Understanding the transgenerational cycle of parenting : the role of

Transcription

The University of Toledo
The University of Toledo Digital Repository
Theses and Dissertations
2006
Understanding the transgenerational cycle of
parenting : the role of past parenting experiences
and emotional functioning
Tracie Pasold
Follow this and additional works at: http://utdr.utoledo.edu/theses-dissertations
Recommended Citation
Pasold, Tracie, "Understanding the transgenerational cycle of parenting : the role of past parenting experiences and emotional
functioning" (2006). Theses and Dissertations. Paper 1374.
This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by The University of Toledo Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses
and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of The University of Toledo Digital Repository. For more information, please see the repository's
About page.
A Dissertation
Entitled
Understanding the Transgenerational Cycle of Parenting:
The Role of Past Parenting Experiences and Emotional Functioning
by
Tracie Lee Pasold, M.A.
Submitted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for
The Doctor of Philosophy in Psychology
______________________________
Advisor: Jeanne B. Funk, Ph.D.
______________________________
Kathleen F. Baird, Ph.D.
______________________________
Robert Elliott, Ph.D.
_____________________________
Alice Skeens, Ph.D.
______________________________
Mojisola F. Tiamiyu, Ph.D.
______________________________
Graduate School
December 2006
An Abstract of
Understanding the Transgenerational Cycle of Parenting:
The Role of Past Parenting Experiences and Emotional Functioning
Tracie L. Pasold, M.A.
Submitted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
Doctor of Philosophy in Psychology
University of Toledo
December 2006
The present study examined relationships among past parenting experiences,
maltreatment, symptoms of PTSD, delinquency and psychopathy traits, and the role of
these variables in the intergenerational transmission of parenting styles. It was
hypothesized that past parenting experiences, maltreatment, and symptoms of PTSD
would predict callous-unemotional psychopathy (CU), delinquency, and anticipated
future parenting. Participants were 326 volunteers from public high schools and a
Juvenile Detention Center (JDC). All completed the Anticipated Future Parenting Index
(API), Perceptions of Past Parenting Scale (PPPS), Youth Psychopathic Traits Inventory
ii
(YPI); measures of symptoms of PTSD and social desirability. Public school participants
reported more father’s and mother’s warmth, less father’s and mother’s rejection, and
more father’s overprotection. JDC participants reported more maltreatment, more PTSD,
and higher CU. CU was predicted by lower father’s and mother’s positive parenting
among public school females. Maltreatment experiences predicted more arrests among
public school males and females. Fewer symptoms of PTSD predicted more arrests
among public school females. More mother’s positive parenting predicted fewer arrests
in public school females. Results of the current study support research regarding the
intergenerational transmission of parenting. JDC participants reported significantly
higher anticipated rejection and overprotection in future parenting. Among public school
females, higher levels of callous-unemotional psychopathy significantly predicted lower
anticipated warmth and higher anticipated rejection in future parenting. Among public
school males, more maltreatment experiences predicted less anticipated warmth in future
parenting. Among public school males, more PTSD predicted more anticipated rejection
and more anticipated overprotection in future parenting. Among JDC participants, more
maltreatment predicted less anticipated overprotection in future parenting, and more
PTSD predicted more anticipated overprotection in future parenting. Higher levels of
callous-unemotional psychopathy also predicted more anticipated overprotection in this
sample. These results demonstrate the critical importance of inclusion of positive
parenting in prevention and intervention strategies.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research project and resulting document mark the completion of my graduate
career. Many individuals have played a crucial role in my success over the course of
these five years. I must express sincere gratitude to all of my committee members, Dr.
Jeanne Funk; Dr. Robert Elliott; Dr. Mojisola Tiamiyu; Dr. Alice Skeens; and Dr.
Kathleen Baird for their support of me on this project from its very infancy and their
stellar contributions to its development, execution, and final product. The individual
contributions made by every member of this team, not only to this project, but to my
graduate education and training overall, to me, have been selfless “gifts” that I will be
forever grateful for. The quality of mentorship offered me has done, and will continue to
do, much to support the achievement of my dream to become the best psychologist that I
can be. Thank you to all of you!
I must extend an extra special thank you to Dr. Jeanne Funk for going above and
beyond to be supportive of me in the achievement of my goals and aspirations. She has
served as my mentor throughout my graduate education and training and has been tireless
in her efforts to guide and encourage me and to foster my ability to achieve my fullest
potential. Thank you, Jeanne!
Lastly, but certainly not least, I extend gratitude to my family and friends for their
support and encouragement throughout this long journey. My mother and father, in
particular, have always passionately persevered in their love and support of me
throughout my life and, for this, I am most grateful. It pleases me very much to make
them proud in return.
iv
Table of Contents
Abstract. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ii
Acknowledgements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv
Table of Contents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii
List of Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiv
I.
Chapter One: Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
II.
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
The Impact of Parenting Across the Lifespan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
Parental Rejection and Psychological Adjustment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Parental Behaviors and Psychological Adjustment: Other
Negative Parenting Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Parenting Behaviors and the Social Self and Self-Concept. . . . . . . . . . .20
Parenting Behaviors and Hostility and Aggression. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25
Parenting Behaviors and More Severe Psychiatric Problems. . . . . . . . .28
Intergenerational Transmission of Parenting Behaviors. . . . . . . . . . . . .32
Child Maltreatment and Its Outcomes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Developmental Perspectives on Child Maltreatment
Outcomes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Domestic Violence as a Form of Maltreatment . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Child Maltreatment and Long-Term Adjustment .. . . . . . . . . . 40
Child Maltreatment and Social Functioning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Child Maltreatment and Revictimization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46
v
Child Maltreatment and Other Psychological Sequelae. . . . . . 47
Intergenerational Transmission of Maltreatment. . . . . . . . . . . .61
Juvenile Delinquency. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64
Maltreatment and Juvenile Delinquency. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .64
Other Familial Correlates of Delinquency. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69
Juvenile Psychopathy. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Statement of the Problem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77
Study Hypotheses .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
III.
Chapter Three: Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81
Participants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Measures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Anticipated Future Parenting Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Perceptions of Past Parenting Scale. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91
Child Maltreatment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
Youth Psychopathic Traits Inventory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
Post Traumatic Stress Symptomatology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Social Desirability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .98
Procedure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .99
IV.
Chapter Four: Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .102
Data Analyses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
Preliminary Analyses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .102
Regression Analyses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
Parenting, Maltreatment, and PTSD as Predictors of
Callous-Unemotional Psychopathy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
vi
Parenting, Maltreatment, PTSD, and CallousUnemotional Psychopathy as Predictors of
Delinquency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
Anticipated Warmth In Future Parenting . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
Anticipated Rejection in Future Parenting . . . . . . . . . . 152
Anticipated Overprotection In Future Parenting. . . . . . . 162
V.
Chapter Five: Discussion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
Parenting Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
Sample Comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
Importance of Parenting, Maltreatment, and PTSD for CallousUnemotional psychopathy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .183
Importance of Parenting, Maltreatment, PTSD, and CallousUnemotional Psychopathy for Delinquency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
Importance of Parenting, Maltreatment, PTSD, and CallousUnemotional Psychopathy for Anticipated Future Parenting . . . 186
Study Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
Clinical Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
VI.
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
VII.
Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
vii
List of Tables
Table 1
Summary of Outcomes Found to be Associated with
Experiences of Specific Parenting Behaviors. . . . . . . . . . . 30
Table 2
Summary of Outcomes Found to be Associated with
Specific Maltreatment Experiences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58
Table 3
Gender, Age, Grade, and Ethnicity Distributions for
Public School and JDC Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Table 4
Distributions of Contact with Law Enforcement, Number
of Arrests, and Number of Juvenile Detention Center
Placements for Public School and JDC Participants . . . . . .84
Table 5
Distributions of Frequency of Relocations to Different
Homes for Public School and JDC Participants . . . . . . . . . 86
Table 6
Means and Standard Deviations of Individual Items
Within the API for Public School and JDC Participants . . 103
Table 7
Within the PPPS for Public School and JDC
Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .105
Table 8
Within the Measure of PTSD Symptoms for Public
School and JDC Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .108
Table 9
Within the Youth Psychopathic Traits Inventory for
Public School and JDC Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .109
Table 10
Within the Measure of Maltreatment Experiences for
Public School and JDC Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
Table 11
Within the Measure of Social Desirability for
Public School and JDC Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .111
Table 12
Means and Standard Deviations for the API Scales
Of Anticipated Warmth, Anticipated Rejection, and
Anticipated Overprotection by Sample and Gender. . . . . .112
viii
Table 13
Total Maltreatment Experiences, Total CallousUnemotional Psychopathy, Total PTSD
Symptoms, and Total Social Desirability Means
and Standard Deviations for Public School and
JDC Participants by Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .115
Table 14
PPPS Father’s Warmth, Rejection, and Overprotection
Means and Standard Deviations for Public School and
Table 15
PPPS Mother’s Warmth, Rejection, and Overprotection
Means and Standard Deviations for Public School and
Table 16
Total Father’s and Mother’s Positive Parenting Means
And Standard Deviations for Public School and JDC
Participants by Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .121
Table 17
Bivariate Correlations Between All Study Variables . . . . 123
Table 18
Partial Correlations Between All Study Variables . . . . . . 124
Table 19
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for
Father’s Positive Parenting, Maltreatment Experiences,
and PTSD Symptoms Predicting Callous-Unemotional
Psychopathy for the Public School Sample, Females . . . .126
Table 20
Psychopathy for the Public School Sample, Males . . . . . 127
Table 21
Psychopathy for the JDC Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .129
Table 22
Mother’s Positive Parenting, Maltreatment Experiences,
Psychopathy for the Public School Sample, Females . . . 130
ix
Table 23
Psychopathy for the Public School Sample, Males . . . . . 131
Table 24
Psychopathy for the JDC Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .133
Table 25
PTSD Symptoms, and Callous-Unemotional
Psychopathy Predicting Delinquency for the Public
School Sample, Females . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .135
Table 26
School Sample, Males . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
Table 27
Psychopathy Predicting Delinquency for the JDC
Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .138
Table 28
School Sample, Females . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .140
Table 29
School Sample, Males . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .141
Table 30
Psychopathy Predicting Delinquency for the JDC
Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .143
x
Table 31
PTSD Symptoms, and Callous-Unemotional Psychopathy
Predicting Anticipated Warmth in Future Parenting for
The Public School Sample, Females . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
Table 32
The Public School Sample, Males . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .147
Table 33
The JDC Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
Table 34
The Public School Sample, Females . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .150
Table 35
Table 36
The JDC Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
Table 37
Predicting Anticipated Rejection in Future Parenting for
The Public School Sample, Females . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .155
xi
Table 38
The Public School Sample, Males . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
Table 39
The JDC Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .158
Table 40
The Public School Sample, Females . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
Table 41
Table 42
The JDC Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
Table 43
Predicting Anticipated Overprotection in Future
Parenting for the Public School Sample, Females . . . . . .165
Table 44
Parenting for the Public School Sample, Males . . . . . . . 166
xii
Table 45
Parenting for the JDC Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .168
Table 46
Parenting for the Public School Sample, Females . . . . . .170
Table 47
Parenting for the Public School Sample, Males . . . . . . . 171
Table 48
Parenting for the JDC Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .173
Table 49
Summary of Relationships Found Between Predictor
And Outcome Variables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .175
xiii
List of Appendices
Demographic Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A
Juvenile Court Judge Consent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B
Public School Administration Consent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C
Public School Participant Parent Consent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D
Juvenile Detention Center Participant Consent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E
Public School Student Participant Consent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F
Anticipated Future Parenting Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .G
Means, Standard Deviations, and Factor Loadings of the API
Using All Questionnaires. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .H
Factor Loadings of the Items Within the API Separately by
Public School and JDC Samples. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I
Perceptions of Past Parenting Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .J
Means, Standard Deviations, and Factor Loadings of all Items
Within the PPPS Using All Questionnaire Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . K
Means, Standard Deviations, and Factor Loadings of Father
Items Within the PPPS using All Questionnaire Data. . . . . . . . . . .L
Means, Standard Deviations and Factor Loadings of Mother
Items Within the PPPS using All Questionnaire Data . . . . . . . . . .M
Factor Loadings of All Items of the PPPS using Public
School Questionnaires Only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .N
Factor Loadings of All Items of the PPPS using JDC
Questionnaires Only. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O
xiv
Maltreatment Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . P
Youth Psychopathy Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q
PTSD Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .R
Social Desirability Measure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .S
xv
Chapter One
Introduction
Parenting experiences, particularly warmth, rejection, overprotection, and
discipline, have an important impact on personality formation and development (Rohner,
1986). Among the wide-range of internalizing and externalizing problems associated
with these parenting behaviors, strong associations exist between oppositional defiant,
conduct, antisocial, and delinquent behaviors and the experience of low warmth (Caspi et
al., 2004; Palmer & Hollin, 1996), high rejection (Palmer & Hollin, 1997; Ruchkin et al.,
2001; Ruchkin, Eisemann, & Hagglof, 1998), both high and low overprotection (Pittman
& Chase-Lansdale, 2001; Rey & Plapp, 1990), and harsh discipline (Holmes & Robbins,
1987; Muris et al., 1996). Low parental involvement, low positive reinforcement, low
monitoring and supervision, and inconsistent and harsh discipline have also been
associated with psychopathy traits (Wootton et al., 1997) and these traits, in turn, lead to
antisocial and delinquent behavior (Gretton, Hare, & Catchpole, 2004; Salekin et al.,
2004; Vincent et al., 2003).
