described this avoidant behavior on the part of the infant as
one in which attention is displaced onto the inanimate environment as a means of
restricting the communication of anger and distress. In this way, the infant avoids cues
that would otherwise increase the desire to seek comfort from a parent who is likely to be
unreceptive to proximity seeking and other attachment behaviors.

Spangler and Grossman (1993) have oﬂ‘ered empirical support for the hypothesis

that avoidant children displace the emotional reaction to the mother's return. They have

20

found that avoidant children do not diﬂ'er from securely attached children in one
important way; both types of children exhibit a similar elevation in heart rate upon the
return of the mother. The two groups of children differ, however, in that while securely
attached children show heart rate decreases as they return to the play material, children in
the avoidant attachment group do not show a comparable decline in heart rate. Spangler
and Grossman conclude that in spite of the display of “indifferent” behavior upon
reunion, avoidant children are just as disturbed by their mother’s absence as children in
the secure group. Avoidant children, however, do not allow themselves to be comforted
as a means of reducing their distress, presumably because past efforts to seek comfort
from the mother have been somehow dissatisfying.

More recent work has identiﬁed a fourth “category” for classifying attachment
behavior. Main and Solomon (1986) have described a subgroup of children who are
“diﬂicult to classify” via the Strange Situation paradigm. While others had experienced
classiﬁcation difﬁculties earlier (e. g., Sroufe & Waters, 1977), the presence of a difﬁcult
to classify subgroup was ﬁrst formally identiﬁed by Main and Weston (1981) following
efforts to replicate the Ainsworth ﬁndings in a White, middle-class, San Francisco
sample. Children in this subgroup display behaviors upon reunion that they describe as
“disorganized.” For example, children in the disorganized subgroup may engage in
apparently contradictory behaviors such as returning to greet the mother upon reunion but
at the same time averting their gaze. Other children in the disorganized subgroup may
exhibit extreme avoidance upon the mother’s return in spite of having shown extreme
levels of distress throughout the situation. Main and Weston have found that in many
cases disorganized children could be forced into one of the three existing categories.

Unfortunately, efforts to force classiﬁcation have led to the mischaracterization of the

21

attachment relationship. Children who appear to exhibit the most disturbance in their
attachment relationship may end up ultimately being rnislabeled as “secure” under a
system that does not make use of a disorganized category.

While estimates of the frequency of disorganized attachment behaviors in White,
middle-class samples ranges from 13 percent in the Main and Weston (1981) study to as
low as 10 percent in the Sroufe and Waters (1977) sample, there are indications that the
frequency of this type of attachment behavior may be much higher in an “at-risk”
population. For example, Egeland and Sroufe (1981) reanalyzed previously coded
interactions among their sample of poor Minnesota mothers and found that many of the
abused and neglected infants who had been previously classiﬁed as “secure,” in fact,
exhibited a disorganized pattern of insecurity. Crittenden (1985) also reanalyzed a sub
sample of interaction data involving maltreated children. Maltreated children who had
previously been classiﬁed as “secure” were reassigned to a new avoidant-ambivalent
category that is in many respects similar to Main and Weston’s disorganized category.
Children in the avoidant-ambivalent category were observed to simultaneously display
moderate to high proximity seeking, moderate to high avoidance, and moderate to high
resistance.

Developmental Consequences for Disruptions in Attachment

While disruptions in the more typical secure attachment can be easily observed
quite early in the child’s life, what evidence is there for the short- and long-term
consequences of these developmental diﬂ‘erences in the parent-child relationship?
Maccoby and F eldman (1972) conducted one of the earliest longitudinal studies to
address this question. Utilizing a sample drawn from a Stanford University-afﬁliated

nursery school program, they attempted to replicate as precisely as possible the

22

experimental conditions of Ainsworth’s Strange Situations paradigm. They studied
children at 24, 30, and 36 months, and then again when they had entered preschool.

Maccoby and Feldman found remarkable stability in both children’s fear
responses to the presence of an unfamiliar stranger as well as in their proximity seeking
behavior in response to this perceived threat. While there was no relationship between
children’s early attachment behavior and their interactions with either mothers or peers in
preschool, there was a signiﬁcant relationship between early attachment behavior and
interactions with teachers and other adults. Children who were highly oriented toward
teachers and other adults had also shown high mother-attachment and, in most cases, high
stranger acceptance in the strange situation. While the occurrence of aggressive behavior
towards others was too small to test in their sample, Maccoby and Feldman did observe
that those children who cried readily and had high activity levels at 24 months, and who
tended to remain close to strangers while avoiding more mature interaction were more
frequently the targets of aggressive behavior by others in preschool. Maccoby and
Feldman suggest that these children may engage in behaviors that seem to have a rather
high “nuisance value” for their peers.

In a review of the literature concerning attachment and aggressive behavior
problems, Lyons-Ruth (1996) has pointed to the importance of disorganized attachment
patterns and, to a lesser extent, to avoidant attachment patterns as predictors of future
externalizing behavioral diﬁ'lculties. She observes that a variety of researchers have
found relationships between avoidant attachment patterns in infancy and later dimculties
in infancy, toddlerhood, and the preschool period. Lyons-Ruth indicates, however, that

while a strong predictive relationship has been found between an insecure-avoidant

23

attachment classiﬁcation and later externalizing problems, these signiﬁcant results have
tended to be found only in high-risk samples.

For example, F agot and Kavanagh (1990) have found that among a sample of 109
boys and girls assessed via the Strange Situation at 18 months, girls classiﬁed as
insecure- avoidant were observed to have more externalizing problems and more
diﬁiculty interacting with peers at age 4 than girls who had received earlier ratings as
being securely attached. No similar pattern was found for the boys in the Fagot and
Kavanagh sample. Matas, Arend, and Sroufe (197 8) found that infants who were
classiﬁed as being securely attached at 18 months showed greater enthusiasm, were more
cooperative, and were generally more effective at age 2 than a group of children who
were rated as being insecurely attached (15 avoidant and 10 ambivalent). In their sample
of impoverished mothers, Renken, Egeland, Marvinney, Mangelsdorf, and Sroufe (1989)
found that an avoidant attachment pattern in infancy predicted aggression and passive
withdrawal for boys during the early school years (ﬁrst through third grade). No similar
relationship was found with aggressive behavior among the girls in the sample perhaps
due to other inﬂuences on female socialization. Finally, in another study from this same
sample, Egeland, Pianta, and O’Brien (1993) found that mothers who were rated as being
highly intrusive had children who were more likely to be rated as insecure-avoidant at 12
months. By 42 months, these same children were more likely to be negative,
noncompliant, avoidant, and more hyperactive than children who had received earlier
classiﬁcations of secure attachment.

As Lyons-Ruth has pointed out, in spite of these positive ﬁndings, the relationship
between early ratings of insecure-avoidant attachment and later aggression has not been

conﬁrmed in less vulnerable samples. Goldberg, Perrotta, Minde, and Corter (1986) and

24

Bates, Bayles, Bennett, Ridge, and Brown (1991) report no relationship between infant
attachment classiﬁcations and later behavioral diﬂiculties. Lewis, Feiring, McGuﬂ‘og
and J askir (1984) found only one predictive relationship. Boys in the sample with
insecure-avoidant classiﬁcations exhibit more internalizing symptomatology later in
development but show no differences in externalizing behavior. Taken together these
results suggest that risk factors beyond the classiﬁcation of an insecure-avoidant
attachment style must be considered when attempting to predict externalizing behavioral
difﬁculties.

In spite of the mixed evidence for the inﬂuence of an insecure-avoidant
attachment for predicting later externalizing dimculties, much stronger evidence exists
for the impact of a disorganized attachment classiﬁcation. As Lyons-Ruth (1996) has
noted, the disorganized attachment pattern has been found at rates of fewer than 15
percent among a two-parent, middle-class sample. This percentage increases
substantially, with the introduction of risk, to a high of 82 percent among maltreating
families (Lyons-Ruth, Repacholi, McLeod, & Silva, 1991). Lyons-Ruth and her
colleagues have also argued that there may be subtype diﬂ‘erences among children
classiﬁed as disorganized with the middle-class disorganized children tending to be
classiﬁed as “forced-secure” while maltreated disorganized children tend to be classiﬁed
as “forced-avoidant.”

Not surprisingly, then, the disorganized attachment patterns seen in low-income
families represents a signiﬁcant risk factor for later externalizing difﬁculties. Lyons-
Ruth, Alpern, and Repacholi (1993) found that three aspects of risk measured at 18
months were the strongest predictors of hostile and aggressive behavior toward peers in

kindergarten. Security of infant attachment, maternal psychosocial difﬁculties, and a

25

hostile-intrusive maternal style all emerged as signiﬁcant predictors of later child
diﬁculty. Children classiﬁed as disorganized were six times more likely to display
highly hostile behavior patterns at follow-up.

As noted earlier, children who have suffered maltreatment may be especially
vulnerable to disruptions in the attachment relationship. Cicchetti and Barnett (1991)
used the Strange Situation procedure to classify a sample of maltreated children and a
comparison sample of “normal treated” children at 30, 36, and 48 months. Using the
traditional three category classiﬁcation system, they found that maltreated children were
much more likely to be assigned to an insecure attachment category than those children
who were not maltreated. Among those children who were classiﬁed as securely attached
in the no maltreatment group, signiﬁcant stability was found in their attachment
classiﬁcation over time. In contrast, among the small number of children in the
maltreatment group who were classiﬁed as being securely attached at the initial
assessment, even fewer maintained this classiﬁcation over time as most all were later
classiﬁed as insecure. Similar links between maltreatment and attachment insecurity
and/or disorganization have been reported by Carlson, Cicchetti, Barnett, and Braunwald
(1989a, 1989b). Not surprisingly, then, maltreated children are also at serious risk for the
development of acting-out and aggressive behaviors later on in development (Aber &
Cicchetti, 1984; Kaufman & Cicchetti, 1989).

The evidence that disturbances in the attachment relationship place children at
serious risk for demonstrating high levels of aggressive behavior, especially in low
socioeconomic status farrrilies, seems rather unequivocal. Kochanska’s (1997b) work
conducted among relatively low-risk samples presents one possible explanation for this

ﬁnding; attachment may be particularly important for the development of early

26

conscience in a subgroup of temperamentally fearless children. Presumably,
temperamentally fearless children who, by virtue of a secure attachment relationship,
have internalized the moral standards of parents and the larger society are less likely to
engage in acts of aggression towards others. Inadequate conscience development, then,
may function as a vital mediating link between insecure/disorganized attachment and

later externalizing behavioral difﬁculties.

27

Chapter 3

TEMPEMMENT AND “GOODNESS OF FIT”

Thus far, I have reviewed two distinct pathways through which early conscience
and self-regulatory behavior seems to form. In the ﬁrst mechanism reviewed, inductive
discipline techniques that also make use of minimal amounts of power assertion and love
withdrawal attempt to achieve the optimal level of arousal needed to internalize parental
discipline messages. In the second mechanism reviewed, secure attachment has been
linked to better self-regulatory behavior, with disruptions in attachment leading to more
frequent externalizing behavioral diﬁiculties. But which of the pathways best explains
how early conscience develops for any particular child? As Grusec and Goodnow have
suggested, and Kochanska’s (1997b) work has conﬁrmed, the pathway to early
conscience development depends in part, on what the child brings to the interaction. The
child’s temperament may have a powerﬁll inﬂuence on his or her ability to receive,
process, and react to discipline messages.

Thomas and Chess (1977) were among the ﬁrst to emphasize the importance of
considering the “goodness of ﬁt” between parental expectations, parenting behavior and
child temperamental qualities. In the classic New York Longitudinal Study, they
contrasted the responses of parents ﬁom two different ethnic and cultural backgrounds to
particular child behaviors. In comparing White, middle to upper-middle class families
with working-class Puerto Rican families, Thomas and Chess conclude that symptom
formation in children is largely the result of environmental inﬂuences. They argue that
symptoms form (and are identiﬁed by parents) when environmental demands placed on

the child are excessive given the child’s temperamental disposition. For example,

28

children with similarly high temperamental activity levels were considered to be much
more problematic for parents in the Puerto Rican sample. Thomas and Chess observed
that the reason for this ﬁnding is that children in the Puerto Rican sample were much
more likely to be conﬁned to small apartments with inadequate play space while their
more afﬂuent counterparts had ample play space in their homes as well as easy access to
safe playgrounds in their immediate neighborhoods. When parenting behaviors and
expectations do not “ﬁt” well with a child’s temperamental disposition, then the child is
much more likely to have dimculty successfully negotiating their environment.

In reviewing the literature regarding the contribution of temperament to later
behavioral difﬁculties, Carey (1986) underscores the importance of examining goodness
of ﬁt between child and environment over time. He observes that different components
of temperament may contribute to problems as environmental expectations change. For
example, a toddler with a high activity level and low task persistence may not be viewed
by parents as troublesome. When this same child enters school, however, changing
environmental demands of the classroom may contribute to a poor ﬁt with the child’s
temperament and lead to behavioral diﬂiculties. In a similar way, a child who is
temperamentally “fearless” during early toddlerhood may be more prone to approach new
situations and more actively explore the environment. As Kochanska (1997b) has
demonstrated, in the older toddler and child, this same temperamental “fearlessness” may
prevent the child ﬁom becoming sufﬁciently aroused so as to be able to attend to
inductive parental discipline messages.

Gunnar (1994) has presented biological evidence that temperamental fearfulness
may contribute to diﬁ‘erences in the way in which children process information. Gunnar

examined differences in children’s responses to stress by examining activity levels in the

29

hypothalmic—pituitary-adrenocortical (HPA) system, one of the two major stress sensitive
areas in the brain. Borrowing a procedure used by Kagan, Reznick, and Snidman (1987),
children were rated as either inhibited or uninhibited on the basis of their responses to
three arousing events: a live female clown, a clown robot, and a puppet Show. Ratings of
observed responses to these events were signiﬁcantly correlated with parental reports of
fearﬁilness. Children who were rated as uninhibited showed no signiﬁcant elevation of
cortisol levels in the HPA systems following exposure to the arousing events or when
they were tested after having completed the Strange Situations task. In contrast, the
inhibited children experienced signiﬁcant elevations in HPA cortisol levels following
exposure to the stressful events. Interestingly, in contrast to Kochanska’s empirical
ﬁndings, inhibited children who had been classiﬁed as being securely attached seemed to
be better able to cope with the experienced stress, suggesting that attachment may be an
important moderator for “fearful” children’s adaptation.

In addition to the research which suggests that temperament inﬂuences the
manner in which we respond to and process information, a large body of literature exists
which has related temperamental characteristics to behavior disorders. For example,
Kyrios and Prior (1990), Tschann, Kaiser, Chesney, Alkon, and Boyce (1996), and
Wolfson, Fields, and Rose (1987) have all found links between “difﬁcult” temperamental
qualities and higher levels of child externalizing behaviors. In each of the studies, high
levels of temperamental impulsivity and negative affect were both related to the
preschooler’s aggressive behavior. Unfortunately, while some of this work may
demonstrate a direct link between temperament and behavioral difﬁculties, there may be
mechanisms, leﬁ untested by the research, through which temperament may operate

indirectly. For example, as has been suggested earlier, temperamental fearlessness may

30

inﬂuence the development of behavior problems by limiting the child’s ability to attend
to discipline messages. It seems likely that temperament inﬂuences behavior through
both direct and indirect mechanisms.