As with the parenting experiences noted previously, maltreatment experiences,
particularly sexual abuse, physical abuse, neglect, and emotional abuse, are also
associated with extensive internalizing and externalizing problems (Manly et al., 2001).
Among these are the associations between maltreatment and PTSD (DeBellis, 2001;
1
Kendall-Tackett, 2002) and delinquency (Jaffee et al., 2004; Kaplan, Pelcovitz, &
Labruna, 1999; Mabanglo, 2002).
Because parenting experiences are known to have a significant impact on
emotions and behavior, the intergenerational transmission of parenting behaviors has
been a topic of interest to psychologists. The transfer of parenting styles and behaviors
has been indicated to occur through modeling, learning, and the development of
personality traits that have an impact on future parenting (Simons et al., 1992; Whitbeck
et al., 1992). As with other parenting behaviors, maltreatment experiences are also
modeled and learned and may lead to maladjusted adults with emotion dysregulation and
negative cognitions. These personality characteristics not only lead to antisocial and
delinquent behaviors that extend from childhood to adulthood (Knutson, DeGarmo, &
Reid, 2004; Stouthamer-Loeber et al., 2001), but also increase the transmission of
maltreatment across generations (Cunningham, 2003; DeBellis, 2001; Ruchkin et al.,
2002). Symptoms of PTSD that are associated with maltreatment also play an important
role in predicting transmission of maltreatment through victimizing of others or revictimizing of the self as part of the compulsion to reenact the trauma (Green, 1998).
The goal of the current study was to expand upon existing research as well as to
explore new areas about the impact of parenting. Specific parenting experiences of
warmth, rejection, overprotection, and discipline, as well as maltreatment experiences of
sexual abuse, physical abuse, neglect, and emotional abuse were variables of interest.
These experiences and their association with PTSD symptoms and specific psychopathy
traits were examined. Additionally, the role of parenting experiences, PTSD symptoms,
2
and psychopathy in the intergenerational transmission of parenting behaviors were
studied.
3
Chapter Two
Review of the Literature
The Impact of Parenting Across the Lifespan
It is well-established that the family, parental behavior in particular, plays an
important role in the social and psychological adjustment of children and adolescents,
extending into adulthood. For both children and adolescents, there are specific aspects of
parental behavior that appear to be critical: appropriate discipline; clear supervision; and
warmth and nurturance in the interactions between the parent and the child (Palmer &
Hollin, 1996).
Parental patterns that are lax, erratic, and strict in discipline have been
associated with antisocial children and juvenile delinquents and other behavioral and
psychological problems that will extend into adult life (Palmer & Hollin, 1996). A brief
overview of the following literature review on the role of past parenting experiences in
overall psychological adjustment and well-being is provided at the end of this section
(Table 1).
Parental Rejection and Psychological Adjustment. Numerous studies have
implicated specific parental behaviors as being causal factors in psychological adjustment
and psychopathology, beginning in early childhood and continuing into adulthood. R. P.
Rohner (1986) developed a theory of parental acceptance-rejection based on numerous
studies published over the past half century. According to his theory, parental acceptance
or rejection of a child has a significant impact on the child’s personality formation and
4
development. Rohner’s theory focuses on specific personality dispositions that seem to
characterize rejected children, adolescents, and adults. These include dependence or
defensive independence, depending on the extent of rejection; emotional
unresponsiveness; hostility, aggression, passive aggression, or problems managing
hostility and aggression; negative self-esteem; negative self-adequacy; negative
worldview; and emotional instability.
Other research suggests that the experience of parental rejection has a negative
impact on a child’s feelings of security and self-esteem and also leads to feelings of being
unloved, unwanted, and unaccepted. For example, Peretti, Clark, and Johnson (1985)
studied 123 (69 female) third grade students and found that the rejected children
demonstrated behaviors indicating negative emotional adjustment. The goal behind
these behaviors seemed to be to get the attention of parents or others in an attempt to gain
acceptance and to replace lost feelings of security. The children were given a
questionnaire that dealt with parental rejection. An interview was conducted with
teachers to determine the frequency of negative attention-seeking behaviors in the
classroom. Boys who experienced parental rejection were more boisterous and disruptive
in their behavior (more noisy, crude, and engaged in making gross remarks), frequently
disrupted the classroom with talking, and displayed more restlessness (making noises,
banging books, tapping the desktop, or leaving their desks). Use of profanity towards
teachers and classmates and throwing things were also noted as attention-seeking
behaviors among the boys. Among females, whispering was the most common attentionseeking behavior. Excessive quarrelsomeness, stubbornness, and temper tantrums
5
(outbursts of anger, resentment, irritability, and impatience) without provocation were
also reported to be girls’ ways of gaining attention (Peretti, Clark, & Johnson).
Ruchkin, Koposov, Eisemann, and Hagglof (2001) found parental rejection to be
a predictor of antisocial behavior. Their 193 (85 females) delinquent participants were
obtained from juvenile detention centers and ranged in age from 14 to 19 years. The
measures administered were the Retrospective Childhood Problems, Antisocial Behavior
Checklist, Temperament and Character Inventory, and the EMBU (Swedish acronym for
Egna Minnen Betraffande Uppfostran – “own memories of parental rearing”). Their
results suggest that those who reported childhood experiences of neglecting and rejecting
parental behaviors were at higher risk for developing conduct problems early on, placing
them at risk of more long-term antisocial behavior (Ruchkin, Koposov, Eisemann, &
Hagglof). Similarly, other research on perceived parental rejection and overprotection
has found these specific behaviors to be risk factors for the development of conduct and
oppositional disorders and delinquency. Rey and Plapp (1990) sampled normal (N = 62,
23 females), Conduct Disordered (N = 62, 29 females), and Oppositional Defiant
Disordered (N = 49, 23 females) adolescents aged 12 to 16 years of age. All participants
completed the Parental Bonding Instrument. There were significant differences between
the normal control and clinical groups in perceived parental overprotection and
indifference and rejection. Specifically, the Conduct Disorder and Oppositional Defiant
groups perceived their parents to be significantly more overprotective and less caring
than the normal control group. A study by Palmer and Hollin (1999) compared 97
convicted male offenders (age range from 13 to 21 years) to 273 non-offenders (157
females, age range from 12 and 27 years). Paternal rejection, which was measured by the
6
shortened version of the EMBU, most strongly discriminated between the two groups.
The male offenders perceived their fathers as more rejecting, which the researchers noted
suggests an association between high levels of rejection and high levels of self-reported
delinquency (Palmer & Hollin).
Palmer and Hollin (1996) further explored the relationship between parental
rejection and lack of warmth and self-reported delinquency (Palmer & Hollin, 1996) and
the development of moral reasoning (Palmer & Hollin, 1997). Sixty-four undergraduate
students (42 females) aged 18 to 27 years completed the Sociomoral Reflection MeasureShort Form, the EMBU, and a measure of self-reported delinquency. Results indicated,
overall, that a warm and non-rejecting parenting style may aid in moral development (as
measured through the participant’s reasoning in regards to the importance of five norms:
contract and truth, affiliation, life, property and law, and legal justice). High selfreported delinquency levels were associated with parental rejection and lack of warmth.
The researchers suggested that parental rejection inhibits positive attachment between the
parent and child, impacting how the child is influenced by the parents’ and society’s
values and beliefs. In children, they suggest that poor attachment leads to low control or
influence over the child’s choices, which results in maladjustment and engaging in
delinquent behaviors (Palmer & Hollin, 1996; Palmer & Hollin, 1997). Further
investigation of this relationship by Simons and colleagues (1989) indicated that, for the
most part, parental rejection leads to adolescent deviance rather than deviance leading to
parental rejection (Simons, Robertson, & Downs). Simons and colleagues’ study
included 244 participants (approximate even split between males and females) between
the ages of 13 and 17. Information was obtained from each participant initially and again
7
one year later. Measures included a scale of parental rejection developed by the Behavior
Research and Evaluation Corporation, the short form of the Family Environment Scale,
and a self-report inventory of delinquent behavior.
Zemore and Rinholm (1989) found an association between depression-proneness
in sons and perceptions of fathers as cold and rejecting. Depression-proneness in
daughters was found to be associated with mothers who were perceived as intrusive and
controlling. These relationships were independent of the participants’ affective state at
the time of the study and provide support for the hypothesis that the experience of
parental rejection and control may lead to the development of a depression-prone
personality. Participants in this study consisted of 95 (54 females) university students
ranging in age from 17 to 21 years. Measures utilized were the Parental Bonding
Instrument, Rosenberg’s Self-Esteem Scale, Depression Adjective Checklist, Beck
Depression Inventory (short form), Depression-Proneness Rating Scales, and the Fear
Survey Schedule.
Perceived parental rejection has been found to play a crucial role in the attitudes
towards psychoactive substance-related behaviors among youth.
Teichman and Kefir
(2000) sampled 195 ninth, tenth, and eleventh graders (87 females). Measures completed
included the Questionnaire to Assess Personal and Social Attitudes to Hashish,
Marijuana, and Other Substances; the Behavioral Intentions Questionnaire; Schaefer’s
Children’s Reports of Parent Behavior Inventory; Ascribed Parental Attitudes Towards
Substances; and Ascribed Parental Use of Psychoactive Substances. Results indicated
that perceived parental rejection and non-acceptance had a significant impact on
children’s attitudes and intent to use psychoactive substances. Specifically, participants
8
who perceived their parents as more rejecting and less accepting reported more positive
attitudes towards and intent to use psychoactive substances.
Ruchkin, Eisemann, and Hagglof’s (1998) research adds further support for a
significant relationship between specific parenting behaviors, particularly rejecting
parenting, and psychological problems. Participants in their study consisted of 133
delinquent volunteers from juvenile corrections facilities ranging in age from 15 to 18
years and 108 school children ranging in age from 14 to 18 years. Participants were
administered the EMBU, the Achenbach Youth Self-Report, and the Marlowe-Crowne
Social Desirability Scale. Results indicated parental rejection to be significantly related
to problem behaviors and psychological symptoms including inattention,
anxiety/depression, delinquent behavior, internalizing problems, somatic complaints, and
social problems. Specifically, parental behaviors relating to rejection, including physical
punishment, rejection as an individual, hostility, lack of respect for participant’s point of
view, and criticizing of participant’s inadequacies in public were found to significantly
relate to the presence of psychopathology in both delinquents and controls.
Ruchkin and colleagues (1999) found a significant relationship between
perceptions of parental rejection and resulting avoidant coping styles (Ruchkin,
Eisemann, & Hagglof). Their sample consisted of 178 male delinquent adolescents
ranging in age from 15 to 18 years and a group of 91 adolescent male controls ranging in
age from 14 to 18 years. Participants were given the EMBU, the Temperament and
Character Inventory, the Coping Scale for Children and Youth, and the Social
Desirability Scale.
9
To summarize, strong support exists for a relationship between experiences of
specific parenting behaviors that are more rejecting and psychological maladjustment.
Specifically, the experience of parental rejection has been found to be related to lower
self-esteem and feelings of being unloved, unwanted, and unaccepted. The experience of
parental rejection has also been implicated in externalizing disorders such as oppositional
and conduct problems as well as antisocial behavior; and internalizing problems such as
anxiety and depression. In addition to parental rejection, other parental behaviors have
been found to play an important role in overall psychological adjustment.
Parental Behaviors and Psychological Adjustment: Other Negative Parenting
Practices. In addition to experiences of parental rejection, other negative parenting
practices have been found to be related to the development of psychological problems in
childhood that extend into adulthood. For example, dysfunctional levels of emotional
involvement by parents were found to relate to problems in children’s emotional
expression (Lumley et al., 1996). In addition, maternal over-involvement (Kerver, van
Son, & de Groot, 1992), inconsistent and harsh discipline by parents (Holmes & Robins,
1987) and parental rejection (Vrasti, Eisemann, & Bucur, 1993) are other specific aspects
of parental behavior that have been found to have a negative impact on psychological
functioning.