One assumption commonly made by many researchers is that temperament has an
inborn, genetically inﬂuenced, biological basis that is hard-wired and immutable (Bates,
1989). Unfortunately, as Bates, Wachs, and Emde (1994) point out, biological sources
are too often thought about as operating independent of the environment in “quasi-
mechanistic,” unidirectional ways. Gottlieb (1992) has offered a much more complex
understanding of organisrrric organization. According to Gottlieb, the multiple levels of
gene, cell, and person are interactive with both environmental and genetic inﬂuences. As
genes get turned on and off over time, they also become susceptible to environmental
inﬂuence as they both direct and respond to developmental processes (Plomin et al.,
1993). As Chess and Thomas (1984) have made clear, an individual’s temperament can
clearly change across development in transaction with the social environment.
Temperament, then, may both directly and indirectly inﬂuence behavior while at the

same time being shaped by experience over the course of development.

31

Chapter 4

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND TEMPERAMENT

What evidence do we have for a possible link between domestic violence and the
kinds of temperamental vulnerabilities that at best, dictate possible pathways toward the
development of early conscience, and at worst, directly impede the development of this
early self-regulatory behavior. Unfortunately, while a great deal of recent work has
examined links between domestic violence and behavioral difﬁculties, the mechanisms
through which these diﬂiculties emerge remain relatively unexplored. Indeed, given the
fact that the effects of witnessing domestic violence has only recently been recognized as
an area of study separate ﬁom the impact of abuse and neglect on children’s functioning,
it is, perhaps, not surprising that relatively little attention has been given to more
microscopic processes.

As Kolbo, Blakely, and Engleman (1996) have observed in their review of the
literature examining the impact of witnessing domestic violence on children’s
development, in general, positive correlations have been repeatedly found between
witnessing domestic violence and impaired child development. The results of these
studies, however, have been something less than unequivocal. As Kolbo et al. have
observed, several studies have failed to ﬁnd diﬁ‘erences between witnesses and
comparison children. Christopoulos et al. (1987), Hughes and Barad (1983), Rosenbaum
and O’Leary (1981), and Wolfe, Zak, Wilson, and Jaffe (1986) all conducted well-
designed studies which report no diﬂ’erences between child witnesses of domestic
violence and comparison children on measures of aggression, hyperactivity, and conduct

problems. An even larger number of studies, however, have found links between

32

witnessing domestic violence and behavioral difﬁculties. For example, Fantuzzo,
DePaola, Lambert, Marino, Anderson, and Sutton (1991), Hughes (1988), Jaﬂ’e, Wolfe,
Wilson, and Zak (1986a), and Jaffe, Wolfe, Wilson, and Zak (1986b) have all found
signiﬁcant differences between witnesses and comparison children in behavioral
ﬁrnctioning. Both boys and girls are reported to show higher levels of internalizing
symptomatology and lower self-esteem, with boys (and sometimes girls) also showing
higher levels of externalizing behavioral difﬁculties.

Whenever well-conducted research (sometimes even by the same research group)
yields seemingly contradictory ﬁndings it seems logical to examine other variables that
may be of explanatory signiﬁcance. It is precisely these types of inconsistencies that
characterize the presence of externalizing symptomatology among child witnesses to
domestic violence. One signiﬁcant problem with much of the earlier research is the
failure to simultaneously assess child abuse in homes where interparental violence was
occurring (F antuzzo & Lindquist, 1988). As discussed earlier, child temperament may
also be an important variable to consider given the fact that it may moderate the inﬂuence
of parent discipline and the parent-child relationship on the development of early
conscience, the precursor to self-regulatory behavior.

The research on the effects of domestic violence on children’s temperament is still
in its infancy. In the only study which explicitly examines temperament among children
exposed to domestic violence, Holden and Ritchie (1991) found that children in domestic
violence families had higher activity levels, heightened emotional intensity, lower
adaptability, and greater distractibility, all characteristics of the “difﬁcult temperament”
that Thomas and Chess (1977) ﬁrst described. While no signiﬁcant mean diﬁ‘erences

were found between children from violent versus nonviolent homes on a measure of

33

approach/ withdrawal, nonlinear relationships between witnessing domestic violence and
approach/ withdrawal (one component of fearﬁrlness) were not explored.

Other evidence may provide hints that there is some relationship between
domestic violence and a “fear” component of temperament. Graham-Hermann and
Levendosky (2000) found that preschoolers who witnessed domestic violence were less
likely to demonstrate appropriate emotional reactions to events and expressed negative
feelings more quickly than comparison children. In addition, those children who
witnessed domestic violence were more likely to withdraw from others.

Clearly, domestic violence is inﬂuencing the “behavioral style” that children
utilize as they interact with their environment, but in what way? One possibility is that
domestic violence tends to intensify existing temperamental propensities. For example, a
child who is prone to fearfulness may become hypersensitive to threatening
environmental cues as a protective mechanism. Alternatively, a child who is prone to
temperamental fearlessness may develop the ability to shut off threatening environmental
cues. If in fact, domestic violence inﬂuences temperament in this way, we might expect
to see a dramatic inﬂuence in the child’s reaction to discipline. Among the
hypersensitive children, the presence of even moderate amounts of power assertive
discipline might lead to overarousal and inhibit processing of any inductive component to
the discipline message. Among the hyposensitive, fearless children, the parent-chﬂd
relationship may take on even greater importance as a mechanism for internalizing
expectations for normative behavior, as the child effectively tunes out any discipline
efforts.

Qualitative work interviewing children who had been exposed to family violence

by Ericksen and Henderson (1992) provides some insight into these diverse reactions to

34

trauma. While some of the children describe feelings associated with hypervigilance and
increased fear, others tended to withdraw or disengage, seeking solitude or escaping from
stress via fantasy. Indeed, these different mechanisms for coping with trauma that
Ericksen and Henderson describe seems to ﬁt quite well with the clinical experiences of

many who have worked with traumatized children (Terr, 1990).

3S

Chapter 5

HYPOTHESES

The current investigation examines the mechanisms through which early
conscience develops in an at-risk population. As illustrated in Figure 1, witnessing
domestic violence is examined as a speciﬁc risk factor via the inﬂuence it has on child
temperament. Child temperament is hypothesized to moderate the relationship between
attachment and early conscience development and between parent discipline and early
conscience development. Per Baron and Kenny’s (1986) criteria, a variable may be
considered a moderator variable if it interacts with another main effect variable in such a
way that it contributes a signiﬁcant amount of additional variance to the prediction. In
addition, to it’s potential moderating inﬂuence on parent discipline and attachment,
temperament is also predicted to have a main effect on those aspects of early conscience
related to inhibitory self-control. Several hypotheses have been developed for the current
investigation:

Hypothesis 1

Consistent with the notion that the environment can inﬂuence temperament (e. g.,
Thomas & Chess, 1977), witnessing domestic violence was anticipated to have a
signiﬁcant relationship with child temperament. Witnessing domestic violence was
predicted to be related to temperament in such a way that increased exposure to violence
in their homes would be related to children’s placement more toward the extremes on the
combined “fear” dimension of the temperament scale.

Witnessing domestic violence was also expected to be related to the “impulsivity”

dimension of temperament. As exposure to domestic violence increased, children were

36

expected to demonstrate higher levels of impulsivity and less inhibitory self-control,
consistent with previous research linking exposure to violence with these temperamental
dimensions (e.g., Fantuzzo et al., 1991).
Hypothesis 2

The impulsivity component of child temperament was predicted to directly
inﬂuence certain components of early conscience. Since impulsivity seems to be a risk
factor for the development of externalizing behavior problems (e.g., Wolfson, Fields, &
Rose, 1987), children who are highly impulsive were expected to show lower levels of
active moral regulation/ vigilance according to maternal report. No relationship was
predicted between temperamental impulsivity and maternal report of aﬂ’ective discomfort
since the fact that children may have difﬁculty regulating behavior does not necessarily
suggest that these same children do not feel bad about their transgressions.
Memesiil

Since the Problem Situations Questionnaire (PSQ) has been created speciﬁcally
for this study, the hypothesis that the PSQ is a valid instrument was tested. Scores on the
PSQ were expected to be correlated with scores on the Parent Responses to Child
Misbehavior--Revised (PRCM-R) and with scores on the Attitudes Toward Spanking
(ATS) instruments. Assuming that adequate reliability on the PSQ subscales had been
established, mean scores on the Power Assertion PSQ subscale were expected to be
positively correlated with scores on the ATS, and with subscale scores on the PRCM-R
related to the use of physical punishment and verbal reprimands, at statistically
signiﬁcant levels. Similarly, scores on the Response Cost PSQ subscale were predicted
to be signiﬁcantly and positively correlated with scores on the PRCM-R subscales related

to the removal of positive attention. Finally, scores on the Inductive Discipline

37

dimension of the PSQ were expected to be signiﬁcantly and positively correlated with
scores on the PRCM-R subscales related to the use of reasoning, diversion, and
negotiation.

Hypothesis 4

Maternal ratings of child temperamental fearfulness were predicted to moderate
the relationship between the use of parent discipline and internalization. In contrast to
fearless children, with fearful children the use of low levels of power assertive discipline
and love withdrawal and high levels of inductive discipline was hypothesized to be
strongly related to maternal report measures of higher internalization. For the fearﬁll
group, then, discipline was predicted to be related to high scores on the affective
discomfort and active moral regulation/ vigilance scales of My Child. No relationship
was predicted between parent discipline and internalization for the group of children
classiﬁed as fearless. This prediction emerged from the theoretical work of Hoffman
(1983) and empirical work of Kochanska (1997b) suggesting that for children who are
fearless, the level of power assertion and love withdrawal necessary to get the child to
attend to discipline messages is so high, it becomes impossible to arouse the child
without being overly punitive.

This hypothesis (and hypothesis 5) hinged on the empirical comparison of
temperamental fearﬁllness scores in the at-risk sample of the current investigation with
the scores obtained by Kochanska in her previous research. As indicated in hypothesis 1,
exposure to domestic violence was predicted to relate to child placement at the extremes
of the “fear” dimension of temperament. Ifthis hypothesis is conﬁrmed, the median
score on the “fear” dimension should be similar to that obtained by Kochanska with

differences seen in the standard deviations between the two samples. The median split

38

procedure used by Kochanska will then be utilized to classify children as fearful or
fearless. Ifhypothesis l is not conﬁrmed and the Kochanska sample and the sample in
the current investigation are found to have different median scores on the fearfulness
dimension, then the Kochanska median score will be utilized for classifying children as
either fearﬁll or fearless.
Hypothesis 5

Maternal ratings of child fearfulness were also predicted to moderate the
relationship between parent-child attachment and internalization. This second pathway to
internalization was ﬁrst identiﬁed by Maccoby (1983). With higher ratings of attachment
security and secure base behavior and lower ratings of dependency obtained from the
Attachment Q-Set, children rated as being fearless were expected to Show higher scores
on the affective discomfort and active moral regulation/ vigilance scales of My Child.

While it makes sense that attachment would be the most important pathway for
internalization among fearless children, it is important to note that no theoretical rationale
has been oﬁ‘ered to explain Kochanska’s (1997b) ﬁnding that the attachment relationship
is unimportant for internalization for relatively fearﬁil children. As suggested by the
literature reviewed earlier, attachment appears to be an important predictor of
internalization (and of the absence of externalizing behavior problems) regardless of
temperamental factors. Given the body of literature reviewed, it would not be surprising,
then, if a strong attachment relationship also predicted internalization for children who
are relatively fearful even though this prediction runs contrary to the prior empirical work

which has utilized these measures.

39

Chapter 6

METHODS

Subjects

Subjects in the investigation consisted of 103 preschool children between 3 and 5
years of age and their mothers. The sample consisted of 46 boys and 57 girls. Mothers
and children were recruited from local Head Start classrooms, ﬁ'om the Council Against
Domestic Assault (CADA), from the local Family Independence Agency (F IA), from the
Black Child and Family Institute, ﬁom the Economic Crisis Center, and via the posting of
ﬂiers advertising the study throughout the Lansing area. Recruitment was conducted in
areas of the community so as to maximize the likelihood of obtaining a racially and
ethnically diverse sample. Characteristics of the sample are summarized in Table 1.
Families were primarily recruited from lower socioeconomic status areas so that the
inﬂuence of having been raised in a home where domestic violence has occurred could be
examined separately from other environmental stressors. In this way, the investigation
attempts to compare low socioeconomic status families who have experienced domestic
violence with those low socioeconomic status families that have not.

Procedures

The investigation was conducted as part of a larger research study examining the
impact of domestic violence on preschooler’s development. Mothers and preschoolers
who were interested in learning more about the study were asked to contact the research
lab by phone. A brief description of the study was provided to the family over the phone.
If the family decided to participate, two two-hour appointments with the family were

scheduled; one was conducted on the Michigan State University campus, the second in

40

Table 1. Demographic Characteristics of Sample

 

Demographic Characteristics

 

n % mean SD range
Child
Sex
Male 46 45.7%
Female 57 55.3%
Age 4.4 .71 3.0-5.9
3 years 28 27.5%
4 years 52 50.9%
5 years 22 21.6%
Race
Asian 1 1.0%
Black 44 42.7%
Latino/Hispanic l 1 10.7%
Bi-racial 24 23.3%
White 23 22.3%
Mother
Age 27.9 6.2 19-46
Race
Asian 1 1.0%
Black 43 41.7%
Latino/Hispanic 10 9.7%
Bi-racial 5 4.9%
White 44 42.7%
Income (monthly) $1329 $964 $O-$6, 166
Education
Some HS. 20 19.4%
H.S. Degree/GED 24 23.3%
Some college/vocational 48 46.6%
College degree 11 10.7%
Marital status
Single 44 42.7%
Living with partner 10 9.7%
Married 25 24.3%
Separated 10 9.7%
Divorced 14 13.6%

 

41

the family’s home. When a family contained two children who fell within the age range
of the study, one child was selected at random to participate. Prior to beginning data
collection, mothers were asked to provide informed consent both for their own
participation and for their preschool child. Children were asked to provide verbal assent
prior to initiating data collection. As part of the larger study, mothers were asked to
complete a battery of questionnaires designed to assess a variety of different areas of
child behavior, parenting behavior, maternal psychological functioning, and the parent-
child relationship as well as any history of domestic violence. Following the completion
of data collection, mothers were paid $50 for their participation. Children received a
small gift, valued at approximately $5.
Measures

Demographic Ouestionnaira. Mothers were asked to complete a brief
demographic questionnaire which provided information regarding family income,
religion, ethnic and racial composition, family size, marital status, and domestic violence
history (including dates when violence had occurred) and whether or not the mother and
child had ever sought refuge in a shelter.

Measure of exposure to domestic violence. Severity of Violence Against Women
Sale (SVAWS) (Marshall, 1992) was completed by the mother as a measure of her prior
or ongoing experience of domestic violence. The scale consists of 46 items that represent
9 factors including threats of violence, actual violent acts, and sexual violence. Using
data gathered on a community-based sample of 208 women, the factor scales demonstrate
excellent reliability with coeﬁicient alphas ranging from .89 to .96. Severity weights for

each violent act have also been assigned by Marshall who asked women to rate each act

along the dimensions of seriousness, aggressiveness, abusiveness, physical harm, and

42

psychological/emotional harm, and then computed a mean severity score for each act
based on these ratings. For this investigation, a total domestic violence severity score
was computed by multiplying the reported ﬁ'equency of each violent act by Marshall’s
computed severity score for that act and then summing the products obtained for each of
the 46 items. Violence reported served as a proxy for exposure since mothers who have
experienced violence may tend to minimize their child’s exposure to it. There is
empirical evidence to support such a procedure since, as suggested by Carlson (1984), in
spite of any efforts that parents may make to limit their child’s exposure to interparental
violence, there remain strong links between the amount and severity of violence that the -
mother experiences and the child’s exposure to it.

M_easure of child temperament: C_hildren’s Behavior Questionnaire (CBQ)--
Version I (Rothbart, 1996) was completed by the mothers regarding her preschooler to
assess several different dimensions of child temperament. This unpublished instrument
was adapted by the author from instruments that have previously been utilized
successfully with adults (Derryberry & Rothbart, 1984) and with infants (Rothbart, 1981,
1986). For the current investigation, ﬁve subscales (discomfort, fear, shyness,
impulsivity, and inhibitory control) were used.

Following a procedure used by Kochanska (1997b), scores on the discomfort,
fear, and shyness subscales were combined and a median split performed to classify
children in the sample as either fearful or fearless. In Kochanska’s work, “temperamental
fearﬁrlness” was shown to have a moderating eﬁ’ect on parent discipline and attachment
when predicting the development of early conscience. The mean, standard deviation, and

range of the Kochanska sample (M =11.77, SD = 2.42, Range = 567-1667) on this

43

temperamental fearfulness dimension will be compared with the current at-risk sample to
explore possible differences between the populations.

In addition to the “fearﬁllness’ dimension, given the expectation that two
components of diﬁicult temperament (high levels of impulsivity and poor inhibitory
control) were anticipated to place children at greater risk in the high stress families of the
current sample (Hetherington, 1989; Rutter & Quinton, 1984), these dimensions were
combined to form a measure of temperamental self-control. Coefﬁcient alpha for the ﬁve
subscales included in the study ranges from a low of .69 to a high of .94.

M_easure of Parent-Child Attgllment: The Attﬂment O-Set (AQS) (Vers_ipr_l
3_.Q) (Waters, 1987) was used to assess the quality of the parent-child relationship. As
reported by Waters (1995), the Attachment Q-Set has been used successﬁllly by parents
to provide ratings of their own child’s attachment. The Q-Set methodology required the
parent to sort 90 cards into 9 piles of 10 cards each. Parents sorted the cards into piles
that ranged from being extremely characteristic of their child to extremely
uncharacteristic of their child. Once the sorting was completed, the parent rating was
compared with a sort consisting of optimal “secure base” behavior. In developing the Q-
Set, Waters created this comparison secure base sort by asking a team of experienced
clinicians to conduct a sort on a hypothetical child exhibiting optimal secure base
behavior. By examining the Pearson correlation coefﬁcients that these comparisons
generated, the sort was used to provide a measure of the child’s attachment security and
the child’s dependency. In addition to these more global uses of the Q-Set data, an
additional subscale developed by Pederson and Moran (1995) called “secure-base” in
which children were compared on the basis of the mean Q-Sort placement of a subset of

Q-Set items was computed. Using data of mothers who completed the Q-Sort regarding

44

their own children, the scale has successfully discriminated between children who had
been independently classiﬁed into one of Ainsworth’s three primary attachment
categories (Pederson & Moran, 1995), suggesting that it may be a valid mechanism for
identifying attachment differences. For the current investigation, then, three continuous
variables from the Q-Sort were calculated: correspondence scores on the security
dimension, correspondence scores on the dependency dimension, and scores on the
secure base subscale.

Measures of Parent Discipline. Three diﬂ’erent measures of parent discipline were
used in the proposed investigation. Parental Responses to Child MisbeﬂriornRevised
(PRCM-R) (Holden, 1996) is a 12-item scale that was used to assess several different
dimensions of parenting behavior including the use of physical punishment, threats and
verbal aggression, diversion and negotiation, and withdrawal of attention or privileges.
The revised instrument is virtually identical to the original (Holden & Zambarano, 1992)
with the exception that an item inquiring about the frequency of “spanking or slapping”
has been divided into two separate items. The scale has demonstrated adequate test-retest
reliability (mean item correlations between responses gathered over a 3-week interval
=.6l (p<.0001). Reports of spanking have been signiﬁcantly correlated with reported
attitudes toward spanking (r=.65) and with two weeks of daily reports regarding parent
disciplinary practices (r=.68) (Holden, Coleman, & Schmidt, 1995), suggesting adequate
validity. While no procedures have been previously developed for forming individual
item responses into scales, a factor analysis was conducted on the sample in the current
investigation to determine the empirical factor structure. Principal components analysis
of the PRCM yielded a 4 factor solution, with 2 of these factors being comprised of only

a single item. The single item scales were dropped in order to yield 2 meaningful,

45

reliable factor scales, an Inductive Discipline/ Love Withdrawal scale (alpha =.66) and a
Punitive Response scale (alpha = .75). Results of the factor analysis are summarized in

Table 2. Total scores were computed for both of the empirically derived subscales and

used in subsequent analyses.

Attitudes Toward Spanking (ATS) (Holden & Zambarano, 1992) is a 10—item
scale that was used as a second discipline measure focusing exclusively on the use of
maternal physical discipline. The measure demonstrates good internal consistency
(Cronbach’s alpha ranges from .89 to .91 in 4 different samples) and adequate test-retest
reliability (mean correlation between responses gathered over a 3-week interval =.76
(p<.001)). In previous research, attitudes towards spanking scores have been
signiﬁcantly correlated with other questionnaire reports of spanking behavior (r=.73,
p<.001) and with two weeks of daily reports regarding parent discipline (r=.54, p<.001)
(Holden, Coleman, & Schmidt, 1995). After reverse scoring items where appropriate, the
instrument yielded a total “attitudes toward spanking score” formed by summing item
scores. High scores indicate greater tolerance of spanking as a discipline technique.

As a ﬁnal measure of maternal discipline, the Problem Situations Questionnm
was developed speciﬁcally for use in the current study. Adapted from a ﬁee response
format of a longer questionnaire developed by Stollak, Scholonr, Kallman, and
Saturansky (1973), the Problem Situations Questionnaire asks mothers to “imagine that
they are the mother” in one of ﬁve hypothetical situations likely to evoke a discipline
response. Mothers are asked to rate the likelihood that they would engage in six different
discipline strategies in response to the child described in the narrative. The six discipline
strategies were designed to tap three dimensions of parent discipline: power assertion,

response cost (privilege or attention removal), and inductive discipline. A principal

46

Table 2. Results of Principal Components Analysis of PRCM-R - Factor Loadings

 

 

 

and Scale Reliability
Component”
1 2
Items included in Power
Assertion Factor ‘:
PRCM 4 .717 .060
PRCM 6 .692 -.408
PRCM 6b .718 -. 170
PRCM 9 .652 -. 186
PRCM 10b .654 -.235
Items included in Positive/
Withdrawal Factor b:
PRCM l .271 .574
PRCM 2 .000 .740
PRCM 3 -.007 .560
PRCM 5 .426 .534
PRCM 8 .408 .611

 

‘ scale reliability alpha = .75; b scale reliability alpha = .65
# Between factors Pearson r = .36 (not signiﬁcant)

47

components analysis was conducted in order to empirically determine the factor structure
of the instrument. The factor analysis yielded 3 scales: an 8-item physical punishment
scale (alpha =.86), a 7-item response cost scale (alpha :72), and a 4-item empathic
discipline scale (alpha =.73). Results of the factor analysis and items included in each
scale are summarized in Table 3.

Mgrsure of Early Conscience: m Child--Veraion 2 (Kochanska, 1992;
Kochanska, DeVet, Goldman, Murray, & Putnam, 1994) is a 100-item maternal report
instrument tapping several different dimensions of early conscience. The instrument
demonstrates good reliability and has been utilized extensively by Kochanska in prior
research (e.g., Kochanska, 1997a; Kochanska et al., 1994). Principal components
analysis of this instrument has produced two broad components of conscience, each of
which were used as outcome variables: affective discomfort (including the scales of guilt
(alpha =.78), apology (alpha =.74), concern about good feelings with parent after
wrongdoing (alpha =.67), and empathy (alpha =.76)) and active moral regulation /
vigilance (including the confession (alpha =.69), reparation (alpha =.76), internalized
conduct (alpha =.90), and concern about others’ wrongdoing (alpha =.82) subscales).
Total scores were computed for both the affective discomfort and active moral regulation
/ vigilance subscales by sumnring computed mean scores for each of the component

subscales, reverse scoring items where appropriate.

48

Table 3. Results of Principal Components Analysis of PSQ - Factor Loadings and

 

 

 

Scale Reliability
Component”
1 2 3
Items included in Physical
Punishment Factor 1‘:

PSQ 1B .672 .147 .105
PSQ 1B .647 -.065 .388
PSQ 2B .600 -.162 .112
PSQ 2B .701 .078 .133
PSQ 3B .644 .110 -.164
PSQ 3E .744 -. 127 .074
PSQ 5B .603 -.040 .070
PSQ SE .708 -.082 .174

Items included in Response

Cost Factor 2 l’:

PSQ 1A -.065 .559 -.114
PSQ 1D .090 .296 -.143
PSQ 2A -.035 .575 -.066
PSQ 2D -.085 .607 -.216
PSQ 3A .066 .574 -. 100
PSQ 3D .102 .576 -.208
PSQ 5A .221 .527 .162

Items included in Empathic

Discipline Factor 3 °:

PSQ 1F -.295 .234 .581
PSQ 2F -.354 .213 .554
PSQ 3F -.300 .280 .624
PSQ SF -.456 .282 .558

 

" scale reliability alpha = .86; b scale reliability alpha = .72; ° scale reliability alpha = .73

# Between factor Pearson correlations: Factor 1 and Factor 2: r = .09 (not signiﬁcant)
Factor 2 and Factor 3: r = .11 (not signiﬁcant)
Factor 1 and Factor 3: r = -.29 (sig. at p < .05)

49

Chapter 7

ANALYSES

Prior to conducting the main analyses that were used to test each of the
hypotheses, a series of regression analyses were conducted to examine any possible
relationship the demographic variables, child’s age, child’s sex, child’s race, mother’s
race, mother’s education, and family income, might have with each of the dependent
variables. This was done in order to explore the possibility that these exogenous
variables might account for any signiﬁcant relationships that may be found. Signiﬁcant
relationships were identiﬁed between the child’s race and the CBQ combined fearﬁrlness
score and between the child’s age and the My Child affective discomfort scale. Where
relevant, these race and age effects were statistically controlled for prior to proceeding
with the remaining analyses. The relationship between each of the demographic
variables and the dependent variables is summarized in Table 4.

Hypothesis number one predicted that witnessing domestic violence will push
children to the extremes on the temperamental fear dimension. To test this hypothesis,
scores on the SVAWS were entered into a regression equation predicting temperamental
fear on the Child Behavior Questionnaire. Exposure to domestic violence was found to
have a signiﬁcant impact on temperamental fearfulness, however, not in the manner that
had been predicted. Rather than pushing children to both extremes of temperamental
fearfulness, weighted severity scores from the SVAWS were found to signiﬁcantly
predict more fearﬁrlness, i.e. more severe violence lead to more child fearﬁilness (R2:

.05, p=.031). The scatterplot of the relationship may be seen in Figure 2. The use of

50

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Eva: mova.
mom omo. vo. ooo. oo. So. we. moo. mo. So. 3am @8502
om. moo. no; So. om. moo. mo. 39 2. 8o. 2:85 EEBHEEBE
mom mmo. 2. 8o. oo. ooo. mo. ooo. no. ooo. consosom @8502
.2} mmo. 3c. voo. ow. moo. mm. 2o. ow. wmo. comm m.EED
mo. o8. SE So. :36 moo. mm. moo. mo. omo. ow< FEED
mo; o5. vw. woo. o: :o. mo. ooo. oo. 8o. xom FEED
m «M m «M m "M m mm m «M
ocoom cog—Emméogaom €888me SEED ESE—:95
.aom ooqEEoD Eco—2 o>ﬂo< 03805 EBEEE OmD
emu EEO a: EEO a: 08

 

833...; «no—E23: ES 833...; gnaw—weaken =8on Eigetﬁom wEEEanH 8»h-a:< seine—mom .v 033—.

51

Total Combined "Fear" score CBQ

Figure 2. Scatterplot of CBQ Fearfulness

Distribution x Severity of Violence

 

18‘
16*
14‘

104

h

 

 

 

-2o 6 2'0 4'0

SVAW Total using impact weights

52

100

lifetime, dummy coded violence exposure scores to predict temperamental fearﬁllness
was not signiﬁcant.

Hypothesis number one also predicted a relationship between exposure to
domestic violence and temperamental impulsivity/inhibitory control. Weighted severity
scores from the SVAWS were entered into a regression equation predicted scores on the
impulsivity scale on the CBQ. In addition, SVAWS scores were again dummy coded to
indicate whether the child’s mother had been in an abusive relationship during the child’s
lifetime. These scores were also used to predict temperamental impulsivityfmhibitory
control. While no relationship was found between exposure to violence and child
temperamental impulsivity as measured by the CBQ using the weighted SVAWS severity
scores, when the dummy coded lifetime exposure scores were used to predict
temperamental impulsivity/inhibitory control, a signiﬁcant relationship emerged (R2 =
.05, p=.029). A summary of the results of these analyses may be found in Table 5.

Hypothesis number two predicted a direct negative relationship between
temperamental impulsivity and certain dimensions of early conscience. In order to test
this hypothesis, the CBQ temperamental impulsivity was entered into separate regression
equations to predict scores on the aﬂ’ective discomfort and active moral regulation/
vigilance scales of the My Child maternal report instrument. As indicated in Table 6., the
results supported the predicted connection between temperamental impulsivity and early
conscience development as assessed by the My Child instrument. High temperamental
impulsivity signiﬁcantly predicted low scores on the active moral regulation/vigilance
cluster (R2 = .38, p<.001). Again, as had been predicted, no relationship was found
between scores on the temperamental impulsivity/inhibitory control dimension of the

CBQ and the aﬁ’ective discomfort cluster of My Child.

53

Table 5. Exposure to Domestic Violence Variables Predicting Temperamental Fear

 

 

 

 

 

and Irnpulsivity
Dimension of CBQ Temperament
Fearfulness Irnpulsivity
Predictor Variable R2 F R2 F
SVAWS Weighted .05 482* .00 0.04
Severity Score
SVAWS Lifetime Presence or .01 0.65 .05 492*

Absence of Violence

 

* signiﬁcant at p< .05 level

54

Table 6. Temperamental Irnpulsivity Variable Predicting Dimensions of Early
Conscience Development

 

Dimension of My Child Conscience

 

 

 

 

Active Moral Regulation/ Affective Discomfort
Vigliance
Predictor Variable R2 F R2 F
CBQ Irnpulsivity/ .38 5945*" .02 1.79

Inhibitory Control

 

*** signiﬁcant at p< .001 level

55

As described in hypothesis number three, the assessment of the convergent
validity of the Problem Situations Questionnaire was conducted by examining any
signiﬁcant correlations between selected subscales of the PSQ and the corresponding
subscales from the PRCM-R and ATS. As expected and as indicated in Table 7., the
PSQ empathic discipline factor was signiﬁcantly, negatively correlated with both the
PRCM Power Assertion factor (r = -.39, p<.001) and with the ATS total score (r = -.32,
p<.001). The PSQ physical punishment factor was signiﬁcantly, positively correlated
with both the PRCM Power Assertion factor (r = .63, p<.001) and with the ATS total
score (r = .64, p<.001). No signiﬁcant correlations were found between the PSQ
Response Cost factor and any of the PRCM-R or ATS scales. In addition to assessing
convergent validity, discriminative validity of the PSQ will be assessed via hypothesis
number four when the instrument is used to predict early conscience development.