Kerver and colleagues (1992) conducted a one-year prospective study in which
107 adult participants (53 females, aged 19 years and up) completed the Zung Self-Rating
Depression Scale, Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, and the Parental Bonding Instrument
initially, and again one year later. Non-depressed participants who reported maternal
over-involvement had an 8.5 fold increased risk of becoming depressed one year later.
10
Holmes and Robins (1987) found that unfair, inconsistent, and harsh parental
discipline predicted both alcohol and depressive disorders even after controlling for the
influence of parental psychiatric history, age of participant, and childhood behavior
problems. Adult participants (aged 18 years and older) were interviewed three times over
the course of two years. The study design consisted of three groups: there were 73
participants in the depression group (diagnosis of major depressive episode ever in
lifetime and never met criteria for another diagnosis with the exception of phobia or
panic); 145 participants in the alcoholic group (met criteria for diagnosis of alcohol
abuse/dependence ever in lifetime and never met criteria for another diagnosis); and 384
participants in the control group (never met criteria for a diagnosis and never had any
alcohol or depressive symptoms). The Home Environment Interview was utilized, which
examined the participant’s experience of home life from the age of 6 through 12 years.
Unfair, inconsistent, and harsh parental discipline was significantly more pronounced
among participants diagnosed with alcohol and depressive disorders compared to
controls.
Magnus and colleagues (1999) found the particular parental behaviors of warmth,
support, and acceptance to be significantly and independently related to child adjustment
under stressful conditions, school adjustment, and social problem-solving. Their research
focused on 261 second through sixth grade children and their parents. Measures utilized
were the Teacher-Child Rating Scale, the Child Rating Scale, the Group Social Problem
Solving measure, and the Realistic Control Measure. Parents were interviewed in regards
to parental attitudes, involvement, and discipline. The researchers concluded that those
11
who experienced more warmth, support, and acceptance had better adjustment under
stress, in school, and in social problem-solving.
Perceived lack of maternal warmth, harsh discipline by parents, and poor paternal
care have been associated with suicidal ideation in adolescents and young adults (Wagner
& Cohen, 1994; Tousignant, Bastien, & Hamel, 1993). For example, Wagner and Cohen
(1994) had 178 participants (pairs of siblings consisting of study children: 84 females;
siblings: 94 females) ranging in age from 11 to 21 years complete subscales from the
Child Report of Parental Behavior. In addition, participants completed the Power
Assertive Punishment Scale and another scale measuring maternal discipline practices.
Finally, participants were interviewed using the Diagnostic Interview Schedule for
Children. Low maternal warmth and harsh discipline were found to significantly relate
to suicidal ideation. Tousignant, Bastien, and Hamel sampled 2,327 high school students
from the 9th 10th and 11th grades and 701 young adults aged 18 to 24 years. Their
participants completed the Parental Bonding Instrument in addition to answering
questions regarding suicidal behavior. Perceived poor parental care was associated with
suicidal behavior in the high school group. Among the young adults, only paternal care
was found to be associated with suicidal behavior. Ross, Clayer, and Campbell (1983)
found suicidal ideation among adult participants, which was measured by a studydesigned scale of suicidal ideation, to be associated with the specific parental behaviors
of favoring siblings, guilt engendering, unstimulating, rejecting, and unaffectionate.
Their sample consisted of 85 university students with a mean age of 18.6, 72 medical and
surgical patients with a mean age of 20.1, and 125 state employees with a mean age of
39.1. Participants also completed the EMBU and the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire
12
(EPQ). Having a mother who was intolerant and abusive and a father who was depriving
and punitive were associated with suicidal ideation.
Pittman and Chase-Lansdale (2001) conducted research with 302 female
participants between the ages of 15 and 18. The current emotional functioning of the
mothers of the participants was measured by the Center for Epidemiological Studies
Depression Scale; parenting was measured by the Inventory of Parent and Peer
Attachment and the Parental Strictness/Supervision Scale; delinquent behavior was
measured by the National Longitudinal Study of Youth and items from the Youth
Deviance Scale; adolescent psychological functioning was measured by the Center for
Epidemiological Studies Depression scale and the Cognitive Distress Scale; academic
success was obtained through a question pertaining to grades achieved; work orientation
was measured through the work orientation subscale of the Psychosocial Maturity Index;
and sexual experience was measured through specific questions surrounding sexual
experiences. Results indicated that those who reported both more minor and major
delinquent behaviors and clinical levels of depressive symptoms perceived maternal
behaviors that were more disengaged (low warmth, supervision, and monitoring).
Additionally, the perception of mothers as disengaged was associated with lower grades
and a higher likelihood to be sexually active and having had sex at a younger age. Girls
who perceived their mothers as disengaged showed the worst adjustment overall (Pittman
& Chase-Lansdale).
Maternal expressed emotion was found to strongly predict children’s antisocial
behavior problems (Caspi et al., 2004). Existing data from the Environmental Risk
Longitudinal Twin Study consisted of 1,116 five year old twin pairs (56% monozygotic,
13
44% dizygotic, 49% male). Raters coded positive, negative, and warmth comments
made by mother about child during an interview and the CBCL was completed by the
mother and a teacher. Mother’s emotional attitudes (displaying warmth and having a
positive attitude) towards their children were found to be significantly associated with
children’s antisocial behavior problems. Negativity, negative comments, lack of warmth,
and lack of positive attitude towards the child resulted in antisocial behavior problems
(Caspi et al).
A relationship between perceived parenting styles and resulting psychological
distress and offending characteristics of 122 incarcerated young male offenders ranging
in age from 15 to 22 years was found by Chambers, Power, Loucks, and Swanson (2001).
The Parental Bonding Instrument, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Beck’s
Hopelessness Scale, and Rosenberg’s Self-Esteem Scale were utilized. Juvenile
offenders perceived their parents as being lower in affection and either very low or very
high in control when compared to non-offending adolescents. A relationship was also
found between maternal care and how young offenders viewed their past offending. In
particular, those with high-caring mothers viewed their most serious crime as being more
dangerous and harmful compared to offenders with low-caring mothers. The researchers
concluded that sons of more caring mothers were more aware of the impact of offending
actions. Young offenders whose mothers were highly controlling were more likely to
view their offending behavior as being under their own control. The researchers
suggested that young offenders with mothers who are more caring and controlling may
find it easier to stop engaging in delinquent behavior in the future because they may tend
to feel more in control in addition to being more aware of the impact of their offending.
14
Symptoms of psychological distress (including anxiety and depression) were found to be
strongly predicted by high parental control and low care by one or both parents. Low
parental care in the group of offenders was found to be significantly linked to higher
levels of anxiety, depression, hopelessness, pessimism, and low self-esteem in
comparison to controls. Paternal control was significantly linked to the age of first arrest
(a more controlling father resulted in a lower age of the offender when first arrested).
Offenders who viewed their fathers as high in care also viewed their father’s views as
more important. Those who perceived high care and high control from their mothers
were more likely to see their mother’s views as important.
Research conducted by Muris, Bogels, Meesters, van der Kamp, and van Oosten
(1996) adds support to other research that has identified relationships between specific
parenting behaviors and resulting conduct problems in children. Their participants were
64 children (33 girls) ranging in age from 8 to 18 years who were referred to a
community mental health center. All of the mothers and 42 fathers also participated in
the study. The children completed the EMBU-C (child version) and the Fear Survey
Schedule for Children. The parents completed the Child Behavior Checklist and the
parent version of the EMBU. A higher frequency of more negative rearing practices
(more hostile, rejecting, overprotecting, and punitive), along with a low frequency of
positive rearing behaviors, was associated with externalizing and disruptive behaviors in
the children.
More perceived parental warmth has been found to be associated with fewer
reported psychological symptoms by adolescents (Xia & Qian, 2001). Among their
sample of 127 adolescents (age range was 16 to 22 years, 32 females), those who recalled
15
more parental behaviors of punishment, over-involvement, overprotection, rejection and
denial reported more psychological symptoms including somatization, obsessioncompulsion, depression, hostility, paranoid ideation, phobic anxiety, psychoticism and
lower index scores on general mental health status. Instruments utilized were the EMBU
and the SCL-90.
A recent study by Leung, McBride-Chang, and Lai (2004) explored the relations
among maternal parenting style, academic competence, and life satisfaction in 346 7th
grade Chinese students (220 female, 126 male). The Parental Image Differential
(completed by both child and mother), the Multidimensional Students’ Life Satisfaction
Scale, and Academic Self-Concept measure were completed. Maternal concern was
found to significantly predict overall life satisfaction. Maternal restrictiveness was
significantly negatively related to academic competence. Academic competence, in turn,
significantly predicted overall life satisfaction (Leung, McBride-Chang, & Lai).
Kim and colleagues (2003) explored parenting behaviors and the occurrence and
co-occurrence of depressive symptoms and conduct problems among 897 (54% female)
African American children and their primary caregivers. Parenting behaviors and clinical
symptoms were assessed when the child was 10 and then again at age 12 using version
four of the Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children. The categories of harshinconsistent parenting, nurturant-involved parenting, warmth, and hostility were
measured through study-devised questions asked of the child and parent. The children
with higher levels of conduct problems reported significantly higher levels of harshinconsistent and hostile parenting and significantly lower levels of warm, nurturantinvolved parenting. Lower levels of warm, nurturant-involved parenting and higher
16
levels of harsh-inconsistent and hostile parenting were significantly related to the child’s
depressive symptoms. Those with co-occurring problems (both conduct problems and
depressive symptoms) reported receiving the highest levels of hostility, lowest levels of
warmth, significantly less nurturant-involved parenting, and significantly more
inconsistent and harsh parenting. Those whose conduct problems and depressive
symptoms increased between the first and second assessment periods reported a decrease
in nurturant-involved parenting and warmth, along with a significant increase in harshinconsistent parenting and hostility (Kim et al).
Moris, Meesters, and van den Berg (2003) explored internalizing and
externalizing problems, self-reported attachment style, and perceived parental rearing
among 742 (397 males, 345 females) adolescents ages 12 to 18 years (mean age 14). The
Attachment questionnaire for Children, the Child Version of the EMBU, and the Youth
Self-Report were completed. Parental emotional warmth was found to be negatively
associated with various symptoms of psychopathology. Parental rejection and
overprotection were found to be positively associated with internalizing (anxiousdepressed, somatic complaints) and externalizing (aggression, delinquent behavior)
problems. Those who were securely attached perceived their parents as more
emotionally warm and less rejecting and overprotective compared to those who were
insecurely attached. Those who reported low levels of emotional warmth and high levels
of rejection and overprotection reported significantly more symptoms overall (Moris,
Meesters, & van den Berg).
Wolfradt, Hempel, and Miles (2003) examined perceived parenting styles,
depersonalization, anxiety, and coping behavior among 276 (150 females) high school
17
students aged 14 to 17 (mean age 15). The Zurich Brief Questionnaire for the
Assessment of Parental Behaviors, Questionnaire of Experiences of Dissociation, StateTrait Anxiety Inventory, and a coping questionnaire were completed. Results indicated
high levels of depersonalization to be strongly associated with high levels of parental
pressure and control. Trait anxiety was found to be positively associated with parental
pressure and control and negatively associated with parental warmth. Parental warmth
was significantly associated with more active coping strategies. An authoritarian style
(high control and pressure, low warmth) of parenting was associated with high levels of
depersonalization, anxiety, and passive coping and low levels of active coping.
Authoritative (high control and warmth, moderate pressure) and permissive (high
warmth, low control and pressure) styles of parenting were both associated with high
levels of active coping and low levels of depersonalization. A permissive style of
parenting was associated with low levels of anxiety and an authoritative style of
parenting was associated with moderate levels of anxiety. An indifferent (low control
and warmth, moderate pressure) style of parenting was associated with low levels of
active coping and moderate levels of depersonalization and anxiety (Wolfradt, Hempel,
& Miles).
Kim-Cohen and colleagues (2004) examined environmental processes involved in
children’s resilience and vulnerability to socioeconomic deprivation using data from the
Environmental Risk Longitudinal Twin Study. Participants included 1,116 (49% male)
five year old twin pairs (56% monozygotic, 44% dizygotic). The CBCL teacher and
parent forms were completed. Observations of the child in new situations, social
interactions, talkativeness, self-confidence, and self-reliance were also done. Higher
18
levels of maternal emotional warmth were significantly associated with children’s
behavioral resilience in the context of SES deprivation. The researchers also concluded
that parental warmth and caring may serve to promote good behavioral regulation and
less antisocial behavior in children (Kim-Cohen et al., 2004).