Hypothesis number four predicted a signiﬁcant relationship between the use of
high levels of inductive discipline, low levels of power assertion and love withdrawal,
and the development of early conscience (most powerﬁilly in the temperamentally fearful
subgroup). Scores from each of the discipline scales were ﬁrst entered into a regression
equation predicting early conscience development. The results of these analyses are
summarized in Table 8. The PRCM Positive/Withdrawal scale was not signiﬁcantly
related to either the Active Moral RegulationNigilance dimension or the Affective
Discomfort dimension of conscience as measured by the My Child instrument. Low
scores on the PRCM Power Assertion scale signiﬁcantly predicted high scores on the
Active Moral Regulation/Vigilance dimension of My Child (R2 = .06, p<.01) but no
relationship was found with the Affective Discomfort dimension. Low scores on the ATS

were also signiﬁcantly related to high scores on the Active Moral RegulationNigilance

56

Table 7. Pearson Correlations Between Problems Situations Questionnaire Scales
and Revised Parent Response To Child Misbehavior Scales and Attitudes

 

 

 

Toward Spanking Scale
Problem Situation Questionnaire Scale
Empathic Physical Response
Discipline Punishment Cost
Attitude Toward Spanking -.32*** .64*** -.03
Total Score
PRCM Positive/Withdrawal .12 -.21* .18+
Factor
PRCM Power Assertion -.39*** .63*"‘* -.05
Factor

 

+ signiﬁcant at p< .10 level; * signiﬁcant at p< .05 level; *** signiﬁcant at p< .001 level

57

Table 8. Parent Discipline Variables Predicting Early Conscience Development

 

Dimension of Early Conscience

 

Active Moral RegulationNigilance Affective Discomfort

 

 

 

Predictor Variable R2 F R2 F
PRCM Positive/Withdrawal .03 2.64+ .01 0.66
PRCM Power Assertion .06 6.34" .00 0.10
ATS Total .05 4.82* .00 0.31
PSQ Empathic Discipline .01 1.10 .00 0.11
PSQ Physical Punishment .04 393* .00 0.23
PSQ Response Cost .00 0.11 .07 7.38”

 

+ signiﬁcant at p< .10 level; * signiﬁcant at p< .05 level; ** signiﬁcant at p< .01 level

58

dimension of My Child (R2 = .05, p<.05) but again no relationship was found with the
Aﬁ’ective Discomfort dimension. On the PSQ, the Empathic Discipline scale was
unrelated to either dimension of early conscience on My Child. Low scores on the PSQ
Physical Punishment scale signiﬁcantly predicted high scores on the Active Moral
Regulation/Vigliance dimension of My Child (R2 = .04, p<.05) but again no relationship
was found with the Affective Discomfort dimension. Finally, scores on the PSQ
Response Cost Dimension were unrelated to the Active Moral Regulation/Vigilance
dimension of My Child but were signiﬁcantly and positively associated with scores on
the Aﬂeaive Discomfort dimension (R2 = .07, p<.01).

In the next series of analyses, each variable ﬁ'om the relevant discipline scale was
entered with a dichotomous temperamental fear variable as the ﬁrst step of the regression
equation. In the next step of the regression, the discipline by temperament product term
was entered into the equation to explore whether or not the interaction term explained
signiﬁcant amounts of additional variance. The results of these analyses are summarized
in Table 9. Signiﬁcant interactions were found between the PRCM Power Assertion
Scale and the CBQ Fearfulness Subgroup in the prediction of My Child Active Moral
Regulation/Vigilance (R2 change = .04, p<.05). High levels of power assertion was found
to more negatively impact the development of Active Moral Regulation/Vigilance for
those children in the temperamentally fearﬁrl subgroup than those in the more
temperamentally fearless grouping. The interpretation of this interaction and those that
follow were made possible by ﬁrst dichotornizing the relevant discipline scale. The high
and low discipline scale scores were then plotted on the x-axis with the conscience scale
score on the y-axis separately for each of the two levels of the already dichotomized

temperamental fearfulness score (see Figure 3). When the other interactions were

59

Table 9. Hierarchical Regression Analyses Examining Discipline x Fear Interaction
Effects on Early Conscience Development

 

Dimension of Early Conscience

 

 

 

Active Moral RegulationNigilance Affective Discomfort

Variables entered R2 change F change R2 change F change

at each step for step for step for step for step

1. PRCM Positive/Withdrawal .07 3.76* .01 0.34
CBQ Fearful Subgroup

2. PRCM PW x Fearful .00 0.11 .01 0.77

1. PRCM Power Assertion .10 5.02M .00 0.05
CBQ Fearful Subgroup

2. PRCM PA x Fearful .04 426* .03 309’

1. ATS Total .08 434* .00 0.16
CBQ Fearful Subgroup

2. ATS x Fearful .00 0.01 .01 0.89

1. PSQ Empathic Discipline .05 235+ .00 0.06
CBQ Fearﬁll Subgroup

2. PSQ ED x Fearful .02 1.59 .01 0.98

1. PSQ Physical Punishment .07 336* .00 0.13
CBQ Fearful Subgroup

2. PSQ PP x Fearful .00 0.31 .04 3.67”“

1. PSQ Response Cost .04 2.09 .07 3.69“
CBQ Fearﬁrl Subgroup

2. PSQ RC x Fearful .01 0.62 .00 0.04

 

+ signiﬁcant at p< .10 level; * signiﬁcant at p< .05 level; ** signiﬁcant at p< .01 level

60

Figure 3. Graph Depicting CBQ Fearfulness x
PRCM Power Assertion Interaction

 

17.5

 

17.0 "
16.5 -
16.0 -

15.5 -

15.0 - CBQ Subgroup

14.5 ., Fearless

14.0 Fearful
Low th

Mean Active moral regulation/vigilance score

 

 

 

Dichotom'zed PRCM Power Assertion

61

examined, a trend was found between the PRCM Power Assertion Scale and the CBQ
Fearfulness Subgroup in the prediction of My Child Affective Discomfort (R2 change =
.03, p<. 10). Again, high levels of Power Assertion was found to more negatively impact
the development of Aﬂ’ective Discomfort for those children in the temperamentally
fearful subgroup than for more fearless children. Finally, a signiﬁcant interaction was
found between the PSQ Physical Punishment Scale and CBQ Fearfulness in the
prediction of Affective Discomfort (R2 change = .04, p<.05). As indicated in Figure 4,
those children described as being more fearful in temperament were more negatively
impacted by high levels of physical punishment in the development of affective
discomfort then were those children who were described as being more fearless.

In order to test hypothesis number ﬁve, which predicted that temperamental fear
would also moderate the relationship between attachment and early conscience
development, a ﬁnal series of regression analyses were conducted. As described by
Waters (1995), the security and dependency scores from the Attachment Q-set were
obtained for each child in the sample by computing a correlation coefficient between the
mother’s Q-sort for her child and the Q-sort of the hypothetical ideal child that the
authors of the instrument created by combining the sorts of expert raters. A Fisher’s r-to-
z transformation (Teti, Nakagawa, Das, & Wirth, 1991) was then conducted for each of
the computed scales so that children in the sample could be more readily compared with
each other. The Pederson-Moran Secure Base scale was calculated by summing pile
placements of the relevant items (reverse scoring items where appropriate).

A separate set of regression analyses was conducted for each of the three
attachment scales computed. First, the main effects of each of the attachment variables

on the development of early conscience were tested in a series of regression analyses.

62

Mean Affective Discomfort Score

Figure 4. Graph Depicting CBQ Fearfulness

x PSQ Physical Punishment Interaction

206

 

204‘

202-

200-

1&8-

196-

194-

192

CBQ Stbgroup

Fearless

Fearful

 

 

Low

 

th

Dichotom'zed PSQ Physical Punishment Score

63

The results of these analyses are summarized in Table 10. The AQS Security Score
powerfully predicted scores on the My Child Active Moral Regulation/Viglilance
subscale (R2 = .25, p<.001) while only a trend existed for the prediction of Aﬁ‘ective
Discomfort (R2 = .03, p<. 10). In each case, higher security scores contributed to higher
scores on the My Child subscale. High scores on the Pederson-Moran Secure Base scale
predicted higher scores on both the Active Moral RegulationNigilance (R2 = .16,
p<.001) and Affective Discomfort subscales (R2 change = .04, p<.05). Only a trend was
found between scores on the AQS Dependency Scale and the Active Moral
RegulationNigilance Dimension of early conscience (R2 = .03, p<. 10).

In the next round of analyses, the scores for the attachment scale to be tested were
entered with the dichotomous temperamental fear variable as the ﬁrst step into separate
regression equations predicting each of the early conscience outcome variables. In the
subsequent block, the attachment scale score by temperamental fear product term was
entered into the regression equation to assess whether or not the interaction term
explained signiﬁcant additional variance. The results of these analyses are summarized
in Table 11. Temperamental fear signiﬁcantly moderated the effect of attachment on
early conscience development only when the Pederson-Moran scale was used to predict
Active Moral Regulation/Vigilance (R2 change = .07, p<.01). As indicated in Figure 5,
more fearless children with low secure base scores showed higher scores on the Active
Moral Regulation/Vigilance subscale in comparison to fearful children with low secure
base scores. Higher secure base scores predicted higher scores on the Active Moral
Regulation/Vigilance subscale for both groups but more powerfully for those children

rated as being more fearful.

Table 10. Attachment Variables Predicting Early Conscience Development

 

Dimension of Early Conscience

 

Active Moral RegulationNigilance Affective Discomfort

 

 

 

Predictor Variable R2 F R2 F
AQS Security .25 31.44*** .03 3.18+
AQS Dependency .03 2.80 .01 1.08
Pederson-Moran Secure Base .16 1873*" .04 3.76*

 

+ signiﬁcant at p< .10 level; * signiﬁcant at p< .05 level; *** signiﬁcant at p< .001 level

65

Table 11. Hierarchical Regression Analyses Examining Attachment x Fearfulness
Interaction Effects on Early Conscience Development

 

Dimension of Early Conscience

 

Active Moral Regulation/Vigilance Affective Discomfort

 

 

Variables entered R2 change F change R2 change F change

at each step for step for step for step for step

1. AQS Security .26 1652*" .03 1.66
CBQ Fearﬁll Subgroup

2. AQS Security x Fearﬁil .02 2.98+ .01 0.01

1. AQS Dependence .05 273+ .01 0.64
CBQ Fearful Subgroup

2. AQS Dependency x Fearful .02 1.62 .00 0.28

l. Pederson-Moran Secure Base .19 10.98*** .04 1.90
CBQ Fearful Subgroup

2. Pederson-Moran Secure x Fearful .07 8.44" .00 0.23

 

+ signiﬁcant at p< .10 level; ** signiﬁcant at p< .01 level; *** signiﬁcant at p< .001 level

Figure 5. Graph Depicting CBQ Fearfulness

x Pederson-Moran Secure Base Interaction

 

19

18-

17-

16-

Mean Active moral regulation/vigilance score

 

 

 

‘5 ' CBQ Stbgroup
14 ‘ Fearless
13 Fearful

Low Security th Security

Dichotom'zed Pederson-Moran Score

67

Chapter 8

DISCUSSION

Results of this study oﬁ‘ered partial conﬁrmation for the hypothesized model
predicting early conscience development in a sample of preschool-age children exposed
to domestic violence. The study oﬁ’ered several powerful and, in some cases, surprising
ﬁndings.

Contrary to the hypothesis that predicted that children in the sample would have a
tendency to be pushed to the extremes of temperamental fearfulness, that is, with more
signiﬁcant exposure to domestic violence children would become either more fearful or
more fearless, exposure to increasingly severe amounts of violence was related to more
fearﬁrlness across the sample. While other research has provided evidence of a diverse
set of reactions to experienced trauma (e. g., McCloskey et al., 1995), children in the
current sample tend to respond with heightened anxiety via more severe exposure. As
much of the previous research has tended to focus on an older child sample, the current
investigation suggests that younger children, because of their relative vulnerability, may
be more constricted in the way they respond to trauma.

Severity of exposure to domestic violence did not relate to heightened
temperamental impulsivity / poor inhibitory control. When children were divided into
exposed versus nonexposed groups, however, the exposed children did demonstrate
higher scores in this temperamental dimension. This ﬁnding suggests that the extent of
exposure to domestic violence is less important then is the mere fact of any exposure in

predicting greater temperamental impulsivity.

68

Temperamental impulsivity was found to powerﬁrlly predict scores on the active
moral regulation dimension of the My Child conscience measure. This ﬁnding was
consistent with what had been hypothesized. Children in the sample who respond in
more impulsive ways clearly have greater difficulty utilizing internal control mechanisms
when confronted with temptation. Again, as expected, temperamental impulsivity did not
seem to be related to heightened affective discomfort in response to moral transgressions.
This makes sense in that the mere fact that a child may act impulsively to gratify some
desire does not necessarily suggest that the child would not feel bad about such behavior
after the fact.

One important result that emerged from the current investigation was the
establishment of the Problem Situations Questionnaire (PSQ) as a valid and reliable
measure of parent discipline practices. Both the empathic discipline and the physical
punishment scales of the PSQ were signiﬁcantly correlated in the expected direction with
scores on the ATS scale and on the PRCM-R Power Assertion factor. In addition, the
physical punishment scale of the PSQ showed similar predictive validity as these two
established scales when predicting the active moral regulation/vigilance dimension of
conscience. Not unexpectedly, the Response Cost dimension of the PSQ was unrelated to
both the ATS scale and the PRCM-R Power Assertion factor, and only a trend was
revealed in relation to the PRCM-R Positive/Withdrawal factor. The Response Cost
dimension of the PSQ was developed to tap a somewhat different type of parenting
behavior than is assessed by the other established measures. The PSQ Response Cost
scale was the only discipline scale that signiﬁcantly predicted scores on the affective

discomfort dimension of early conscience development. Taken together, these results

69

suggest that the use of diﬂ‘erent types of parent discipline strategies may selectively
inﬂuence particular aspects of early conscience development.

The results of the temperamental fearfulness and discipline interactions provided
partial support for Hoffman’s (1983) assertions regarding the relative inefﬁcacy of high
levels of power assertive discipline strategies, particularly with temperamentally fearful
children, in the development of early conscience. The temperament x discipline
interaction was signiﬁcant only when the PRCM Power Assertion scale was utilized to
predict scores on the active-moral regulation vigilance scale. The PSQ physical
punishment scale signiﬁcantly interacted with temperamental fearfulness to predict
scores on the aﬂ'ective discomfort scale. A trend was detected when the PRCM Power
Assertion scale interaction with temperamental fearfulness was used to predict score on
the affective discomfort scale. The latter two results were also consistent with Hoffrnan’s
prediction that temperamentally fearless children will be less inﬂuenced by power
assertive strategies in comparison to more fearful children when the development of
aﬂ’ective discomfort is at stake. The ﬁndings ﬁt well with Hoffrnan’s notion that more
fearﬁrl children, in particular, will experience high levels of power assertive discipline so
negatively that they have difﬁcult processing discipline messages and are less likely to
show evidence of early conscience development. In contrast, when this same fearful
group is exposed to low levels of physical punishment, children are able to achieve
Hoﬁ‘man’s optimal level of arousal and are better able to process discipline messages
than their temperamentally fearless cohorts.

Perhaps the most striking result of the current study was the powerﬁrl inﬂuence of
a child’s reported attachment security (as assessed via both the AQS Security

correspondence score and the Pederson-Moran Secure Base scale) on the development of

70

the active moral regulation/vigilance dimension of conscience. A less powerful, albeit
signiﬁcant, relationship was also detected between the Pederson-Moran scale and the
affective discomfort dimension of conscience. A trend between the AQS Security score
and the aﬁ‘ective discomfort dimension of conscience was also detected.

When the interaction of the attachment variables with temperamental fearﬁilness
was examined, the results were somewhat different than what was predicted via
Kochanska’s model. Children falling in the temperamentally fearless group with high
Pederson-Moran secure base scale scores had similarly high scores on the active moral
regulation vigilance scale as those in the temperamentally fearful subgroup with high
Pederson-Moran secure base scores. Temperarnentally fearful children with low security
scores were less likely to show high levels of active moral regulation/ vigilance in
comparison to their temperamentally fearless peers with similarly low security scores.
Taken together, these results suggest that high attachment security may be more
important for temperamentally fearful children in developing early conscience than for
fearless peers, the Opposite of what Kochanska’s data had suggested. One possible
explanation for this ﬁnding is that fearﬁil children who are also insecurely attached may
be particularly vulnerable in that they may be less motivated to please the parent and are
easily overwhelmed by power assertive discipline. Apart from this possible three-way
interaction, however, as was discussed earlier, it is unclear why temperamental
fearlessness would interact with attachment security in the development of early
conscience in either Kochanska’s model or in the current study.

Post-hoe analyses were conducted to examine the direct relationship between
domestic violence and both parent discipline and attachment. Somewhat surprisingly, but

consistent with the model depicted in Figure 1., no signiﬁcant relationships were found.

71

This ﬁnding provides further empirical evidence for the powerful protective role that a
secure attachment may play in buﬁ’ering the indirect eﬁ’ects of exposure to domestic
violence on early conscience development via the inﬂuence of domestic violence on child
temperament.

While this study has provided some interesting clues regarding emotional-
developmental processes in preschool age children, the interpretation of these results are
limited in several ways. First, the current investigation relied entirely upon maternal
report data. While responses to each of the questionnaires showed sufﬁcient variability,
suggesting that there was at least not complete positive response bias, the use of any self-
report measure presents limitations. This may be particularly true when mothers are
asked to report on matters as sensitive as their own experience of domestic violence and
on their child’s moral development. Future research with this population would beneﬁt
from the use of some of Kochanska’s empirical techniques to reduce potential bias.

Yet another limitation of the study relates to the developmental sensitivity of the
questionnaires. While one might expect to ﬁnd differences between a 3 year old and a
ﬁve year old on a scale such as the Active Moral Regulation/Vigilance scale, for
example, with the lone exception of the Affective Discomfort scale the study revealed no
age eﬂ’ects. Kochanska’s research has yielded a similar absence of age effects across the
age range in the current study. It is diﬁicult to know, however, whether the absence of
age effects is indicative of a measurement failure or whether it is evidence of the relative
stability of many of the variables in the study over the three year window which was
investigated.

One ﬁnal limitation of this study is that attempts to draw conclusions about subtle

developmental processes through the use of data that is not longitudinal. Even the most

72

powerful relationship in this study, that between attachment and early conscience
development, can be interpreted as a bi-directional effect. The study then can not
deﬁnitively conclude that attachment security leads to early conscience development, as
the reverse conclusion is also plausible. For example, it is possible to argue that higher
levels of active moral regulation/vigilance in the child might facilitate the development of
healthy attachment behavior. Further research must make use of longitudinal data if
causal relationships are to be accurately evaluated.

The results of the study provide some important information for those working
with children who have been exposed to domestic violence. The study suggests that
among the ways that children may be at increased risk for inadequate conscience
development as a result of exposure to domestic violence is via the impact of domestic
violence on temperamental impulsivity and fearfulness. Indeed, the link between
exposure to violence and temperamental impulsivity may be evidence of an early risk
factor for the intergenerational transmission of violence as adults with poor impulse
control are more likely to act violently in response to feelings of anger. How then can we
help these at risk children? The absence of a connection between domestic violence and
either parent discipline practices or the attachment relationship, while somewhat
surprising, provides a wonderﬁll opportunity for intervention.

Because children exposed to domestic violence, regardless of the severity, tended
to be more fearful, these same children remain particularly vulnerable to high levels of
power assertive discipline. Parents and teachers working with children exposed to
domestic violence should be careful to match the level of power assertive discipline that
they utilize to the child’s temperament. In the case of children who have been exposed to

domestic violence, because they are more fearful, low levels of power assertive discipline

73

may be all that is needed in order to get children to attend to discipline messages. The
use of higher levels of power assertive discipline will only tend to induce in these
exposed children a level of arousal where they tune out discipline messages. Clinicians
working with parents of children who have been exposed to domestic violence would do
well to focus their energy on helping parents to maintain a relatively calm disciplinary
stance as such a discipline style may be even more crucial for this at risk group.

Just as steering parents toward non-power assertive forms of discipline may help
move children toward more healthy early conscience development, the results of the
study suggest that the attachment relationship may be an extremely important area for
intervention. Regardless of the child’s temperamental disposition, the ability of the
parent and child to develop a secure attachment relationship may be the single most
important factor in helping young children to move toward more healthy early conscience
development. Many of the mothers in the study were able to develop and maintain a
secure attachment relationship with their preSchool child, even in the midst of a violent
household. The parent-child relationship becomes a crucial area for intervention, even in
situations where there may be ongoing violence. Interventions which help parents to be
more highly attuned to the emotional needs of their child and thereby foster more healthy
attachment relationships will go a long way toward protecting children from some of
potentially deleterious effects of exposure to violence.

The results of this study are cause for optimism as they suggest that exposure to
domestic violence, while a risk factor for poor early conscience development, does not
produce an unbreakable chain of maladaptive behavior. Parents and other signiﬁcant
adult ﬁgures, via careﬁllly chosen discipline strategies and via preserving and

strengthening attachment bonds, have incredibly powerful mechanisms via which

74

negative effects of exposure may be buffered. Interventions that target and build upon
these protective mechanisms will go a long way toward preventing another generation of

violent, antisocial adults from taking root in our society.

75

Appendix

MEASURES

Severity of Violence Against Women Scale
Child Behavior Questionnaire (selected subscales)
Attachment Q-Set items
Parental Responses to Child Misbehavior--Revised
Attitudes Toward Spanking
Problems Situations Questionnaire

My Child--Version H

76

SYAﬂS

During the past year, you and your partner have probably experienced anger or conﬂict. Below is
a list of behaviors your partner may have done during the past 12 months. Describe how often
your partner has done each behavior by writing a number from the following scale.

1 2 3 4
never once a few times many times

Also, mark an X next to those items which your preschooler who is in the study witnessed, either
by seeing or hearing it.

 

 

 

 

How often has your partner: Slapped you with the palm of
Hit or kicked a wall, door or his/her hand
ﬁrmiture Slapped you with the back of
Threw, smashed or broke an his/her hand
object Slapped you around your face
Driven dangerously with you in and head
the car Kicked you
Threw an object at you Hit you with an object
Shook a ﬁnger at you Stamped on you
Made threatening gestures or Choked you
faces at you Punched you
Shook a ﬁst at you Burned you with something
Acted like a bully toward you Used a club-like ob'ect on you
Destroyed something belonging to Beat you up
you Used a knife or gun on you
Threatened to harm or damage Demanded sex whether you wanted to
things you care about or not
Threatened to destroy property Made you have oral sex against your will
Threatened someone you care Made you have sexual intercourse against
about your will
Threatened to hurt you Physically forced you to have sex
Threatened to kill himself Made you have anal sex against your will
Threatened you with a club-like Used an object on you in a sexual way
object Grabbed you suddenly or forcefully
Threatened you with a knife or
81111
___Threatened to kill you Have you ever had a previous partner who
Threatened you with a weapon abused you? . Ifyes, please complete
Acted like he wanted to kill you this scale again, indicating the years in which
Held you down, pinning you in you were with this partner (scale on next page).
place
Pushed or shoved you Please complete the scale again even if it’s the
Shook or roughly handled you same partner but greater than 12 months since
Scratched you these things have happened.
Pulled your hair
Twisted your arm
Spanked you
Bit you

77

Use the following scale:

1 2 3 4
never once a few times many times

During your previous relationship, how
often did your partner do the following?
Again please check any items that your
preschooler witnessed to the right of the
item.

___Hit or kicked a wall, door or
furniture

Threw, smashed or broke an object
Driven dangerously with you in the

ill

___Threw an object at you

_Shook a ﬁnger at you

_Made threatening gestures or faces

at you

_Shook a ﬁst at you

_Acted like a bully toward you

_Destroyed something belonging to

you

_Threatened to harm or damage

things you care about

_Threatened to destroy property

_Threatened someone you care

about

_Threatened to hurt you

_Threatened to kill himself

_Threatened you with a club-like
object

_Threatened you with a knife or gun

_Threatened to kill you

_Threatened you with a weapon

__Acted like he/she wanted to kill

you

___Held you down, pinning you in

place

_Pushed or shoved you

_Shook or roughly handled you

_Scratched you

78

_Pulled your hair
_Twisted your arm
_Spanked you
_Bit you
_Slapped you with the palm of
his/her hand
_Slapped you with the back of
his/her hand
Slapped you around your face
and head
Kicked you
Hit you with an object
Stomped on you
Choked you
Punched you
Burned you with something
Used a club-like object on you
Beat you up
Used a knife or gun on you
Demanded sex whether you
wanted to or not
Made you have oral sex
against your will
Made you have sexual intercourse
against your will
Physically forced you to have sex
Made you have anal sex against
your will
Used an object on you in a sexual
way
Grabbed you suddenly or
forceﬁrlly

Children's Behavior Questionnaire

Instructions: Please read carefully before starting:

On the next pages you will see a set of statements that describe children's reactions to a
number of situations. We would like you to tell us what m child's reaction is likely to
be in those situations. There are of course no "correc " ways of reacting; children differ
widely in their reactions, and it is these differences we are trying to learn about. Please
read each Statement and decide whether it is a “true” or "untrue" description of your
child's reaction within the past six months. Use the following scale to indicate how well a
statement describes your child:

 

Circle # Ifthe statement is:
l extremely untrue of your child
2 quite untrue of your child
3 slightly untrue of your child
4 neither true or untrue of your child
5 slightly true of your child
6 quite true of your child
7 extremely true of your child
Ifyou cannot answer one of the items because you have never seen the child in that
situation, for

example, if the statement is about the child's reaction to your singing and you have never
sung to your child, the circle N_A (not applicable).

Please be sure to circle a number or NA for every item.

79

extremely
untrue

l 2 3 4 5
quite slightly neither slightly
untrue untrue true or true
untrue

Is not very bothered by pain.
1 2 3 4 5
Is not afraid of large dogs and/or other animals.

1 2 3 4 5

6
quite
true

6

Usually rushes into an activity without thinking about it.

1 2 3 4 5

Can lower his/her voice when asked to do so.

1 2 3 4 5

6

6

7
extremely
true

Sometimes prefers to watch rather than join other children playing.

1 2 3 4 5

Becomes quite uncomfortable when cold and/or wet.

I 2 3 4 5

Is afraid of burglars or the "boogie man."

1 2 3 4 5

Sometimes interrupts others when they are speaking.

I 2 3 4 5

6

NA
not
applicable

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Is good at games like "Simon Says," "Mother, May I?" and "Red Light, Green

Light."
1 2 3 4 5

80

NA

l 2 3 4 5 6 7

extremely quite slightly neither slightly quite extremely
untrue untrue untrue true or true true true
untnre

10. Is comfortable in situations where s/he will be meeting others.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
11. Is quite upset by a little cut or bruise.

l 2 3 4 5 6 7
12. Is afraid of loud noises.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
13. Decides what s/he wants very quickly and goes after it.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
14. Has a hard time following instructions.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
15. Seems to be at ease with almost any person.

1 2 3 4 5 6 ' 7
16. Is bothered by light or color that is too bright.

l 2 3 4 5 6 7
17. Doesn't worry about injections by the doctor.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

18. Often rushes into new situations.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
19. Prepares for trips and outings by planning things s/he will need.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

81

NA
not
applicable

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

l 2 3 4 5 6 7
extremely quite slightly neither slightly quite extremely
untnle untrue untrue true or true true true
untrue

20. Gets embarrassed when strangers pay a lot of attention to her/him.
l 2 3 4 5 6 7
21. Finds rough materials uncomfortable, such as wool against his/her skin.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
22. Is not afraid of the dark.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
23. Takes a long time in approaching new situations.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
24. Can wait before entering into new activities if s/he is asked to.

l 2 3 4 5 6 7

2

£11

Acts very ﬁiendly and outgoing with new children.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

26. Is not very upset at nrinor cuts or bruises.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
27. Is afraid of ﬁre.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
28. Usually stops and thinks things over before deciding to do something.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

29. Has dimculty waiting in line for something.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

82

NA
not
applicable

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

extremely quite slightly neither slightly quite extremely not
untrue untrue untrue true or true true true applicable
untrue

30. Joins others quickly and comfortably, even when they are strangers.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
31. Is bothered by bathwater that is too hot or too cold.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
32. Is very ﬁightened by nightmares.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
33. Is slow and unhurried in deciding what to do next.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
34. Has trouble sitting still when s/he is told to (at movies, church, etc.).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
35. Is sometimes shy even around people s/he has known a long time.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
36. Is likely to cry when even a little bit hurt.

I 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
37. Is aﬁ'aid of the dark.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
38. Tends to say the ﬁrst thing that comes to mind, without stopping to think about it.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
39. Is able to resist laughing or smiling when it isn't appropriate.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

83

l 2 3 4 5 6 7
extremely quite slightly neither slightly quite extremely
untrue untrue untrue true or true true true
untrue
40. Sometimes seems nervous when talking to adults s/he has just met.

41.

4 .

N

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

4 .

\O

l

1

1

1

1

l

l

1

NA
not
applicable

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

2 3 4 5 6 7
Becomes distressed when hair is combed.
2 3 4 5 6 7
Is rarely ﬁightened by "monsters" seen on TV or at movies.
2 3 4 5 6 7
When eager to go outside, sometimes rushes out without putting on the right
clothes.
2 3 4 5 6 7
Is good at following instructions.
2 3 4 5 6 7
Acts shy around new people.
2 3 4 5 6 7
Cries when given an injection.
2 3 4 5 6 7
Is not afraid of heights.
2 3 4 5 6 7
Approaches slowly places where s/he might hurt her/himself.
2 3 4 5 6 7

Approaches places s/he has been told are dangerous slowly and cautiously.

2 3 4 5 6 7

84

NA

NA

2 3 4 5
extremely quite slightly neither slightly
untrue untrue untnle true or true

untrue
50. Is comfortable asking other children to play.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

1

l

1

l

l

1

1

1

1

1

2 3 4 5

Is bothered by loud or scratchy sounds.

2 3 4 5

Is rarely afraid of sleeping alone in a room.

2 3 4 5

6
quite
true

6

7
extremely
true

7

When s/he sees a toy or game s/he wants, is eager to have it right then.

2 3 4 5
Is not very careful and cautious in crossing streets.

2 3 4 5

Talks easily to new people.

2 3 4 5
Hardly ever complains when ill with a cold.
2 3 4 5
Gets nervous about going to the dentist.
2 3 4 5
Is among the last children to try out a new activity.
2 3 4 5
Can easily stop an activity when s/he is told “no.”