Shaw and colleagues (2004) examined emotional support from parents early in
life, aging, and health among 2,905 (56% female) participants aged 25 to 74 years (mean
age 44). A study-devised comprehensive questionnaire included questions pertaining to
depressive symptoms, chronic conditions, emotional support, negative interaction,
personal control beliefs, and self-esteem. Current mental and physical health was found
to be associated with psychosocial conditions, parental support in particular, in
childhood. Early parental support was found to be significantly associated with health
across much of the adult life span. Those who reported the experience of abundant
support from parents during childhood were significantly more likely to have relatively
good health throughout adulthood. Those who had inadequate parental support in
childhood were significantly more likely to have poorer health as adults. Personal
control, self-esteem, and family relationships (support and negative interaction)
accounted for most of the relationship between early parental support and adult
depressive symptoms. Personal control, self-esteem, and negative interaction accounted
for a large portion of the relationship between parental support and adult physical health
(Shaw et al., 2004).
To summarize, a significant amount of support exists for relationships between
specific negative parenting behaviors and psychological adjustment. Specifically,
inconsistent and harsh discipline as well as over-involvement by parents have been
19
implicated in later substance abuse and depression. Parenting behaviors that entail lack
of warmth, poor care, harsh discipline, rejection, lack of affection, and engendering of
guilt have been implicated in suicidal thoughts and behaviors as well as both internalizing
and externalizing problems. Parental behaviors that are more warm, supportive, and
accepting have been implicated in the fostering of moral development, better adjustment
under stress and in social problem solving. Consistent support has also been found for
important relationships between specific parenting behaviors and self-concept and the
social self.
Parenting Behaviors and the Social Self and Self-Concept. The family is the first
place where people learn social behavior and where they develop and solidify ideas about
their social selves based on interactions with primary caretakers. Research has identified
important relationships between specific past parenting behaviors and the social self.
The specific parental behaviors of overprotection, rejection, and lack of emotional
warmth have been associated with social anxiety and phobia (Bogels, van Oosten, Muris,
& Smulders, 2001). Participants in a study by Bogels and colleagues consisted of 190
(99 girls) children between the ages of 8 and 18 years and their parents. The clinical
group consisted of 64 children (31 girls) who were referred for diagnosis and treatment at
a community mental health center. The 126 members (68 girls) of the control group were
recruited from elementary and secondary schools. The children completed the Social
Anxiety Scale, the EMBU-C, and the Parent Attitudes Towards Child Rearing Scale
(simplified for use with the children). The parents completed the parent version of the
EMBU, the Parent Attitudes Towards Child Rearing Scale, and the Fear Questionnaire.
Results indicated that children’s experience of parental overprotection was weakly
20
associated with social anxiety in childhood. In addition, socially anxious children
reported more parental rejection and less emotional warmth than controls.
Parish and McCluskey (1992) found a relationship between self-concept and
perceived levels of parental warmth and hostility. Participants (123 college students
ranging in age from 18 to 34 years) were asked to rate on a seven-point scale level of 1)
restrictiveness vs. permissiveness and 2) warmth vs. hostility of each of their parents. In
addition, they evaluated themselves and both of their parents on the Personal Attribute
Inventory. Similarly, results of a longitudinal investigation by Koestner and colleagues
(1991) suggest a significant relationship between early experiences of parenting
behaviors that were more rejecting and restrictive and the development of a self-critical
personality style. These researchers studied 156 (83 girls) participants who were five
years old at original participation in the study. Age five measures consisted of a
standardized interview on parenting dimensions that gathered information from the
participant’s mother pertaining to her attitudes, feelings, and behaviors related to
childrearing. Global indices of parental restrictiveness and parental rejection were
created through manipulation of the scores from each of the dimensions related to these
constructs, based on factor analyses of the coded data from the interviews. Additionally,
ratings of the child’s temperament were obtained from the mothers’ descriptions of their
child’s behavior prior to age five. Follow-up was conducted when the participants were
age 12, and again at age 31. At the age 12 follow-up, participants were administered the
Self-Criticism Scale, the Self-Concept Inventory, a composite measure of self-criticism
which was created by combining the two previous scales, and an antisocial aggressive
attitudes scale. At age 31 follow-up, the participants were administered the Adjective
21
Checklist, a derivation of an Adjective Checklist Self-Criticism scale, and a questionnaire
on aggressive actions and inhibited aggressive impulses. A positive relationship between
parental restrictiveness and rejection and self-criticism in adulthood was found. Maternal
restrictiveness and rejection were most important in predicting self-criticism in females at
age 12. For males, paternal restrictiveness was the only significant predictor of selfcriticism at age 12. Overall, males’ experience of fathers who were more restrictive and
rejecting significantly predicted later self-criticism. For females, the experience of
restricting and rejecting mothers was significantly related to later self-criticism.
Similarly, Kitahara (1987) found a significant relationship between 71 adult participants’
perceptions of the experience of parental rejection in childhood as measured by the
Parental Acceptance-Rejection Questionnaire and negative personality assessment of the
self as an adult as measured by the Personality Assessment Questionnaire.
Cheng and Furnham (2004) explored perceived parental rearing style, self-esteem
and self-criticism as predictors of happiness using 356 (97 females) participants aged 15
to 25 (mean age 17). The Parental Bonding Instrument, Rosenberg Self-Esteem scale,
Self-Criticism Questionnaire, and Oxford Happiness Inventory were completed.
Maternal factors were found to be direct correlates of happiness. Specifically, maternal
care significantly predicted happiness both directly and indirectly. Maternal warmth was
positively associated with self-esteem. Parental discouragement of behavioral freedom
was significantly associated with self evaluation, self-criticism, happiness, and
depression. Parental denial of psychological autonomy was significantly associated with
self-esteem and self-criticism (Cheng & Furnham).
22
A study of 30 parent-child dyads by Alessandri and Lewis (1993) investigated the
effects of negative evaluations and lack of positive evaluations by parents. These
researchers concluded through observation of interactions between parent and child
(three-year-olds) during performance tasks, that experiences of negative feedback and
lack of positive feedback were associated with the child’s expression of shame.
A longitudinal study by Allaman, Joyce, and Crandell (1972) identified a
relationship between rejecting parental behaviors and resulting preoccupation with
evaluative statements of others. In the first study of their two-study design, their sample
consisted of 95 children between the ages of 6 and 12 years. Home visits took place
semiannually and Parent Behavior Ratings (PBR) were made immediately after each
visit. The children completed the Children’s Social Desirability Scale on three different
occasions with a three-year interval between each administration. The second study
consisted of 65 participants between the ages of 18 and 26 years. The Marlowe-Crowne
Social Desirability Scale and the Parent Behavior Inventory were completed by each
participant. The researchers concluded from the results of both studies that harsh parental
child-rearing behaviors, specifically hostility, criticism, restrictiveness, punitiveness, and
coercion, result in the individual’s placing high importance on social evaluation and a
lower expectation of being socially accepted.
Arrindell, Emmelkamp, Monsma, and Brilman (1983) found that adults who were
socially phobic tended to perceive both of their parents as rejecting, overprotective, and
lacking in emotional warmth. Their participants consisted of 40 agoraphobics, 29 social
phobics and 21 height phobics as well as a control group of 277 non-patient normal
volunteers. All participants completed the EMBU. In comparison to controls, social
23
phobics perceived both parents as low on emotional warmth or care and high on rejection
and overprotection. Agoraphobics perceived both parents as low on emotional warmth
and only their mothers as high on rejection. Height phobics perceived both their parents
as low on emotional warmth and high on rejection and overprotection.
Vitaro and colleagues (2000) concluded from their research that positive parental
attachment reduces the influence of deviant friends. Participants consisted of 567 boys
who were part of a longitudinal study beginning during kindergarten. Teachers
completed the Social Behavior Questionnaire when the participants were age 6 and again
at age 10. At 11 and 12 years of age, the Pupil Evaluation Inventory was used to obtain
peer assessments. Attitudes towards delinquency were obtained through a six-item
questionnaire created by the researchers that the participants completed when they were
11 and 12 years old. Additionally at ages 11 and 12, participants completed a studydesigned questionnaire pertaining to family experiences (parental monitoring, emotional
attachment to parents). At ages 13 and 14, participants completed items from the SelfReported Delinquency Questionnaire. The researchers concluded that, initially, parental
monitoring aids in the prevention of association with deviant friends. Once an
association has been made, the child’s affective bond with the parents provides a buffer
against the influence of those deviant peers. Parental rejection was significantly related
to delinquency or deviance even after controlling for the effects of other family variables
of control, organization, religiosity, and conflict (Vitaro, Brendgen & Tremblay, 2000).
Kim and Rohner (2003) explored perceived parental acceptance and emotional
empathy among 725 (408 females) undergraduate students aged 19 to 21 (mean age 19).
The Parental Acceptance Rejection Questionnaire and the Emotional Empathy Test were
24
used. Results revealed significant positive correlations between parental (both maternal
and paternal) acceptance and emotional empathy. Maternal acceptance by itself was
significantly associated with daughters’ but not sons’ empathy while paternal acceptance
by itself was significantly associated with sons’ but not daughters’ empathy (Kim &
Rohner, 2003).
In summary, the relationship between specific parenting behaviors and social
functioning is well-established. Specifically, overprotection, rejection, and low warmth
in parenting have been implicated in social anxiety and phobia, a tendency to be
preoccupied with evaluations of others, and a lower expectation of being socially
accepted. Rejecting and restricting parenting has been found to be related to a more selfcritical personality style. More warmth and less hostility have been found to foster a
more positive self-concept. Previous research has also explored relationships between
specific parenting behaviors and other areas of functioning, like hostility and aggression
and more severe psychiatric symptoms.
Parenting Behaviors and Hostility and Aggression. Meesters, Muris, and
Esselink (1995) identified an association between hostility and perceived parental
behavior. Participants consisted of 291 students (age range 17 to 34 years) in schools of
Higher Vocational Education (physiotherapy, ergotherapy (increasing comfort in the
environment), speech therapy, and teacher training college) who completed the EMBU
and the Cook and Medley Hostility scale. Participants who scored high in hostility
reported experiencing more parental rejection and overprotection and less emotional
warmth than those who scored lower in hostility.
25
Different types of parenting behavior have been found to moderate the
relationship between aggressive behavior in early adolescence and later aggressive
episodes (Brendgen et al., 2001). Brendgen and colleagues’ longitudinal study tested 525
male participants at age 13 and again at age 16 or 17. Teachers rated proactive and
reactive aggressive behaviors of the participants at age 13. When the participants reached
the age of 16 or 17, they were asked to complete a measure focusing on delinquencyrelated physical violence and physical violence against a dating partner (the Physical
Aggression subscale of the Conflict Tactics Scale). Parental supervision was assessed at
ages 13, 14 and 15. Participants completed the Parental Bonding Instrument (PBI) at age
15 to measure parental warmth and caregiving behavior. Those who scored high in
reactive aggression (affective, defensive, angry outbursts in response to actual or
perceived provocations or threats) initially, but who also reported experiencing parents
who were warm and caring, were found to be less likely to display later violence against
a dating partner. Low to moderate warmth and caregiving was found to play a crucial
role in boys’ early reactive aggression which, in turn, predicted later dating violence.
Reactively aggressive dispositions appear to be moderated by the experience of parental
warmth and caregiving which results in less physical violence against a dating partner
later in life. The researchers concluded that high parental warmth and caregiving fostered
the development of more positive expectations and ideas about close relationships, and
this reduced the risk of aggressive and violent behavior towards a dating partner
(Brendgen et al).
In an investigation of levels of hostility in 67 adult male myocardial infarction
patients and 139 healthy controls (Meesters & Muris, 1996), specific perceived parental
26
rearing behaviors were found to be related to levels of hostility in the adult patients as
well as in healthy adult male controls. Measures utilized were the EMBU, the CookMedley Hostility Scale, and the Buss-Durkee Hostility Inventory. Specifically, perceived
parental rejection and lack of emotional warmth were found to be associated with high
levels of hostility. Parental rejection appeared to be particularly related to more
expressive characteristics of hostility (assault, verbal hostility, indirect hostility,
irritability), while lack of emotional warmth was found to be strongly associated with
experiential characteristics of hostility (resentment and suspicion). These findings
support the crucial role that particular perceived parental rearing behaviors have in the
development of psychological characteristics, specifically hostility, that may increase risk
for coronary disease (Meesters & Muris).
A more recent study by Chang and colleagues (2003) explored harsh parenting in
relation to child emotion regulation and aggression using 325 children (45% female) ages
3 to 6 (mean age 4). The Parental Acceptance Rejection Questionnaire (completed by
both parents), Emotion Regulation Checklist (completed by mother), and a teacher’s
rating of the child’s aggression were used. Both mother’s and father’s harsh parenting
were found to be strongly associated with both the child’s emotion regulation and
aggression. The child’s emotion regulation was found to be significantly correlated with
his or her aggression (Chang et al.).