2 3 4 5

85

6

7

NA

not
applicable

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

extremely quite slightly neither slightly quite extremely not
untrue untrue untrue true or true true true applicable
untrue

60. Sometimes turns away shyly from new acquaintances.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
61. Dislikes having splinters removed or other painﬁll procedures.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
62. Is aﬁaid of getting lost.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
63. Is “slow to warm up” to others.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
64. Is usually able to resist temptation when s/he is not supposed to do something.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
65. Seems completely at ease with almost any group.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

86

10.

11.

12.

13.

Attachment -Set

Child readily shares with mother or lets her hold things if she ask to.
Low: Refuses.

When child returns to mother after playing, he is sometimes fussy for no clear

reason.
Law: Child is happy or affectionate when he returns to mother between or

after playtirnes.

When he is upset or injured, child will accept comforting from adults other than
mother.
Low: Mother is the only one he allows to comfort him.

Child is careful and gentle with toys and pets.

Child is more interested in people than in things.
Law: More interested in things than people.

When child is near mother and sees something he wants to play with, he fusses or
tries to drag mother over to it.
Low: Goes to what he wants without ﬁlssing or dragging mother along.

Child laughs and smiles easily with a lot of different people.
Low: Mother can get him to smile or laugh more easily than anyone else.

When child cries, he cries hard.
Low: Weeps, sops, doesn’t cry hard, or hard crying never lasts very long.

Child is lighthearted and playﬁll most of the time.
Law: Child tends to be serious, sad, or annoyed a good deal of the time.

Child often cries or resists when mother takes him to bed for naps or at night.

Child often hugs or cuddles against mother without her asking or inviting him to
do so.
Law: Child doesn’t hug or cuddle much, unless mother hugs him ﬁrst or
asks him to give her a hug.

Child quickly gets used to people or things that initially made him shy or
ﬁightened him.
Middle: Never shy or afraid.

When the child is upset by mother’s leaving, he continues to cry or even gets
angry after she is gone.

Middle: Not upset by mom leaving.

Low: Crying stops right after mom leaves.

87

14.

15.

l6.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

When child ﬁnds something new to play with, he carries it to mother or shows it
to her from across the room.
Low: Plays with the new object quietly, or goes where he won’t be
interrupted.

Child is willing to talk to new people, show them toys, or show them what he can
do if mother asks him to.

Child prefers toys that are modeled after living things (e. g. dolls, stuffed animals).
Low: Prefers balls, blocks, pots and pans, etc.

Child quickly loses interest in new adults if they do anything that annoys him.

Child follows mother’s suggestions readily, even when they are clearly
suggestions rather than orders.
Low: Ignores or refuses unless ordered.

When mother tells child to bring or give her something, he obeys. (Do not count

refusals that are playful or part of a game unless they clearly become disobedient.)
Low: Mother has to take the object or raise her voice to get it away from
him.

Child ignores most bumps, falls, or startles.
Low: Cries after minor bumps, falls, or startles.

Child keeps track of mother’s location when he plays around the house. Calls to
her now and then; notices her go ﬁom room to room. Notices if she changes
activities.
Middle: Child isn’t allowed or doesn’t have room to play away from mom.
Low: Doesn’t keep track.

Child acts like an aﬂ’ectionate parent toward dolls, pets, or infants.
Middle: Child doesn’t play with or have dolls, pets, or infants around.
Low: Plays with them in other ways.

When mother sits with other family members or is affections with them, child
tries to get mom’s affection for himself.
Low: Lets her be affectionate with others. May join in, but not in a
jealous way.

When mother speaks ﬁrmly or raises her voice at him, child becomes upset, sorry,

or ashamed about displeasing her. (Do not score high if child is simply upset by
the raised voice or afraid of getting punished.)

88

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

Child is easy for mother to lost track of when he is playing out of her sight.
Middle: Never plays out of sight.
Low: Talks and calls when out of sight. Easy to ﬁnd; easy to keep track
of what he is playing with.
Child cries when mother leaves him at home with baby-sitter, father, or
grandparent.
Law: Doesn’t cry with any of these.

Child laughs when mother teases him.
Medium: Mother never teases child during play or conversations.
Low: Annoyed when mother teases him.

Child enjoys relaxing in mother’s lap.
Middle: Child never sits still.
Low: Prefers to relax on the ﬂoor or on furniture.

At times, child attends so deeply to something that he doesn’t seem to hear when
people speak to him.
Law: Even when deeply involved in play, child notices when peOple
speak to him.

Child easily becomes angry with toys.

Child wants to be the center of mother’s attention. Ifmom is busy or talking to
someone, he interrupts.
Low: Doesn’t notice or doesn’t mind not being the center of mother’s
attention.

When mother says “no” or punishes him, child stops misbehaving (at least at that
time). Doesn’t have to be told twice.

Child sometimes signals mother (or gives the impression) that he wants to be put
down and then 1118888 or wants to be picked right back up.
Low: Always ready to go play by the time he signals mother to put him
down.

When child is upset about mother leaving him, he sits right where he is and cries.
Doesn’t go after her.

Middle: Never upset by her leaving.

Low: Actively goes after her if he is upset or crying.

Child is independent with mother. Prefers to play on his own; leaves mother
easily when he wants to play.
Middle: Not allowed or not enough room to play away ﬁ'om mother.
Low: Prefers playing with or near mother.

89

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

Child clearly shows a pattern of using mother as a base from which to explore.
Moves out to play; returns or plays near her; moves out to play again, etc.
Low: Always away unless retrieved, or always stays near.

Child is very active. Always moving around. Prefers active games to quiet ones.

Child is demanding and impatient with mother. Fusses and persists, unless she
does what he wants right away.

Child is often serious and businesslike when playing away from mother or alone
with his toys.
Law: Often silly or laughing when playing away from mother or alone
with his toys.

Child examines new objects or toys in great detail. Tries to use them in different
ways or take them apart.
Low: First look at new objects or toys is usually brief. (May return to
them later, however).

When mother says to follow her, child does so. (Do not count reﬁrsals or delays
that are playﬁrl or part of a game unless they clearly become disobedient.)

Child recognizes when mother is upset. Becomes quiet or upset himself. Tires to
comfort her; asks what is wrong, etc.
Low: Doesn’t recognized; continues to play, behaves toward her as if she
were ok.

Child stays closer to mother or returns to her more often than the simple task of
keeping track of her requires.
Low: Doesn’t keep close track of mother’s behavior or activities.

Child asks for mother and enjoys having her hold, hug, and cuddle him.
Low: Not especially eager for this. Tolerates it, but doesn’t seek it; or
wiggles to be put down.

Child enjoys dancing or singing along with music.
Low: Neither likes or dislikes music.

Child walks and runs around without bumping, dropping, or stumbling.
Low: Bumps, drops, or stumbles happen throughout the day (even though
no injuries result).

Child will accept and enjoy loud sounds or being bounced around in play if
mother indicates the sound or activity is safe or fun.
Law: Child gets upset, even if mother indicates the sound or activity is
safe or fun.

90

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

Child readily lets new adults hold or share things he has, if they ask to.

Runs to mother with a shy smile when new people visit the home.
Middle: Child doesn’t run to mother at all when Visitors arrive.
Law: Even if he eventually warms up to visitors, child initially runs to
mother with a fret or cry.

Child’s initial reaction when people Visit the home is to ignore or avoid them,
even if he eventually warms up to them.

Child enjoys climbing all over visitors when he plays with them
Middle: He won’t play with visitors.
Low: Doesn’t seek close contact with visitors when he plays with them.

Child has trouble handling small objects or putting small things together.
Low: Very skillful with small objects, pencils, etc.

Child puts his arms around mother or puts his hand on her shoulder when she
picks him up.
Law: Accepts being picked up, but doesn’t especially help or hold on.

Child acts like he expects mothers to interfere with his activities when she is
simply trying to help him with something.
Law: Accepts mother’s help readily, unless she is in fact interfering.

Child copies a number of behaviors or ways of doing things from watching
mother’s behavior.
Low: Doesn’t noticeably copy mother’s behavior.

Child becomes shy or loses interest when an activity looks like it might be
difﬁcult.
Low: Thinks he can do diﬁcult tasks.

Child is fearless.
Law: Child is cautious or fearﬁll.

Child largely ignores adults who visit the home. Finds his own activities more
interesting.
Low: Finds visitors quite interesting, even if he is a bit shy at ﬁrst.

When child ﬁnishes with an activity or toy, he generally ﬁnds something else to
do without returning to mother between activities.
Law: When ﬁnished with an activity or toy, he returns to mother for play,
affection, or help ﬁnding more to do.

91

60.

61.

62.

63.

64.

65.

66.

67.

68.

69.

70.

71.

72.

73.

Ifmother reassures him by saying, “It’s OK,” or “It won’t hurt you,” child will
approach or play with things that initially made him cautious or afraid.
Middle: Never cautious or aﬁ'aid.

Plays roughly with mother. Bumps, scratches, or bites during active play. (Does
not necessarily mean to hurt mom.)

Middle: Play is never very active.

Low: Plays active games without injuring mother.

When child is in happy mood, he is likely to stay that way all day.
Low: Happy moods are very changeable.

Even before trying things himself, child tries to get someone to help him.

Child enjoys climbing all over mother when they play.
Low: Doesn’t especially want a lot of close contact when they play.

Child easily upset when mother makes him change ﬁ'om one activity to another.
(Even if the new activity is something the child often enjoys.)

Child easily grows fond of adults who visits his home and are friendly of him.
Low: Doesn’t grow fond of new people very easily

When the family has visitors, child wants them to pay a lot of attention to him.

On the average, child is more active type person than mother.
Law: On the average, child is less active type person than mother.

Rarely asks mother for help.
Middle: Child is too young to ask.
Low: Often asks mother for help.

Child quickly greets his mother with a big smile when she enters the room.
(shows her a toy, gestures, or says, “Hi, Mommy”)
Low: Doesn’t greet mother unless she greets him ﬁrst.

If held in mother’s arms, child stops crying and quickly recovers after being
ﬁightened or upset.
Law: Not easily comforted.

If visitors laugh at or approve of something the child does, he repeats it again and
again.
Low: Visitors’ reactions don’t inﬂuence child this way.

Child has a cuddly toy or security blanket that he carries around, takes to bed, or
holds when upset. (Do not include bottle or paciﬁer if child is under 2 years old.)
Low: Can take such things or leave them, or has none at all

92

74.

75.

76.

77.

78.

79.

80.

81.

82.

83.

84.

85.

86.

When mother doesn’t do what child wants right away, he behaves as if mom were

not going to do it at all. (Fusses, gets angry, walks off to other activities, etc.)
Low: Waits a reasonable time, as if he expects other will shortly do what
he asked.

At home, child gets upset or cries when mother walks out of the room. (May or
may not follow her.)
Low: Notices her leaving; may follow, but doesn’t get upset.

When given a choice, child would rather play with toys than with adults.
Low: Would rather play with adults than toys.

When mother asks child to do something, he readily understands what she wants.
Middle: Child is too young to understand
Low: Sometimes puzzled or slow to understand what mother wants.

Child enjoys being hugged or held by people other than his parents and/or
grandparents.

Child easily becomes angry at mother.
Low: Doesn’t become angry with mother unless she is very intrusive or he
is very tired.

Child uses mother’s facial expressions as a good source of information when
something looks risky or threatening.
Low: Makes up his own mind without checking mother’s expression ﬁrst.

Child cries as a way of getting mother to do what he wants.
Low: Mainly cries because of genuine discomfort (tired, sad, afraid, etc.).

Child spends most of his playtime with just a few favorite toys or activities.
When child is bored, he goes to mother looking something to do.
Low: Wanders around, or just does nothing for while, until something

comes up.

Child makes at least some effort to be clean and tidy around the house.
Low: Spills and smears things on himself and on ﬂoors all the time.

Child is strongly attracted to new activities and new toys.
Low: New things do not attract him away from familiar toys or activities.

Child tries to get mother to imitate him or quickly notices and enjoys it when
mom imitates him on her own.

93

87.

88.

89.

Ifmother laughs at or approves of something the child has done, he repeats it
again and again.
Law: Child is not particularly inﬂuenced this way.

When something upsets the child, he stays where he is and cries.
Low: Goes to mother when he cries. Doesn’t wait for mom to come to
him.

Child’s facial expressions are strong and clear when he is pl

94

Parental Responses to Child Misbehavior-Revised

We are interested in learning the types of responses that parents use in reaction to
common child misbehaviors. Please indicate how ﬁ'equently you have used each of the
following responses with your year old in an average week, over the past month.

Number of times used as a response in an average week:

Less than
Never once a week 1-2
A B C
Reason--explain about rules A B C
or consequences of
behavior
Diversion «divert to A B C
acceptable activity
Negotiate A B C
Threaten A B C
Time Out--social or physical A B C
isolation (e. g. send
child to room)
Spank (with hand) A B C
(with object, e. g. belt) A B C
Ignore -- give no reaction to A C
misbehavior
Withdraw Privileges A B C
Yell in anger A B C
Slap (Face) A B C
(Hand) A B C

95

DO

U

DOUG

[Tl

[11111 or

7-8 9+
F G
F G
F G
F G
F G
F G
F G
F G
F G
F G
F G
F G
F G

Attitudes toward spanking my child

Using the rating scale below, rate how much you currently agree or disagree with each
statement about spanking your child(ren).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Moderately Slightly Neither Agree Slightly Moderately Strongly
Disagree Disagree Disagree or Disagree Agree Agree Agree

1. Spanking is a normal part of my parenting.

2. Sometimes a spank is the best way to get my child to listen.

3. A spank is not an eﬂ’ective way to change my child's behavior for the long term.

4. Spanking is never necessary to instill proper moral or social conduct in my child.

5. Sometimes, the only way to get my child to behave is with a spank.

6. One of the best ways for my child to learn "no" is to spank him/her after
disobedience.

7. If my child is spanked for a misbehavior, he or she should always be spanked for
that misbehavior.

8. When all is said and done, spanking is harmful for my child.

9. I believe it is the parents' right to spank their children if they think it is necessary.

10. Overall, I believe spanking is a bad disciplinary technique.

96

PROBLEM SITUATIONS QUESTIONNAIRE

Instructions:

Below you will ﬁnd a series of situations which many parents face when raising children.
You are to pretend or imagine that you are the parent of the child being described and indicate
how you would respond if you were the parent in that situation. Most parents typically utilize
more than one kind of response. Except as noted, all of the children in the situations described
below are to be considered to be between 3 and 5 years old. For each situation described, please
indicate how likely you would be to utilize each of the responses using the following scale:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Extremely Somewhat Slightly Not Slightly Somewhat Extremely
Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Sure Likely Likely Likely
Situation #1

Your son, David, admired a miniature car at the store. He did not have money to buy it
nor did he ask you to buy it for him. After returning home, you see him take it out of his coat
pocket and begin playing with it. How likely would you be to:
la. send the child to his room (time-out)? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
lb. yell at the child for behaving inappropriately? l 2 3 4 5 6 7

1c. discuss with the child the consequences of the
behavior? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1d. take away some privilege (e.g. no TV,
can’t go outside)? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1e. spank or slap the child on the bottom so they
learn that the behavior is wrong? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1f. tell the child that you understand the feelings
that led up to the behavior? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

97

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Extremely Somewhat Slightly Not Slightly Somewhat Extremely
Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Sure Likely Likely Likely

Situation #2

After hearing some screaming in the family room, you go there and ﬁnd your daughter,
Tiffany, hitting Anne, her 18 month-old sister. How likely would you be to:

2a. send the child to her room (time-out)? l 2 3 4 5 6 7
2b. yell at the child for behaving inappropriately? l 2 3 4 5 6 7
2c. discuss with the child the consequences of the

behavior? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2d. take away some privilege (e.g. no TV,

can’t go outside)? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2e. spank or slap the child on the bottom so they

learn that the behavior is wrong? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2f. tell the child that you understand the feelings

that led up to the behavior? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Situation #3