To summarize, strong support exists for an important relationship between
parenting behaviors, specifically, rejection, overprotection, lack of emotional warmth,
and low care, and increased levels of hostility and aggression. Research has also
27
explored relationships between specific parenting behaviors and psychiatric
symptomatology.
Parenting Behaviors and More Severe Psychiatric Problems. Winefield and
colleagues (1989) found that adult participants who were rated by psychiatrists as
showing evidence of the existence of a psychiatric disorder reported less supportive
parental relationships compared to those without any evidence of a psychiatric disorder.
Individuals who reported experiencing parents who were more supportive, non-rejecting
and not over-involved also reported less depression, less social isolation, and more
overall life satisfaction. Their sample consisted of 101 adult participants (55 women)
who completed the s-EMBU (a shortened form of the EMBU) in addition to scales on
work satisfaction, self-esteem, depressive affect, social isolation, and total life
satisfaction.
Benjaminsen and colleagues (1984) examined the relationship between parental
rearing behaviors and features of adult personality. They sampled 200 adults ranging in
age from 18 to 72 years (114 females). The participants completed the EMBU, Eysenck
Personality Questionnaire, and Lazare-Klerman-Armor Trait Scale. The researchers
reported that adult female participants who reported that their fathers were guiltengendering scored higher on the Neuroticism scale of the Eysenck Personality
Questionnaire (EPQ). Higher scores on the Psychoticism scale of the EPQ were
associated with the experience of rejecting fathers and shaming mothers.
Psychopathology of female participants was related to perceptions of specific parental
rearing behaviors such as guilt-engendering, shaming, and being punitive and overinvolved (Benjaminsen et al).
28
Research examining associations between parental behaviors and schizophrenia
found that parents of schizophrenic patients displayed less warmth compared to parents
of controls (McCreadie, Williamson, Athawes, Connolly, & Tilak-Singh, 1994).
McCreadie and colleagues (1994) concluded that perceived parental behaviors of
rejection and overprotection may increase the severity of current symptoms of adult
schizophrenic patients. Participants consisted of 50 adults (18 females) diagnosed with
schizophrenia. The EMBU was completed in addition to an interview using the Positive
and Negative Syndrome Scale and an interview using the Social Deficit Syndrome Scale.
Mothers of the participants were interviewed through the use of the Scale for Assessment
of Premorbid Schizoid and Schizotypal Traits and Premorbid Social Adjustment Scale.
The results of the research summarized in this literature review highlight the
significant impact of parenting that occurs across the lifespan. In particular, parental
warmth, rejection, and overprotection have a significant role in psychological adjustment
and functioning across the lifespan. Specifically, parenting styles that are less warm,
more rejecting, and overprotective are associated with negative psychological functioning
and adjustment in childhood that extends into adulthood. The importance of positive
parenting behaviors is further supported by research that suggests that parenting styles
persist across generations.
29
Negativity, negative comments, lack of
warmth, and lack of positive attitude towards
the child
Lower in affection and either very low or very
high in control
Harsh parenting
Maternal warmth and care
Unfair, inconsistent, and harsh discipline
Maternal overinvolvement
Caspi et al., 2004
Kim & Rohner, 2003
Kim et al., 2003
Chang et al., 2003
Cheng & Furnham, 2004
Holmes & Robins, 1987
Kerver et al., 1992
Chambers et al., 2001
Brendgen et al., 2001
Bogels et al., 2001
Benjaminsen et al., 1984
30
Parental acceptance
Higher levels of harsh-inconsistent and hostile
parenting and lower levels of warm,
nurturant-involved parenting
Negative feedback and lack of positive
feedback
Overprotection, rejection, and lack of
emotional warmth
Guilt-engendering, shaming, and being
punitive and over-involved
Overprotection, rejection, and lack of
emotional warmth
Low warmth and caregiving
Alessandri & Lewis, 1993
Arrindell et al., 1983
Parenting Behaviors
Researcher(s)
Summary of Outcomes Found to be Associated with Experiences of Specific Parenting Behaviors
Table 1
Emotional empathy
Conduct problems, depressive symptoms
Poor emotion regulation, high aggression
Happiness, high self-esteem
Alcohol and depressive disorders
Depression
Anxiety, depression, delinquency
High in reactive aggression (affective,
defensive, angry outbursts in response to
actual or perceived provocations or threats)
Antisocial behavior problems
High neuroticism, psychoticism,
psychopathology
Social anxiety and phobia
Social anxiety and phobia
Expression of shame
Outcomes
Rejection and overprotection
More parental rejection and overprotection and
less emotional warmth
Low warmth, high rejection and overprotection
More hostile, rejecting, overprotecting, and
punitive
Strict Discipline, low warmth, rejection
Low parental warmth and high hostility
Rejection
McCreadie et al., 1994
Meesters & Muris, 1996
Meesters, Muris, & Esselink, 1995
Moris, Meesters, & van den Berg, 2003
Muris et al., 1996
31
Negative self-concept
Negative attention-seeking behaviors
(boisterous, disruptive), temper outbursts,
anger, resentment, irritability, impatience
Dysfunctional levels of emotional involvement
warmth, support, and acceptance
Lumley et al., 1996
Magnus et al., 1999
Palmer & Hollin, 1996
Parish & McCluskey, 1992
Peretti, Clark, & Johnson, 1985
Insecure attachment, anxious-depressed,
somatic complaints, aggression, delinquent
behavior
Externalizing and disruptive behaviors,
conduct problems
Poor attachment, low moral development,
Antisocial behaviors, delinquency
Maternal concern, restrictiveness
Leung, McBride-Chang, & Lai, 2004
Low over-all life satisfaction, low academic
competence
Problems with emotional expression
Better adjustment under stress, in school, and
in social problem-solving
Increased severity of current symptoms of
adult schizophrenic patients
High hostility (assault, verbal hostility, indirect
hostility, irritability, resentment, suspicion)
Rejection and restrictiveness
Kitahara, 1987
Koestner et al.,1991
Behavioral resilience, good behavioral
regulation, and less antisocial behavior
Self-critical personality style
Higher levels of emotional warmth and care
Kim-Cohen et al., 2004
Inter-Generational Transmission of Parenting Behaviors
Intergenerational transmission of parenting has been defined as a process that
entails an earlier generation psychologically influencing the parenting attitudes and
behaviors of the next generation (Van IJzendoorn, 1992). Past research has examined
and found strong evidence supporting the intergenerational transmission of parenting
behaviors (Simons, Bearman, Conger, & Chao, 1992; Simons, Whitbeck, Conger, & Wu,
1991; Whitbeck et al., 1992).
For example, Simons and colleagues (1992) conducted a study in which they
obtained data from approximately 200 two-parent families that included a 7th grade child
and at least one sibling who was within four years of age of the 7th grade child.
Participants completed the Supportive Parenting Questionnaire, Harsh Discipline Scale,
Hostile Parenting Scale, Discipline Beliefs Scale, and the Impact of Parenting Scale.
Additionally, mothers and fathers reported on the supportive parenting and harsh
parenting of their parents. They concluded that parents communicate their parenting
beliefs directly through their parenting practices. Their results also indicated that parents
who supported corporal punishment tended to utilize a more harsh style of discipline and
this more harsh style of discipline was found to be related to adolescent children
subscribing to corporal punishment as an effective means of discipline. Additionally,
parents who viewed parenting as having an important impact on child development were
significantly more likely to be more warm and supportive in their parenting and, in turn,
32
their children also reported beliefs in the importance of positive parenting on child
development (Simons, Bearman, Conger, & Chao).
Research by Whitbeck and colleagues (1992) explored intergenerational aspects
of depressed mood and perceived parental rejection. They collected survey and
observational data from a sample of 451 intact families with at least one seventh grade
child and a sibling whose age was within four years of the seventh grade child’s age.
Interviewers visited each family for two hours on two occasions. At the first visit, a set
of questionnaires was completed which measured individual characteristics and family
processes. On the second visit (within two weeks of the first), the family was videotaped
engaging in structured interaction tasks. Trained observers rated the videotaped
interactions on specific aspects of family interaction and individual characteristics.
Generation one rejection was measured by the parents completing Elliots’ parental
rejection scale which consists of five-items inquiring into specific rejecting parental
behaviors (e.g., My mother/father really trusted me, My mother/father found fault with
me even when I didn’t deserve it, My mother/father really cared for me). Both parents
(generation 2) completed the SCL-90, Elliots’ self-report parental rejection scale,
reported on their spouse’s depressed affect, and an observer reported on observed
depressed affect of each parent. The children (generation 3) completed the depression
subscale of the SCL-90, Elliots’ parental rejection scale, parents reported on the child’s
depressed affect, and a researcher reported observations of the children’s and parents’
depressed affect. The researchers concluded that perceived rejection by parents increases
the probability of depressed affect in adults. Depressed affect, in turn, increases the
probability of parental behaviors that are rejecting. Specifically, parental behaviors that
33
are rejecting increased the probability of depressed affect among offspring, which
increased the likelihood that these offspring became rejecting parents. These results
indicate that parental rearing behaviors may be transmitted across generations through the
development of personality traits that have an impact on parenting, as well as through
modeling of parental behaviors (Whitbeck et al.).
A more recent review of the literature that focused on intergenerational studies of
parenting and the transfer of risk from parent to child was performed by Serbin and Karp
(2003). Based on their review, Serbin and Karp suggest three main pathways involved
in the intergenerational transmission of parenting behaviors. First, problematic parenting
may be the result of a combination of modeling by the individual’s own parents and the
extension of a pattern of aggressive and antisocial behavior typically observed in early
childhood. Parents with a history of childhood aggression have been consistently found
to have continuing social, behavioral, and health difficulties, as do their offspring.
Second, childhood aggression and antisocial behavior appear to significantly contribute
to problematic parenting and negative outcomes for offspring through the identified
pathway from childhood behavior patterns to adolescent risk-taking behavior, low
education and occupational attainment, maternal smoking, substance abuse, and poverty,
as well as other problematic conditions. Third, parental involvement, warmth, and
nurturance have important protective effects on later family formation and parenting
(Serbin & Karp).
Child Maltreatment and Its Outcomes
Intergenerational transmission of parenting behaviors is a particularly critical
issue in relationship to child maltreatment. Child maltreatment typically includes
34
experiences of sexual abuse, physical abuse, physical neglect, emotional abuse, and/or
emotional neglect. Based on their review of the past decade of literature, Kaplan and
colleagues (1999) devised definitions for each type of maltreatment. Specifically, sexual
abuse includes intrusion/penetration, molestation with genital contact, or other
unspecified acts that do not necessarily involve genital contact. Physical abuse includes
the experience of injury or risk of injury as a result of having been hit with a hand or
other object or having been punched, kicked, shaken, thrown, burned, stabbed, or choked
by a parent or parent substitute. The term physical neglect references harm or
endangerment that is the result of refusal or delay of health care, abandonment,
expulsion, and inadequate nutrition, clothing, hygiene, and supervision. Emotional abuse
includes verbal or emotional assault/abuse, harsh nonphysical punishments, close
confinement, or threats of other maltreatment. Emotional neglect includes failure to
provide adequate nurturance/affection and emotional support, permitting drug/alcohol
abuse, permitting other maladaptive behavior, refusing/delaying psychological care, or
permitting exposure to domestic violence (Kaplan, Pelcovitz, & Labruna)
The adverse and lifelong impact of maltreatment on mental health has been welldocumented. Maltreatment experiences in childhood lead to overwhelming levels of
stress that have been associated with alterations of biological stress systems and with
adverse influences on brain development (DeBellis, 2001). Adults with child
maltreatment histories are more likely to manifest multiple health risk behaviors and
serious medical illnesses as well as higher psychiatric and medical utilization rates
(DeBellis, 2001). Ecological, social, biological, and psychological conditions that have
been found to be associated with maltreatment may result in the inability to successfully
35
complete major and critical stages of development, which may inevitably have a
profound impact on functioning across the life span (Cicchetti & Rogosch, 2001). A
brief overview of the following literature review on child maltreatment and its outcomes
is provided at the end of the section (Table 2).
Developmental Perspectives on Child Maltreatment Outcomes. A developmental
psychopathology approach has been utilized in a growing number of studies of child
maltreatment (Manly et al., 2001). From the very beginning of life children are faced
with central developmental tasks and the successful completion of these tasks prepares
the child for subsequent developmental issues and each developmental task retains
significance throughout the life span. Environments where maltreatment exists are
extreme deviations from normal environments and these negative environments have a
detrimental impact on children’s capacities to adaptively negotiate and successfully
complete important developmental tasks (Manley et al.).
Manly and colleagues (2001) examined the contributions of developmental timing
and subtype on the adjustment of maltreated children using 492 maltreated (physical
abuse, sexual abuse, emotional maltreatment, physical neglect) and 322 non-maltreated
comparison children aged 5-11 (mean age of 7) who attended a day camp. Of the total
sample, 38% were female. The CBCL-Teacher Form, a behavior checklist to assess
aggressive, withdrawn and cooperative behavior in peer interactions, and another studydevised questionnaire which assessed personality, social, and cognitive functioning were
completed by camp counselors. Maltreated children were found to exhibit significantly
higher levels of both internalizing and externalizing symptoms compared to
nonmaltreated children. Specifically, maltreated children were found to be more
36
aggressive, withdrawn, and less cooperative than nonmaltreated children. Maltreated
children were also found to be more frequently rated by their peers as more aggressive,
more disruptive, and less cooperative than nonmaltreated children. Lower ego resiliency
and higher ego undercontrol were more common among maltreated children compared to
nonmaltreated children. Early and chronic maltreatment was found to more negatively
impact the maltreated child’s capacities to competently and successfully complete
developmental challenges. Additionally, the severity of later maltreatment was also
found to contribute to an array of negative outcomes. The researchers determined that
the negative impact of maltreatment experiences is likely to persist into adulthood (Manly
et al., 2001).
The long-term and negative consequences of maltreatment experiences have been
well-documented (Edwards et al., 2003; Glaser, 2000; Higgins & McCabe, 2003;
Kendall-Tackett, 2002). A review of the literature by Glaser (2000) revealed strong
support for an association between childhood maltreatment and social, emotional,
behavioral, and cognitive maladaptation as well as psychopathology. Additionally,
independent associations between sexual, physical, and emotional abuse and adult mental
health problems have been consistently supported (Glaser).
Domestic Violence as a Form of Maltreatment. Exposure to domestic violence
has been more recently classified as a form of maltreatment (Holden, 2003). An
extensive review of the literature on children’s exposure to domestic violence performed
by Holden revealed that children are aware of much of the domestic violence that occurs
in the home. Holden’s review found that exposure to domestic violence leads to
symptoms of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) as well as other internalizing and
37
externalizing problems. Children exposed to domestic violence are considered to be
maltreated because they are living in an environment that is psychologically abusive.
Children are terrorized by marital violence, which is defined as “caregiver behavior that
threatens or is likely to physically hurt, kill, abandon, or place the child or child’s loved
ones or objects in recognizably dangerous situations” (Holden, p. 156). Holden’s
literature review revealed that exposure to a parent being verbally or physically assaulted
leads to physiological arousal, emotional distress, and trauma symptoms for the child that
are related to experiences of fear regarding safety as well as generalized fear and
hopelessness. These abusive adult relationships also model violence as a way of handling
interpersonal interactions. Specifically, physical abuse or witnessing of domestic
violence serve as learning models for children who learn that violence is both a normal
part of a close relationship and the appropriate way to respond to stress (Cunningham,
2003). The review by Holden revealed that, in domestic violence situations, children
experience comments that degrade, belittle, criticize, and ridicule. Additionally, these
children may also experience lack of appropriate emotional responsiveness from
caregivers (ignoring of the child’s attempts and needs to interact and showing no positive
emotion to the child) and isolation (confining or placing unreasonable limits on the child
or on contact with others). Neglect of mental health, medical, or educational needs has
also consistently been found to be common in families where domestic violence occurs
(Holden). There is also an increased likelihood or high rate of overlap between domestic
violence and physical child abuse as well as some risk for sexual abuse.
Witnessing of domestic violence has consistently been found to have a
detrimental impact on the functioning of the exposed child (Mabanglo, 2002; Maughan &
38
Cicchetti, 2002). An extensive review of the literature by Mabanglo revealed strong
support for a link between exposure to domestic violence and the development of a wide
range of symptomatology and behavioral maladjustment, specifically higher rates of
internalizing and externalizing problems, non-compliance, aggression, anxiety,
depression, attention deficits, and PTSD.
Maughan and Cicchetti (2002) investigated the impact of domestic violence on
children’s emotion regulation abilities and socioemotional adjustment using a sample of
88 (46.6% male) maltreated and 51 (54.9% male) nonmaltreated children in mother-child
dyads. The children’s ages ranged 4 to 6 years with a mean age of five. The children
were exposed to three scripted simulations of affective interactions (friendly, angry, and
reconciliatory) between their mothers and a research assistant and interviewed after each
regarding their emotional responses as well as rated by observers during the interactions.
The Conflict Tactics Scale and CBCL were completed by the mothers. A strong
relationship was found between domestic violence and parent-child aggression in that
mothers of maltreated children reported significantly higher incidents of inter-adult
verbal aggression and physical violence in the home than did mothers of the
nonmaltreated children. Physical abuse and neglect independently predicted significant
elevations in children’s delinquent, withdrawn, and social problem behaviors. Physically
abused children compared to nonmaltreated children had significantly higher maternal
reports of aggression and increased levels of anxious and depressed symptoms. Overall,
physically abused children were significantly more symptomatic across each of the five
behavior categories compared to the nonmaltreated children, followed by children in the
neglected group and the two maltreatment groups (neglect and physical abuse).
39
Dysregulated emotional patterns (undercontrolled/ambivalent or
overcontrolled/unresponsive) were displayed by 80% of the maltreated children
compared to 37% of the nonmaltreated children. The researchers suggest that, though
adaptive in chaotic and threatening environments, these emotional styles may lead to
increased vulnerability to other developmental risks associated with social functioning,
such as poor peer relations and socioemotional difficulties (Maughan & Cicchetti).
Child Maltreatment and Long-Term Adjustment. Kendall-Tackett (2002)
performed an extensive literature review that focused on the long-term effects of
childhood abuse. Based on this review, the researcher suggested a model using a health
psychology framework based on identified behavioral, social, cognitive, and emotional
pathways. Results of this literature review suggest that abuse during childhood puts the
individual at risk for problems in specific areas of life-functioning, including high rates of
depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, the tendency to participate in harmful
activities, a likelihood of having difficulties in relationships, and having negative beliefs
and attitudes towards self and others. These problems are strongly interrelated, and their
presence increases the likelihood of health problems (Kendall-Tackett).
Higgins and McCabe (2003) explored the relationship between maltreatment and
adjustment through two studies. The first study utilized a community sample of 48
biological parents who were asked to report on the adjustment of their children. Fifty
children (22 female) who ranged in age from 5 to 12 years (mean age of 8.6 years) were
described. The Comprehensive Child Maltreatment Scale for Parents was used to
measure sexual abuse, physical abuse, psychological maltreatment, neglect and
witnessing family violence. The Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales II
40
(FACES II), the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL), and the Child Sexual Behavior
Inventory were also utilized. The results of the first study revealed that having one
episode of maltreatment increased the chance of additional episodes. The overall
experience of maltreatment was found to be negatively related to each of the measures of
adjustment. In comparing the impact of each individual form of maltreatment, similar
contributions to poor levels of adjustment were found. Psychological maltreatment was
found to have the strongest association with maladjustment, followed by witnessing
family violence. Specific family background variables of poor family adaptability, low
family cohesion, sexual punitiveness, and divorce were found to be strong predictors of
all types of maltreatment.
The second study conducted by Higgins and McCabe (2003) consisted of a
community sample of 138 adults (119 female) who reported on maltreatment experiences
(sexual, physical, psychological, neglect, witnessing family violence), family functioning
during childhood, and current psychological adjustment. The Comprehensive Child
Maltreatment Scale for Adults, FACES II, Trauma Symptom Checklist (TSC-40), and the
Rosenberg Self Esteem Scale were completed. The correlation between psychological
maltreatment and the other types of maltreatment was the strongest, suggesting that
psychological maltreatment often occurs concurrently with and may actually be a
component of other types of maltreatment. Low family adaptability and sexual
punitiveness were among the strongest predictors of maltreatment. Both experiences of
maltreatment and negative family environment were found to make significant
contributions to adjustment. Neglect made a unique contribution to low self-esteem. The
five types of maltreatment all predicted adults’ reports of trauma symptoms and self-
41
depreciation. Family background variables also predicted trauma symptoms. Lack of
positive relationships with others and lack of purpose in life were significantly predicted
by the five maltreatment scales. To summarize results across both studies, child
maltreatment was found to be negatively associated with the three measures of
adjustment in childhood. In addition, child maltreatment was also associated with both
adjustment problems and aspects of growth and development in adulthood (Higgins &
McCabe).
Recently, Edwards and colleagues (2003) investigated the relationship between
maltreatment and mental health using data from 8,667 questionnaires returned (54.2%
female) from community respondents recruited from physician’s offices who were
undergoing physical examinations. Ages ranged from 19 to 97 with the average age
being 55. A 36-item Short Form Health Survey was utilized to assess current mental
health status. A 162-item Family Health Questionnaire was also administered that
inquired into childhood abuse (sexual, physical, witness domestic violence, emotional
abuse) and exposure to family dysfunction as well as current health behaviors and
conditions. Results revealed significant relationships between all forms of maltreatment
and compromised mental health. Mental health was found to worsen as the number of
abuse types increased, with the experience of emotional abuse accentuating this effect.
Specifically, mental health worsened as the intensity of emotional abuse increased. The
experience of multiple forms of maltreatment was common, with 34% of the abused
sample reporting at least two types of maltreatment. Emotional abuse was found to play
a particularly important role in adult mental health as an independent predictor and also
served to heighten the effect of other types of abuse experienced (Edwards et al.).
42
Negative outcomes for maltreated children not only stem from the severe negative
impact that these experiences have on overall functioning, but also seem related to other
aspects of the overall environment of the maltreated child. Lau and Weisz (2003)
examined the implications for presenting problems, treatment attrition, and long-term
outcomes for maltreated children using 343 (123 females) youth, 157 (ages 7-17, mean
age 11) who were maltreated (physical, sexual, neglect, emotional) and 186 who were
not, as determined by child protective services records using the Maltreatment
Classification System. Other measures utilized include the CBCL and the Brief
Symptoms Inventory which were completed by parents, and Coddington’s Life Events
Scale for Children (LES) was completed by the children. Maltreatment was found to be
associated with poorer treatment persistence (attend less, more likely to drop out early)
which was found to be due to characteristics of the maltreating parents (fear of being
reported, lack of concern for child, stressful and disorganized family environment,
parents’ negative feelings about the credibility or effectiveness of treatment). Poorer
long-term outcome was found among maltreated children who demonstrated the same
level of problem severity when reassessed two years after initial completion of measures
(Lau & Weisz).
Child Maltreatment and Social Functioning. The ability to create and maintain
relationships is affected by past abuse (Kaplan, Pelcovitz, & Labruna, 1999; KendallTackett, 2002; Mabanglo, 2002; Manly et al., 2001). Kendall-Tackett’s review of the
past decade of literature revealed relationship dysfunction to be a “pandemic” outcome of
childhood sexual abuse as well as other forms of child maltreatment. Kendall-Tackett
concluded that adult survivors of child maltreatment appear to adopt one of two distinct
43
problematic interpersonal styles. The first, which is referred to as avoidant, entails low
interdependency, low self disclosure, low warmth, few interpersonal ties and few friends,
and decreased likelihood of marriage. The second, which is referred to as intrusive,
entails extreme needs for closeness, excessive self disclosure, and the tendency to be
excessively warm and overly demanding and controlling in relationships.
Interpersonally, abused/maltreated children may become either aggressive and
domineering or may become overly submissive to appease others in an attempt to protect
themselves from what they anticipate to be pervasive social threat (Shields & Cicchetti,
2001).
Shields and Cicchetti (2001) explored the relationship between maltreatment and
bullying and victimization using 169 maltreated (60 females) and 98 nonmaltreated
comparison children (35 females) who ranged in age from 8 to 12 years (mean age 8).
The Mount Hope Family Center Bully-Victim Questionnaire, the Emotion Regulation QScale, Emotion Regulation Checklist, Child Behavior Checklist-Teachers Form, peer
ratings, and Minnesota Behavior Ratings-Agency and Dependency were used.
Maltreated (sexual and physical abuse in particular) children were significantly more
likely to bully their peers and to be more at risk for victimization compared to
nonmaltreated children. Maltreated (physical and sexual abuse in particular) children
were also found to be more emotionally dysregulated (more anxious and hyperaroused,
angry, unempathic) and disruptive which placed them at increased risk for bullying and
victimization. The researchers concluded that the maladaptive social functioning of the
maltreated child may be the result of the development of maladaptive cognitive models of
relationships as dangerous and malevolent (Shields & Cicchetti).
44
Kaplan and colleagues (1999) concluded from their review of the past decade of
literature that the insecure, disorganized patterns of attachment that have been found
among those with a history of maltreatment may lead to peer rejection. Their review also
revealed consistent findings to support that physically abused and/or neglected kids tend
to be more disliked and less popular and to display less intimacy, more conflict, more
aggression, and more negative affect towards close friends. Physically neglected children
may also display difficulty in understanding appropriate affective responses to
interpersonal situations and limited social problem solving skills (Kaplan, Pelcovitz, &
Labruna).