Your son, Christopher, and his ﬁiend are playing in your living room and you have asked
them two times to play somewhere else because you are expecting a visitor and you want the
living room to look nice. As you are coming back the third time to ask the children to leave, you
hear a crash and ﬁnd the children on the ﬂoor looking surprised with a knocked over lamp near
them. How likely would you be to:

3a. send the child to his room (time-out)? l 2 3 4 5 6 7
3b. yell at the child for behaving inappropriately? l 2 3 4 5 6 7

3c. discuss with the child the consequences of the
behavior? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3d. take away some privilege (e.g. no TV,
can’t go outside)? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3e. spank or slap the child on the bottom so they
learn that the behavior is wrong? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3f. tell the child that you understand the feelings
that led up to the behavior? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

98

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Extremely Somewhat Slightly Not Slightly Somewhat Extremely
Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Sure Likely Likely Likely

Your son, William, comes running into the kitchen yelling, “I won! I won!” He bumps
into you and knocks over a glass of juice you had in your hand, the glass shattering on the ﬂoor
and the juice spilling over your clothes. How likely would you be to:

4a. send the child to his room (time-out)? l 2 3 4 5 6 7
4b. yell at the child for behaving inappropriately? l 2 3 4 5 6 7
4c. discuss with the child the consequences of the
behavior? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4d. take away some privilege (e.g. no TV,
can’t go outside)? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4e. Spank or slap the child on the bottom so they
learn that the behavior is wrong? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4f. tell the child that you understand the feelings
that led up to the behavior? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Situation #5

You walk into the playroom to ﬁnd that your daughter, Jackie, has drawn all over the
walls, even though you had just bought her a brand new pad of blank paper. How likely would
you be to:
5a. send the child to her room (time-out)? l 2 3 4 5 6 7
5b. yell at the child for behaving inappropriately? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

5c. discuss with the child the consequences of the
behavior? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

5d. take away some privilege (e.g. no TV,
can’t go outside)? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

5e. spank or slap the child on the bottom so they
learn that the behavior is wrong? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

5f. tell the child that you understand the feelings
that led up to the behavior? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

99

MYCHILD

Version 2, April 1992
Grazyna Kochanska, University of Iowa

Child's Name Child's Sex M F Date of Birth

 

 

Today's Date Child's Age years months

 

PLEASE READ THIS PAGE BEFORE STARTING

You will see descriptions of young children's behaviors in typical daily situations. Many
refer to children's reactions when they get into mischief, and are yery common for
toddlers and preschoolers.

Please tell us how true each description is for your child.
Circle # Ifthe statement is:

1 Extremely untrue of your child; s/he would be extremely unlikely to react in
this way in this situation; not at all characteristic of him/her

2 uite untrue of your child; s/he would be very unlikely to react in this way in
t s s1tuatron

3 Slightly untrue of your child; s/he would be rather unlikely to react in this way in
this situation

4 Maybe true, may be untrue; neither true or untrue of your child's reaction in
this srtuatlon; maybe

5 Slightly true of your child; s/he would be rather likely to react in this way in this

situation

6 Quite true of your child; s/he would be very likely to react in this way in this
srtuatlon

7 Extremely true of your child; s/he.would be extremely likely to react in this way

in this Situation; very characteristic of him/her

All answers are OK; all behaviors described here are normal and common. Young
children differ very much in how they respond to different situations. Also, children
of different ages behave very differently. For example, most 2-year-olds get into
trouble or mischief when unsupervised. These individual and age differences are
exactly what we are studying.

Please circle NA only if' you cannot remember your child ever being in this situation;
for example, if the description says "Rarely cries or looks upset when watching a sad TV
show", and your child never watches TV. However, most situations are typical for all
young children; most parents will rarely need to circle NA.

100

PLEASE BE SURE TO READ EACH ITEM VERY CAREFULLY

l 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
extremely quite slightly neither slightly quite extremely
untrue untrue untrue true nor true true true
untrue

t***********#***********************************************************

1. Will try to comfort or reassure another in distress.

l 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

2. Is likely to scold another child who violates a household rule.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

3. Not particularly concerned or worried when s/he has broken a valuable object.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

4. Likely to oﬁ'er toys or candy to a crying playmate even without parental suggestion.

I 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

5. Likely to try a prohibited but attractive activity when alone.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

6. Will spontaneously clean up toys, even without being asked.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

7. May "freeze" in place when caught doing something bad.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

8. Will spontaneously say "sorry" after having done something wrong.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
9. May deny that s/he did something wrong even if confronted with the evidence.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

101

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
extremely quite slightly neither slightly quite extremely
untrue untrue untrue true nor true true true
untrue

*1!*IINR*4!##1!#114!*Ilﬂll*********************************#**********************

10. If asked to do something tedious (for example, clean up his/her toys), s/he is
likely to complete the task without ﬁlrther supervision.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

11. May occasionally tease a pet if unsupervised.

l 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

12. When s/he does something naughty, this subject of wrongdoing is likely to come up
during his/her play.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

13. Feels good when good things happen to movie characters.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

14. During "pretend" play with peers, may re-enact themes of wrongdoing or mischief.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
15. Remembers for a long time past mishaps or instances when s/he did something
wrong.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

16. Unless speciﬁcally asked to do so, s/he is not likely to apologize on his/her own.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

102

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
extremely quite slightly neither slightly quite extremely
untrue untrue untrue true nor true true true
untrue

*4!**********##3##*IllIll**It**************************#***********************

17. Acts upset when s/he sees a hurt animal.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

18. Likely to feel responsible whenever anything goes wrong.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

19. Likely to look remorseful or guilty when caught in the middle of a forbidden activity.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

20. After doing something naughty, may replay that situation with toys.

l 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

21. Does not seem upset when s/he breaks a new toy.

I 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

22. Has to be reminded to say "sony" when s/he has done something wrong.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

23. When s/he has hurt a playmate, will try to make up for it by offering toys or prized
possession to the other child.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

24. Likely to become quiet and subdued after doing something wrong.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

103

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
extremely quite slightly neither slightly quite extremely
untrue untrue untrue true nor true true true
untrue

**********illII!If!IllII:##1##!“ka*#************************************************
25. Feels bad when reminded about past mischief or wrong doing.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
26. Shows concern or makes a comment when comes to atom page in a book.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

27. May have trouble sleeping or poor appetite after having done something wrong.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
28. During play, will introduce themes of wrongdoing or rules (for example, scold a
teddy bear for being naughty).

l 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

29. Rarely cries or looks upset when watching a sad TV show.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
30. It is easy to bring him/her to tears when discussing something that s/he has done

wrong.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
31. Even attractively wrapped presents can be left within his/her reach because s/he is

not likely to tamper with them.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
32. Rarely repeats previously prohibited behavior even if adult is not present.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

104

l 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
extremely quite slightly neither slightly quite extremely
untrue untrue untrue true nor true true true

untrue
=1!**********#**************************************#******************1!

33. Likely to show spontaneous nurturing and care-giving behavior towards an animal.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

34. Seems relieved when given an opportunity to repair a damage s/he has caused.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

35. It is enough to prohibit something once and s/he will probably not do it even when
alone.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
36. May confess to doing something naughty even if unlikely to be found out.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
37. After having been naughty, seems to want reassurance that parent is no longer angry

with him/her.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
38. Is upset by criticism.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
39. Shows interest when TV or story characters act naughty.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
40. His/her feelings are not easily hurt by criticism.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

105

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
extremely quite slightly neither slightly quite extremely
untrue untrue untrue true nor true true true

untrue
II:ill********1!************************¥**********************************

41. Will try to stop another child ﬁ'om getting into trouble.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

42. Can tell at just a glance how others are feeling.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

43. Not likely to react when a visiting ﬁiend breaks a household rule.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

44. If left alone with another child, will not try to keep them both out of trouble.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
45. When watching TV or listening to a story, seems particularly interested in issues of
responsibility, wrongdoing, etc.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

46. Shows concern when a toy is broken.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

47. May continue to feel had even if forgiven for a mishap or blunder.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

48. Not particularly likely to offer to clean up if s/he has caused a mess (for example, a
spill).

l 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

106

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
extremely quite slightly neither slightly quite extremely
untrue untrue untrue true nor true true true

untrue
It!*4!****’1‘***#****III1!******************************#*#***************#***

49. On his/her own, is likely to promise not to do it again after doing something wrong.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
50. After having done something naughty, asks to be forgiven.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

51. Does not need to be reminded to say "sorry" when s/he does something bad.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

52. If out of parent's sight, may ignore a household rule.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
53. Ifasked to do a chore (for example, help set the table), s/he does not need to be

reminded about it.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
54. Can stop her/himself in the middle of doing something forbidden without any

intervention ﬁom an adult.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

55. Gets upset when a guest breaks a household rule.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

56. After being scolded for some mischief, seems particularly happy when parent praises
him/her for some accomplishment.

l 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

107

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
extremely quite slightly neither slightly quite extremely
untrue untrue untrue true nor true true true

untrue
at:sssslur:sssat:anallsasal-asasallsallsasssanssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssuzseesaw“:

57. Is not overly concerned about being forgiven after having done something naughty.

l 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

58. Likely to ask "what's wrong?" when seeing someone in distress.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

59. Will spontaneously say "sorry" to a playmate or sibling when necessary.

60. If not supervised, may get sloppy about his/her chores.

l 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

61. It is not easy to make him/her feel bad after s/he has done something wrong.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

62. On his/her own, will rarely pick up things that are out of place.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

63. Seems happy after doing a good job with a task or chore, even before others
comment.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
64. When s/he does something wrong, seems to feel relieved when forgiven.

l 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

108

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
extremely quite slightly neither slightly quite extremely
untrue untrue untrue true nor true true true

untrue
If!1!Ill*it1K*4!#1131!It*4!***********#****IF*********#**************************13*!!!

65. Gets angry at aggressor, "Bad Guy", who hurts a TV character.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

66. Not likely to pay attention to or comment on dirty or torn clothing.

67. Will spontaneously admit fault or wrongdoing, either verbally or nonverbally.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
68. Tries his/her best when doing chores.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

69. Ifasked to do something, may not ﬁnish if not reminded.
l 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

70. Not too upset by mishaps or accidents s/he has caused (for example, spilling or
breaking something).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
71. Eager to make amends for doing something naughty.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

72. May draw parent's attention to mishap or damage s/he has caused (for example,
"Mark done it" or "broke").

I 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

109

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
extremely quite slightly neither slightly quite extremely
untrue untrue untrue true nor true true true

untrue
******#*Ill1R#334!!!***Ill*t**********************#**************************Ilt

73. On his/her own, will share household rules with a playmate at our home (for
example, what is not allowed in the house).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

74. After breaking something, doesn't seem particularly concerned about ﬁxing the
damage.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

7 5. Is upset by stories in which characters are hurt or die.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

76. Presents have to be well hidden because s/he will tamper with them if left alone.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

77 . Clearly hesitates before doing something forbidden, even when alone.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

7 8. Seems relieved after s/he has confessed to a wrongdoing.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
79. After doing something s/he is not supposed to do, may later check with parent to see
if s/he is "good now".
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

80. May become extra nice toward the parent after being caught doing something wrong.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

81. When s/he has caused some damage (for example, dropped or broken an object), will
try to put the pieces together, clean up, etc.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

110

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
extremely quite slightly neither slightly quite extremely
untrue untrue untrue true nor true true true

untrue
*sssssssssss*ssssssssssssssssss*sssssssssssssssssssastssssssssssssssu:

82. When s/he breaks a toy during play, simply moves to another activity or other toys.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

83. Seems compelled to tell parents when s/he does something wrong.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

84. Shows interest when other people's wrongdoing is discussed.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
85. In play, may scold a doll or stuffed toy for imaginary wrongdoing.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

86. May not tell parents when s/he has broken something.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

87. Likely to get into mischief when no adult is present.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

88. Will feel sorry for other people who are hurt, sick, or unhappy.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
89. Will not complete a tedious task (for example, cleaning up his/her room), unless

reminded.

l 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

111

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
extremely quite slightly neither slightly quite extremely
untrue untrue untrue true nor true true true

untrue
allalulnlrIlnl:##alr*Ilululnlrttalult********¥**************IIHINIHIIIIUIHIHIHIIIIHIW*****#********IHIII:

90. When unsupervised, is likely to stop him/herself on his/her own when just about to
do something wrong.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

91. Likely to blush when caught doing something wrong.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

92. Can be left alone even with his favorite dessert and will not touch it if asked to wait
until the guests arrive.

I 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

93. When having a ﬁiend over, is not likely to enforce family rules on his/her own.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

94. Wants to stay physically closer to parent after being scolded for doing something
wrong.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

95. Pays attention to objects that are broken, do not work, or are out of order (for
example, missing buttons, broken toys, stained clothes, etc.).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

96. Avoids eye contact if s/he has done something naughty.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

97. Is not likely to become upset if a playmate cries.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

112

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
extremely quite slightly neither slightly quite extremely
untrue untrue untrue true nor true true true

untrue
*********I!*Ik#11!*********#$*##******************************************

98. Is casual about spills or damages that s/he has caused (for example, may suggest that
the spill will dry by itself).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
99. May hang his/her head and look down after being naughty.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
100. Likely to get upset if s/he does something wrong in public.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

113

REFERENCES

Aber, J. L., & Cicchetti, D. (1984). Socioemotional development in maltreated children:
An empirical analysis. In H. Fitzgerald, B. Lester, & M. Yogrnan (Eds), Theory
and resaarch in behavioral pediatrics (Vol. II, pp. 147-205). New York: Plenum.

Ainsworth, M. D. S., & Bell, S. M. (1970). Attachment, exploration, and separation:
Illustrated by the behavior of one-year-olds in a strange situation. Child

Development, 41, 49-67.

Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of Attachment.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in
social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51 (6), 1173-1182.

Bates, J. E. (1989). Concepts and measures of temperament. In G. A. Kohnstamm, J. E.
Bates, & M. K. Rothbart (Eds), Temperament in childhood (pp. 1-26). New
York: Wiley.

Bates, J. E., Bayles, K., Bennett, D. 8., Ridge, B., & Brown, M. M. (1991). Origins of
externalizing behavior problems at eight years of age. In D. J. Pepler & K. H.
Rubin (Eds), The development and treatment of childhood aggression (pp. 93-
120). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bates, J. E., Wachs, T. D., & Emde, R. N. (1994). Toward practical uses of biological
concepts of temperament. In J. E. Bates & T. D. Wachs (Eds), Temperament:
Individual differenceaat the interface of biology and behavior (pp. 275-306).
Washington, D. 0: American Psychological Association.

Bell, C. & Jenkins, E. (1993). Community violence and children on Chicago’s southside.
Psychiatry, 56. 46-53.

Bowlby, J. (195 8). The nature of the child’s tie to his mother. International Journal of
Psychoanalysis, 39, 350-373.

Carey, W. B. (1986). Clinical interactions of temperament: Transitions ﬁ'om infancy to
childhood. In R. Plonrin & J. Dunn (Eds), The study of temperament: Changes,
continuities, and challenges (pp. 151-162). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Carlson, B. E. (1984). Children’s observations of interparental violence. In A. R.
Roberts (Ed), Battered women and their families Intervention strategies and
treatment programs (pp. 147-167). New York: Springer.