Salzinger and colleagues (2001) investigated the effect of abuse on social and
emotional functioning using 100 (35 females) 9-12 (mean age 10) year old physically
abused children and 100 nonabused comparison children. Social preference, positive
reciprocity, peer rejection, and negative reciprocity were measured and the CBCL was
completed by parent and teacher. Results revealed abuse to be positively associated with
poor outcomes and problem behaviors and negatively associated with positive social
expectations. Additionally, a negative association was found between abuse and positive
social status outcomes and prosocial behaviors. Children’s social expectations and
behavior were found to be mediated by the effect of abuse on positive and negative peer
social status and on positive and negative reciprocity. Abused children were more likely
than comparison children to behave aggressively and less likely to engage in prosocial
behavior. Their tendency toward negative social expectations and antisocial behavior as
well as lack of prosocial behavior was found to negatively impact their social status and
reciprocity. Salzinger and colleagues concluded that adults in abusive families model
45
externalizing or aggressive behavior both by how they treat the child as well as how they
behave towards other adults. Negative social interactions with caregivers at home lead to
avoidance and withdrawn behavior in an abused child. Abuse was found to be associated
with a pessimistic social outlook that was reflected in children’s reported negative social
expectations for friends. These negative social expectations were found to be associated
with children’s internalizing problems. Abused children were found to be not as wellliked by their peers as were nonabused children, their friendships were less likely to be
reciprocated, and they were more likely to be rejected by classmate peers, even by
children whom the abused children considered to be friends. Ultimately, the resulting
lack of social and emotional support from both parents and peers places abused children
at risk for problematic behaviors over the life-course (Salzinger et al.).
Child Maltreatment and Revictimization. The potential for revictimization has
been explored as another important outcome related to maltreatment. Kendall-Tackett’s
(2002) review of the past decade of literature on child maltreatment revealed five types of
experiences during childhood to be strong predictors of later victimization: physical
neglect by a caretaker; emotional withdrawal by a caretaker; a caretaker’s failure to
provide needed protection; sexual abuse by a noncaretaker; and any type of sexual abuse.
Kaplan and colleagues (1999) concluded from their review of the past decade of literature
that insecure disorganized patterns of attachment that have consistently been found
among those with histories of maltreatment appear to be related to engaging in
relationships that are marked by revictimization or the victimizing of others.
Revictimization has been postulated to impact health through injury and potential death.
The resulting chronic stress has a tendency to lead to self-medicating behaviors of
46
participating in harmful activities such as substance abuse, eating disorders, and smoking.
Chronic stress also can lead to an elevation in blood levels of triglycerides, free fatty
acids, cholesterol, glucose, and insulin which have been found to be related to
cardiovascular disease and diabetes (Kendall-Tackett).
Kendall-Tackett (2002) identified a specific internal mental framework among
children who have been abused that negatively influences how they interpret stressful life
events, the motives and actions of others, beliefs about how much power they have in
situations, and how much they can do to help themselves. Specifically, maltreated
children develop an internal working model where they tend to view the world as a
dangerous place and to overestimate danger and adversity in their environment. In
adulthood, this internal working model tends to lead to the tendency to underestimate
their sense of self-efficacy in coping with both real and perceived danger as well as to
chronic perceptions of helplessness, powerlessness, and danger. These chronically
negative, fearful, or mistrusting thoughts can contribute to emotional distress and
increase the risk of depression and predictably lead to a shortened life span (KendallTackett).
Child Maltreatment Other Psychological Sequelae. A review by Mabanglo
(2002) revealed consistent support for a significant relationship between violence
exposure, specifically physical abuse, sexual abuse, and exposure to domestic and
community violence, and a wide variety of physiological, emotional, and behavioral
problems that are associated with long-term effects. Some of the more prominent
problems that have been consistently found to be strongly related to exposure to violence,
particularly physical abuse, sexual abuse, domestic, and community violence, include
47
depression, phobias, ADHD, sleep disorders, somatization disorder, disorders of
attachment, oppositional and conduct disorders, PTSD, dissociative reactions, eating
disturbances, and substance abuse (Mabanglo).
PTSD rates among sexually abused children have been consistently supported to
be in the 40 to 50 percent range and between 60 and 100 percent among adults with
histories of childhood sexual abuse. Symptoms of PTSD have been reported to be more
severe among children and adults who also experienced the commonly co-occurring
physical abuse (Rodriguez, Vande Kemp, & Foy, 1998). Duration, severity, threats of
violence, coercion, and perpetrator identity are variables of the sexual abuse experience
that have been found to account for a significant portion of the variance in the level of
PTSD symptoms, with these variables independently predicting PTSD diagnosis
(Mabanglo, 2002; Rodriguez, Vande Kemp, & Foy, 1998). PTSD and depression have
been documented as among the most commonly occurring symptoms of maltreatment
including physical, sexual, and psychological abuse and physical neglect (Ackerman et
al., 1998; Kendall-Tackett, 2002). Compared to individuals without an abuse history,
those with an abuse history have been found to have a fourfold greater lifetime risk of
developing major depression, as well as being more vulnerable to developing PTSD
when exposed to life-stressors in adulthood (Kaplan, Pelcovitz, & Labruna, 1999;
Kendall-Tackett). Other anxiety disorders, conduct disorder, oppositional defiant
disorder, and ADHD, have been consistently found to occur at rates several times higher
than those found among individuals without a history of maltreatment (Kaplan, Pelcovitz,
& Labruna, 1999). Emotional maltreatment, in particular, has been implicated to have a
stronger relationship than other forms of maltreatment to impaired long term
48
psychological functioning, specifically internalizing and externalizing behaviors, social
impairment, low self esteem, suicidal behavior, psychiatric diagnoses, and
hospitalizations (Kaplan, Pelcovitz, & Labruna, 1999).
Children with maltreatment-related PTSD may be one of the most seriously
affected groups of maltreated children. DeBellis (2001) reviewed the past decade of
literature on the impact of child maltreatment and concluded that maltreatment-related
PTSD may be viewed as a complex, environmentally induced, developmental disorder
that places victims of childhood sexual or physical abuse and neglect at increased risk for
developing a lifetime history of PTSD and PTSD symptoms. The review found that
maltreatment-related trauma may supersede any genetic, social, or psychological
resilience factors, thus increasing the risk for PTSD and the impairments associated with
PTSD in the majority of abuse and neglect victims (DeBellis). DeBellis determined that
lifetime PTSD prevalence rates for interpersonal trauma in all age groups were greater
than for non-interpersonal traumas, ranging from 30 to 50% of individuals studied.
Additionally, rates of PTSD in maltreated children have been found to be similar to those
among children and adults traumatized by war and homicide. DeBellis’s review revealed
that even if childhood trauma does not result in PTSD in childhood, it increases the risk
for PTSD in adulthood.
Ackerman and colleagues (1998) evaluated 204 children (131 female) aged 7 to
13 years who had been sexually abused (100 female), physically abused (10 female), and
both sexually and physically abused (21 female). Both child and parent (caregiver) forms
of the revised Diagnostic Interview for Children and Adolescents (DICA) were
administered. The CBCL was completed by caregivers and classroom teachers.
49
Caregivers were interviewed regarding information related to the nature, severity, and
duration of abuse, characteristics of perpetrator, and socioeconomic status of the family.
Overall, results revealed anxiety and behavior disorders to be more common than mood
disorders among all three groups studied. Phobic disorder was found to be the most
frequent diagnosis among all three groups, followed by PTSD, separation anxiety, and
ODD. Their results indicated a high prevalence of PTSD among all three groups with
PTSD likely to be comorbid with one or more other disorders, particularly separation
anxiety, major depression, and dysthymia. Earlier age of onset of abuse was found to be
a factor in PTSD and other psychiatric disturbances (Ackerman et al.).
Safren and colleagues (2002) investigated the relationship between the history of
child abuse and panic disorder, social phobia, and generalized anxiety disorder among
149 adults with a mean age of 37, 75 (49 women, 26 men) of whom had been diagnosed
with panic disorder, 46 (22 women, 24 men) with social phobia, and 28 (14 women, 14
men) with generalized anxiety disorder. Diagnoses were made using the Structured
Clinical Interview for DSM-IV; the Clinical Global Impressions Scale was used to rate
anxiety severity; and a semistructured interview was used to obtain information regarding
physical and sexual abuse as well as other childhood history (e.g., divorce, parental
death). Results indicated that those with more than one of the three anxiety disorders
tended to have increased rates of childhood physical or sexual abuse compared to those
with just one diagnosis. Specifically, 31 percent of those with anxiety disorder
comorbidity and 18 percent of those with no anxiety disorder comorbidity had histories
of childhood physical or sexual abuse. Additionally, seventeen percent of the
participants were found to have comorbid major depressive disorder (MDD). Those with
50
the comorbid MDD were found to be significantly more likely to report a history of
childhood physical or sexual abuse compared to those without. With and without
controlling for comorbid anxiety disorders or comorbid depression, those with panic
disorder had significantly higher rates of past childhood physical or sexual abuse than
those with social phobia. Rates of generalized anxiety disorder did not differ
significantly from either of the other two diagnoses (Safren et al.).
Children with maltreatment-related PTSD demonstrate deficits within the
domains of attention and abstract reasoning/executive functioning. Specifically, children
with PTSD have been found to be more susceptible to distraction, to demonstrate greater
impulsivity, and to make more errors on tasks of sustained attention, as well as weaker
ability in the areas of hypothesis testing, problem solving, and semantic organization
(Beers & DeBellis, 2002).
Ruchkin and colleagues (2002) examined violence exposure, posttraumatic stress,
and personality in 300 male adolescents ages 14 to 19 (mean age of 16) who were
inmates at a juvenile detention center. The Schedule for Affective Disorders and
Schizophrenia for School-Age Children – Present and Lifetime Version, Child
Posttraumatic Stress Reaction Index, the Youth Self Report, Survey of Exposure to
Community Violence, and The Temperament and Character Inventory were utilized.
Comorbid diagnoses among the delinquents with PTSD compared to those without PTSD
included Major Depression, Separation Anxiety, Generalized Anxiety, ADHD, Conduct
Disorder, Alcohol Abuse, and Drug Abuse. A high rate of violence exposure-related
PTSD was observed in that most of the participants reported some posttraumatic stress
and one quarter of the sample met full criteria for PTSD. Differences in the levels of
51
comorbid psychopathology were also found in those with a full PTSD diagnosis
compared to those with a partial PTSD diagnosis. Postraumatic stress was accompanied
by a wide range of psychopathology/internalizing problems with highest rates among
those who met full criteria for PTSD. The main difference that emerged between the
partial and no PTSD groups was the higher rates of major depressive disorder and
generalized anxiety disorder among the partial PTSD group. Those with full PTSD were
found to present with a wide range of, and generally more than three, comorbid diagnoses
and differed from the partial and no PTSD groups in most diagnoses and self-reported
problems. Specifically, differences in separation anxiety, past ADHD, and substance
abuse existed which may suggest that those children with prior existing psychiatric
disorders/emotional susceptibility may be at increased risk for PTSD. A relationship
was also found between posttraumatic stress and behavior inhibition, particularly high
harm avoidance and low self-directedness, which lead to higher rates of psychopathology
and internalizing problems and also lead to the tendency to be more sensitive to stress as
a result of poor coping styles and being more fearful, nervous, passive, and low in
energy. Higher rates of exposure to violence were related to higher problem scores,
greater posttraumatic stress, and other types of psychopathology. The degree of violence
exposure was found to be related to both externalizing and internalizing symptoms and
the correlations between symptoms and victimization were more significant for direct
experience compared to witnessing. Higher rates of PTSD were associated with higher
rates of other types of psychopathology (Ruchkin et al., 2002).
Muller and colleagues (2000) explored the relationship between exposure to
family and community violence and psychopathology among 65 adolescents (40 females)
52
who ranged in age from 13 to 17 years (mean age of 14) and had been admitted to a
psychiatric hospital. DSM-IV diagnoses were obtained from chart review, the Inventory
of Socially Supportive Behaviors, My Exposure to Violence, Checklist of Children’s
Distress Symptoms: Self-Report Version, and the Child Behavior Checklist – Youth Self
Report were used. Participants who had been exposed to or witnessed higher levels of
violence (family and community) reported significantly greater psychopathology
compared to those with lower levels of exposure or witnessing of violence. Social
support was found to act as a buffer against maladaptive effects of experiences of family
violence but not community violence. Across all analyses, exposure to family violence
(both witnessing and being a victim) was found to be more consistently associated with
greater measures of psychopathology (internalizing, externalizing, PTSD
symptomatology, and PTSD diagnosis) when social support was low than when it was
high. A possible explanation for these finding proposed by the researchers was that
exposure to family violence may have a different impact on development, which may
allow social support to act as a buffer to the effects of such exposure compared to that of
community violence. Specifically, social support serves to improve interpersonal
functioning by promoting a more positive overall sense of self (Muller et al.).