114

Carlson, V., Cicchetti, D., Barnett, D., & Braunwald K. G. (1989a). Finding order in
disorganization: Lessons ﬁ'om research on maltreated infants’ attachments to
their caregivers. In D. Cicchetti & V. Carlson (Eds). Theory aad research on the
_capses and conaequencea of child abuse and neglect (pp. 494-528). New York:
Cambridge University Press.

Carlson, V., Cicchetti, D., Barnett, D., & Braunwald K. G. (1989b). Disorganized/
disoriented attachment relationships in maltreated infants. Developmental

Psychology, 25, 525-531.

Chess, 5., & Thomas, A. (1984). Origm' s and evolution ofbehgior disorders: From
inﬁncy to adult life. New York: Brunner / Mazel.

Christopoulos, C., Cohn, D., Shaw, D., Joyce, S., Sullivan-Hanson, J ., Kraft, S., &
Emery, R. (1987). Children of abused women: I. Adjustment at time of shelter
residence. Journal of Marriage and the Fatmily. 49. 611-619.

Cicchetti, D., & Barnett, D. (1991). Attachment organization in preschool aged
maltreated children. Development and Psychopathology, 3, 397-411.

Craik, F. I. M. (1977). Depth of processing in recall and recognition. In S. Dornic (Ed),
Attention and performance (Vol. 6). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Crittenden, P. (1985). Maltreated infants: Vulnerability and resilience. Joumal of Chi_ld
Psychology and Psychiatg, 26, 85-96.

Derryberry, D., & Rothbart, M. K. (1984). Emotion, attention, and temperament. In C.
E. Izard, J. Kagan, & R. Zajonc (Eds), Emotiop, cogm'tion. a_nd behavior (pp.
132-166). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Egeland, B., Pianta, R., & O’Brien, M. A. (1993). Maternal intrusiveness in infancy and
child maladaptation in early school years. Development and Psychopathology, 5,
359-370.

Egeland, B., & Sroufe, L. A. (1981). Developmental sequelae of maltreatment in
infancy. In R. Rizley & D. Cicchetti (Eds), Developmental perspectives in cm
maltreatment. San Francisco: J ossey Bass.

Ericksen, J. R., & Henderson, A. D. (1992). Witnessing family violence: The children’s
experience. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 17, 1200-1209.

Erikson, E. H. (1950). Childhood and society. New York: Norton.

Fagot, B. 1., & Kavanagh, K. (1990). The prediction of antisocial behavior ﬁom
avoidant attachment classiﬁcations. Child Develorranent. 61. 864-873.

115

Fantuzzo, J. W., DePaola, L. M., Lambert, L., Marino, T., Anderson, G., & Sutton, S.
(1991). Effects of interparental violence on the psychological adjustment and
competencies of young children. Journg of Consultingand Clinical Psychology,
_5_9, 258-265.

Fantuzzo, J ., & Lindquist, C. (1988). Violence in the home: The effects of observing
conjugal violence on children. Joumal of Family Violence, 44 77-90.

Freud, S. (193 5). A general introduction to psychoanalysis. New York: Simon and
Schuster.

Goldberg, S., Perrotta, M., Minde, K., & Corter, C. (1986). Maternal behavior and
attachment in low birthweight twins and singletons. Child Development. 51 34-
46.

Gottlieb, G. (1992). Individual development and evolution: The genesis of novel
behavior. New York: Oxford University Press.

Graham-Bermann, S. A., & Levendosky, A. A. (2000). The social functioning of
preschool-age children whose mothers are emotionally and physically abused.
Journal of Emotiomrl Abuse.

Grusec, J. E., & Goodnow, J. J. (1994). Impact of parental discipline methods on the
child’s internalization of values: A reconceptualization of current points of View.
Developmental Paychology, 30, 4-19.

Gunnar, M. R. (1994). Psychoendocrine studies of temperament and stress in early
childhood: Expanding current models. In J. E. Bates & T. D. Wachs (Eds),
Temperament: Individual differences_at the interface of biology and behavior (pp.
175-198). Washington, D. C.: American Psychological Association.

Heller, T. L., Baker, B. L., Henker, B., & Hinshaw, S. P. (1996). Extemalizing behavior
and cognitive functioning from preschool to ﬁrst grade: Stability and predictors.
Joumﬂf Clinical Child Psychology, 25, 376-387.

Hetherington, E. M. (1989). Coping with family transitions: Winners, losers, and
survivors. Child Development, 60. 1-14.

Hoffman, M. L. (1983). Affective and cognitive processes in moral internalization. In
E. T. Higgins, D. Ruble, & W. Hartup (Eds), Social cogm'tion and social
development: A sociocultural perspective (pp. 236-274). New York: Cambridge
University Press.

Holden, G. W. (1996). Parental Responses to Child Misbehavior--Revised. Unpublished
instrument. University of Texas at Austin, Department of Psychology.

116

Holden, G. W., Coleman, 8., & Schmidt, K. (1995). Why 3-year-old children get
spanked: Parent and child determinants as reported by college-educated mothers.
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly. 41- 431-452.

Holden, G. W., & Ritchie, K. L. (1991). Linking extreme marital discord, child rearing,
and child behavior problems: Evidence from battered women. Child

Development, 62, 311-327.

Holden, G. W., & Zambarano, R. J. (1992). Passing the rod: Similarities between
parents and their young children in orientations toward physical punishment. In
E. Sigel, A. V. McGillicuddy-DeLisi, & J. J. Goodnow (Eds), Parental belief
systems: The psychologipal consequences for children ( 2d ed., pp. 143-172).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hughes, H. M. (1988). Psychological and behavioral correlates of family violence in
child witnesses and victims. American Joumal of Orthopsychiatry. 58. 77-90.

Hughes, H. M., & Barad, S. J. (1983). Psychological functioning of children in a
battered women’s shelter: A preliminary investigation. American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry. 53. 525-531.

Jaffe, P., Wolfe, D., Wilson, S., & Zak, L. (1986a). Similarities in behavioral and social
maladjustment among child victims and witnesses to family violence. American

Journal of Orthopsychiatg, 56, 142-146.

Jaffe, P., Wolfe, D., Wilson, 8., & Zak, L. (1986b). Family violence and child
adjustment: A comparative analysis of girls’ and boys’ behavioral symptoms.
American Journal of Psychiatry. 143. 74-77.

Kagan, J ., Reznick, J. S., & Snidman, N. (1987). The physiology and psychology of
behavioral inhibition. Child Development. 58. 1459-1473.

Kauﬁnan, J., & Cicchetti, D. (1989). The effects of maltreatment on school-aged
children’s socioemotional development: Assessments in a day camp setting.

Developmental Psychology, 25, 516-524.

Kochanska, G. (1992). My Child--Vers_ion 2. April 1992. Unpublished instrument.
University of Iowa, Department of Psychology.

Kochanska, G. (1993). Toward a synthesis of parental socialization and child

temperament in early development of conscience. Child Development, 64, 325-
347.

Kochanska, G. (1995). Children’s temperament, mothers’ discipline, and security of
attachment: Multiple pathways to emerging internalization. Child Development.
6_6, 597-615.

117

Kochanska, G. (1997a). Mutually responsive orientation between mothers and their
young children: Implications for early socialization. Child Development. 68. 94-
1 12.

Kochanska, G. (1997b). Multiple pathways to conscience for children with diﬁ’erent
temperaments: From toddlerhood to age 5. Developmental Psychology, 33, 228-
240.

Kochanska, G., Aksan, N., & Koenig, A. L. (1995). A longitudinal study of the roots of
preschoolers’ conscience: Committed compliance and emerging internalization.
Child Development. 66, 1752-1769.

Kochanska, G., DeVet, K., Goldman, M., Murray, K., & Putnam, S. M. (1994). Maternal
reports of conscience development and temperament in young children. Child
Development- 65. 852-868.

Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: the cogrritive-developmental approach to
socialization. In D. A. Goslin (Ed), Handbook of socialization theog and
research. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Kolbo, J. R., Blakely, E. H., & Engleman, D. (1996). Children who witness domestic
violence: A review of empirical literature. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 11,
281-293.

Kyrios, M., & Prior, M. (1990). Temperament, stress and family factors in behavioural
adjustment of three-ﬁve-year-old children. International Jouma of Behavioral
Development. 13, 67-93.

Lewis, M., Feiring, C., McGuffog, C., & Jaskir, J. (1984). Predicting psychopathology
in six-year-olds from early social relations. Child Development. 5; 123-136.

Lyons-Ruth, K. (1996). Attachment relationships among children with aggressive
behavior problems: The role of disorganized early attachment patterns. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64, 64-73.

Lyons-Ruth, K., Alpem, L., & Repacholi, B. (1993). Disorganized infant attachment
classiﬁcation and maternal psychosocial problems as predictors of hostile-
aggressive behavior in the preschool classroom. Child Development. 64. 572-585.

Lyons-Ruth, K., Repacholi, B., McLeod, S., & Silva, E. (1991). Disorganized
attachment behavior in infancy: Short-tenn stability, maternal and infant

correlates, and risk-related subtypes. Development aad Psychopﬂology, 3, 377-
396.

118

Maccoby, E. E. (1983). Let’s not over-attribute to the attribution process: Comments on
social cognition and behavior. In E. T. Higgins, D. Ruble, & W. Hartup (Eds),
Social cognition aad socﬂ deﬂment: A sociocultural perspective (pp. 356-
370). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Maccoby, E. E. (1990). Gender and relationships: A developmental account. American
Psychologist. 45. 513-520.

Maccoby E. E., & Feldman, S. S. (1972). Mother-attachment and stranger-reactions in
the third year of life. Monogpaphs of the Society for Research in Child
Development. 37 (1, Serial No. 146).

Main, M. (1990). Cross-cultural studies of attachment organization: Recent studies,
changing methodologies, and the concept of conditional strategies. Human
Development. 33. 48-61.

 

Main, M., & Solomon, J. (1986). Discovery of an insecure-disorganized/ disoriented
attachment pattern. In T. B. Brazelton & M. W. Yogrnan (Eds), Affective
development in infamy (pp. 95-124). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing
Corporation.

Main, M., & Weston, D. R. (1981). The quality of the toddler’s relationship to mother
and to father: Related to conﬂict behavior and the readiness to establish new
relationships. Child Development, 52, 932-940.

Marshall, L. L. (1992). Development of the Severity of Violence Against Women
Scales. Journal:ofEamily Violence. 7. 103-121.

Matas, L., Arend, R. A., & Sroufe, L. A. (1978). Continuity of adaptation in the second
year: The relationship between quality of attachment and later competence. Child
Development. 49. 547-556.

McCloskey, L.A., Figueredo, A.J., & Koss, MP. (1995). The effects of systemic family
violence on children’s mental health. Child Development. 66. 1239-1261.

Osofsky, J. D., Werers, S., Hann, D. M., & Pick, A. C. (1993). Chronic community
violence: What is happening to our children? Pachiatgg, 56, 36-45.

Patterson, G. R., DeBaryshe, B. D., & Ramsey, E. (1989). A developmental perspective
on antisocial behavior. Ameriaan Psychologist. 44. 329-335.

Pederson, D. R., & Moran, G. (1995). A categorical description of infant-mother
relationships in the home and its relation to Q-Sort measures of infant-mother
interaction. In E. Waters, B. E. Vaughn, G. Posada, & K. Kondo-Ikemura (eds),
Caregiving, cultural, and cognitive perspectives on secure-base behavior and
working models: New growing points of attachment theory and research.

119

Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development. 60 (2-3, Serial
No. 244).

Piaget, J. (1965). The moral iudgrnengrf the child. New York: Free Press.

Plonrin, R., Emde, R. N., Braungart, J. M., Campos, J ., Corley, R., Fulker, D. W., Kagan,
J., Rezrrick, J. 8., Robinson, J., Zahn-Waxler, C., & DeFries, J. C. (1993).
Genetic change and continuity ﬁ'om 14 to 20 months: The MacArthur
Longitudinal Twin Study. Child Development. 64. 1354-1376.

Renken, B., Egeland, B., Marvinney, D., Mangelsdorf, S., & Sroufe, L. A. (1989). Early
childhood antecedents of aggression and passive-withdrawal in early elementary
school. Journal of Personality. 57. 257-281.

Rosenbaunr, A. & O’Leary, D. K. (1981). Children: The unintended victims of marital
violence. American Joumal of Orthopsychiatry. 51. 692-699.

Rothbart, M. K. (1981). Measurement of temperament in infancy. Child Development.
ﬂ, 569-578.

Rothbart, M. K. (1986). Longitudinal observation of infant temperament.
Developmental Pachology, 22, 356-365.

Rothbart, M. K. (1996). CLildren’s Behavior Questionnaire--Ver§ion I. Unpublished
instrument. University of Oregon, Department of Psychology.

Rutter, M., & Quinton, D. (1984). Long-term follow-up of women institutionalized in
childhood: Factors promoting good functioning in adult life. British Journal of
Developmental Psychology, 18, 225-234.

Sameroff, A. J ., Seifer, R., & Zax, M. (1982). Early development of children at risk for
emotional disorder. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child
Development. 47 (7, Serial No. 199).

Spangler, G., & Grossman, K. E. (1993). Biobehavioral organization in securely and
insecurely attached infants. Child Development. 64. 1439-1450.

Sroufe, L. A., & Waters, E. (1977). Attachment as an organizational construct. Child
Development. 48. 1184-1199.

Stollak, G. E., Scholom, A., Kallman, J. R., & Saturansky, C. (1973). Insensitivity to
children: Responses of undergraduates to children in problem situations. Journal
of Abnorma Psychology, 1, 169-180.

 

Terr, L. (1990). Too scared to cry: How trauma affects children....and ultimately us ﬂ.
New York: Basic Books.

120

Teti, D. M., Nakagawa, M., Das, R., & Wirth, O. (1991). Security of attachment between
preschoolers and their mothers: Relations among social interaction, parenting
stress, and mothers’ sorts of the Attachment Q-set. Developmental Psychology,
ﬂ, 440-447.

Thomas, A., & Chess, S. (1977). Temperament and Development. New York: Brunner
/Mazel.

Tschann, J. M., Kaiser, P., Chesney, M. A., Alkon, A., & Boyce, W. T. (1996).
Resilience and vulnerability among preschool children: Family functioning,
temperament, and behavior problems. J 0mg] of the American Academy of Child
and Adolescent Psychiatry. 35. 184-192.

Tulving, E. (1972). Episodic and semantic memory. In E. Tulving & W. Donaldson
(Eds), Organization of memory (pp. 381-403). New York: Academic Press.

Waters, E. (1987). The Attachment Q-Set (Revision 3.0). Unpublished instrument,
State University of New York at Stony Brook, Department of Psychology.

Waters, E. (1995). Appendix A: The Attachment Q-Set (Revision 3.0). In E. Waters, B.
E. Vaughn, G. Posada, & K. Kondo-Ikemura (Eds), Caregiving, cultural, and
cognitive perspectives on secure-base behavior and working models: New
growing points of attachment theory and research. Monographs of the Society for
Research in Child Development. 60 (2-3, Serial No. 244).

Wolfe, D. A., Zak, L., Wilson, S., & Jaﬂ’e P. ( 1986). Child witnesses to violence
between parents: Critical issues in behavioral and social adjustment. Journal of
Abnormal Child Psychology, 14, 95-104.

Wolfson, J ., Fields, J. H., & Rose, S. A. (1987). Symptoms, temperament, resiliency, and
control in anxiety-disordered preschool children. J om] of the Amerim
Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 26. 16-22.

121

 

UNIVER

MICHIGAN SIAJE

 

sirv manual
I
I

 

   
 

1293 02504 424

    

 

 

:nr