McLean and Gallop (2003) explored the implications of childhood sexual abuse
for adult Borderline Personality Disorder and PTSD using 65 women who had earlyonset (approximately 4 years of age) sexual abuse (38 women) and late-onset
(approximately 15 years of age) sexual abuse (27 women). The Revised Diagnostic
Interview for Borderlines, the Structured Interview for Disorders of Extreme Stress, and
the Traumatic Antecedents Questionnaire were utilized. The diagnoses of both
53
Borderline Personality Disorder and PTSD were both found to be significantly higher in
participants reporting early-onset sexual abuse suggesting that sexual abuse may be a
significant predictor of meeting criteria for both diagnoses. Nearly all of the women (36
of the 38 participants) with a history of childhood sexual abuse met the diagnostic criteria
for both Borderline Personality Disorder and PTSD (McLean & Gallop, 2003).
Addiction is another potential consequence of child maltreatment (DeBellis, 2001;
Kaplan, Pelcovitz, & Labruna, 1999; Kendall-Tackett, 2002; Libby et al., 2004;
Mabanglo, 2002). Kendall-Tackett’s extensive literature review indicates that individuals
with a history of victimization, particularly those who experienced four or more adverse
childhood events, were more likely to consider themselves to be alcoholics, to have used
illegal drugs, and to have injected drugs. This association has been attributed to the
dysregulation of biological stress systems and self-medication for chronic PTSD
symptoms (DeBellis, 2001). In addition to alcohol and other drugs, significant and
consistent support has been found for an association between a history of childhood
maltreatment, particularly sexual and physical abuse, and cigarette smoking (Kaplan et
al.; Kendall-Tackett).
Problematic eating behaviors and obesity have also consistently been found to be
more common among adult survivors of childhood maltreatment, with the relationship
particularly strong for those who experienced sexual abuse (Kendall-Tackett, 2002;
Mabanglo, 2002).
A history of combined physical and sexual abuse has been associated with a
fourfold risk of reporting suicidal thoughts, more than a sixfold risk of reporting a suicide
plan, a twelvefold risk of reporting a noninjurious suicide attempt, and a fortysevenfold
54
risk of reporting an injurious suicide attempt (Bensley et al., 1999; Kaplan, Pelcovitz, &
Labruna, 1999; Kendall-Tackett, 2002; Mabanglo, 2002). Physical abuse alone has been
associated with doubled risk of reporting suicidal thoughts, threefold risk of reporting
suicide plan, fivefold risk of reporting noninjurious suicide attempt, and more than
elevenfold risk of reporting an injurious suicide attempt (Bensley et al.).
Johnson and colleagues (2002) explored the relationships between childhood
adversities, interpersonal difficulties, and risk for suicide attempts. Their sample was
obtained from existing longitudinal data and consisted of 659 families with children
between ages 1-11. The Disorganizing Poverty Interview (death of parent, disabling
parental injury or illness, living in unsafe neighborhood, low maternal age, low parental
education, parental separation or divorce, peer aggression, low family income, school
violence, experience of a crime, single parenthood) was utilized. Harsh parenting
punishment, low maternal education aspirations for the child, maternal possessiveness,
maternal verbal abuse, and childhood physical and sexual abuse were associated with
increased risk for suicide attempts during late adolescence or early adulthood even after
controlling for all of the covariates. Maladaptive parenting or abuse during childhood or
early adolescence was found to be significantly associated with substantial interpersonal
difficulties during middle adolescence. Additionally, interpersonal difficulties were
determined to account for 51% of the association between maladaptive parenting or abuse
during childhood or early adolescence and suicide attempts during late adolescence or
early adulthood. Johnson and colleagues concluded that children who experience
maladaptive parenting or child abuse may lack social skills that are essential for the
development and maintenance of adaptive relationships with peers and adults. Without
55
these important social skills, the tendency to become socially isolated or to relate to
others in an aggressive or aversive manner may likely be the result. The resulting social
isolation may contribute to feelings of despair, hopelessness, and suicidal behavior
(Johnson et al.).
High risk sexual behavior has been identified as the most highly documented form
of harmful behavior in maltreatment survivors, particularly sexual abuse survivors. In
particular, earlier onset of consensual sexual activity and higher rates of teen pregnancy,
multiple sexual partners, unprotected intercourse, STDs, and higher rates of abortion have
been consistently identified as more likely among maltreated individuals (Kaplan,
Pelcovitz, & Labruna, 1999; Kendall-Tackett, 2002; Mabanglo, 2002).
Sleep problems have consistently been found to be strongly related to
maltreatment, particularly physical and sexual abuse and exposure to domestic violence
(Kendall-Tackett, 2002; Mabanglo, 2002). Kendall-Tackett’s literature review revealed
strong support for a relationship between a history of childhood abuse and trouble
sleeping. This review reiterated the importance of sleep to health and the higher
incidence of infections, illnesses, accidents, and more severe and chronic depression
among those who do not get adequate sleep.
Delayed growth and altered brain development may be possible correlates of
maltreatment (Glaser, 2000; Kaplan, Pelcovitz, & Labruna, 1999). Glaser’s review of the
literature found consistent support for the existence of crucial and prominent brain
differences among maltreated children compared to those who were not maltreated.
Specifically, children with maltreatment-related PTSD have been found to have smaller
cerebral volumes; smaller total midsagittal area of the corpus callosum; and larger total
56
lateral ventricles and cortical and prefrontal cortical CSF volumes (Glaser). Glaser
concluded that changes in brain size are likely to be strongly related to traumatic early
childhood experiences, and therefore possibly related to increased catecholamine
concentrations and raised cortisol levels.
Maltreatment has been indicated to be strongly related to abnormal
neuoroendocrine functioning, specifically chronic hyperactivity of the hypothalamicpituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis. Chronic hyperactivity of the HPA may bring about
neuronal loss in the hippocampus, inhibit the process of neurogenesis, slow down the
development of myelination, and lead to abnormalities in synaptic pruning, which all
contribute to impairments in affective and cognitive functioning (Cicchetti & Rogosch,
2001). Additionally, the increased average daily levels of cortisol typically found among
maltreated children are indicative of hypercortisolism, which increases the risk for
developing neurobiological anomalies (Cicchetti & Rogosch). Impairments in cognitive
abilities and poor academic achievement have been consistently documented to exist
among those with histories of maltreatment (Cicchetti & Rogosch, 2001; Kaplan,
Pelcovitz, & Labruna, 1999; Mabanglo, 2002). Specifically, a negative correlation
between verbal IQ and the severity of abuse as well as the existence of a lower IQ and
reading ability have been identified among maltreated children (DeBellis, 2001).
Cognitive deficits have implications for aggressive and conduct-disordered behavior as
well as other negative outcomes (Kaplan et al.).
57
Physical, sexual abuse
Physical, sexual abuse, neglect, emotional
abuse
Sexual, physical, witness domestic violence,
emotional abuse
abuse
Family violence and maltreatment
Bensley et al., 1999
Cicchetti & Rogosch, 2001
Edwards et al., 2003
Goldstein et al., 2003
58
Abuse
Benda & Corwyn, 2002
Glaser, 2000
Ackerman et al., 1998
Prominent brain differences - smaller cerebral
volumes; smaller total midsagittal area of the
corpus callosum; and larger total lateral
ventricles and cortical and prefrontal cortical
CSF volumes, increased catecholamine
concentrations and raised cortisol levels
Lying, stealing, arrests, and hyperactivity
PTSD, depression, phobic disorder, separation
anxiety, oppositional defiant disorder,
dysthymia, comorbidity
Violent behavior, alienation, attachment
problems
Suicidal thoughts, suicidal plan, noninjurious
and injurious suicide attempts, antisocial
behavior
Chronic hyperactivity of the hypothalamicpituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis which leads to
neuronal loss in the hippocampus, inhibited
neurogenesis, slowed myelination, and
abnormalities in synaptic pruning, resulting
in impairments in affective and cognitive
functioning
Compromised over-all mental health
Researcher(s)
Maltreatment Experiences
Outcomes
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Summary of Outcomes Found to be Associated with Specific Maltreatment Experiences
Table 2
Witness domestic violence
Exposure to domestic violence
Physical maltreatment
Emotional, physical, sexual abuse
Physical and sexual abuse, neglect,
psychological abuse
Physical abuse, neglect, sexual abuse
Neglect
Physical, sexual, neglect, emotional
Witness domestic violence, physical abuse,
sexual abuse
Physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional
maltreatment, physical neglect
Holden, 2003
Hunter et al., 2004
Jaffee et al., 2004
Johnson et al., 2002
Kaplan, Pelcovitz, & Labruna, 1999
Kendall-Tackett, 2002
Knutson, DeGarmo, & Reid, 2004
Lau & Weisz, 2003
Mabanglo, 2002
Manly et al., 2001
59
Sexual abuse, physical abuse, psychological
maltreatment, neglect and witnessing family
violence
Higgins & McCabe, 2003
Poor levels of adjustment across all scales of
the CBCL, low self-esteem, trauma
symptoms, self-depreciation, lack of positive
relationships, lack of purpose in life
PTSD, externalizing
Aggression, delinquency
Antisocial behaviors
Increased risk for suicidal ideation and
attempts, lack of social skills,
More disliked and less popular, display less
intimacy, more conflict, more aggression,
delinquency, more negative affect, and
limited social problem solving skills,
substance abuse, major depression, PTSD,
low self esteem, suicidal behavior,
psychiatric diagnoses, and hospitalizations
Disorganized pattern of attachment,
revictimization, victimization of others,
substance abuse
Aggression and delinquency, impulsivity and
irritability, hypervigilance, paranoia,
affiliations with deviant peers
Poorer treatment persistence, poorer long-term
outcome
Non-compliance, aggression, anxiety,
depression, attention deficits, PTSD,
phobias, ADHD, sleep disorders,
somatization disorder, disorders of
attachment, oppositional and conduct
disorders, suicidal ideation, dissociative
reactions, eating disturbances, and substance
abuse
Aggressive, withdrawn, less cooperative, lower
ego resiliency, and higher ego undercontrol
Physical abuse
Sexual, physical abuse
abuse
Safren et al., 2002
Salzinger et al., 2001
Shields & Cicchetti, 2001
Stouthamer-Loeber et al., 2001
60
Sexual abuse
Exposure to violence
Witness domestic violence, physical abuse,
neglect
Sexual abuse
Physical abuse, neglect
Exposure to family and community violence
(witness and victim)
Rodriguez, Vande Kemp, & Foy, 1998
Ruchkin et al., 2002
McLean & Gallop, 2003
McMahon & Clay-Warner, 2002
Muller et al., 2000
Maughan & Cicchetti, 2002
Delinquent, withdrawn, and social problem
behaviors, aggression, anxious and depressed
Borderline personality disorder, PTSD
Criminal behavior, delinquency
Greater levels of psychopathology
(internalizing, externalizing, PTSD
symptomatology, and PTSD diagnosis),
negative sense of self, impaired
social/interpersonal functioning
PTSD
PTSD, Major Depression, Separation Anxiety,
Generalized Anxiety, ADHD, Conduct
Disorder, Alcohol Abuse, and Drug Abuse
Panic disorder, social phobia, generalized
anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder,
comorbidity
Aggression, negative social expectations,
antisocial behaviors, lack of prosocial
behavior, withdrawn behavior, internalizing
problems, more likely to be rejected by peers
More likely to bully peers, more at risk for
victimization, more anxious and
hyperaroused, angry, unempathic, disruptive,
impaired social functioning
Shoplifting, frequent lying, fraud,
pickpocketing, minor aggression, physical
fighting, violence, shoplifting, property
damage, moderately serious and serious
delinquency, truancy, running away, staying
out late, stubbornness, defiance, authority
avoidance
Intergenerational Transmission of Maltreatment. As with other parenting
behaviors, those behaviors that are considered maltreatment may also be transmitted
across generations. Parental modeling of violence leads to the child’s learning of
violence as a normal and appropriate way of behaving as well as inadequate learning of
nonviolent parenting skills. This behavioral repertoire may be carried through into
adulthood and the next generation of parenting (Cunningham, 2003). Cunningham
examined the joint contribution of experiencing and witnessing violence during
childhood on subsequent child abuse by those now in the parent role using a sample of
2,889 adults obtained from the Second National Family Violence Survey. The Conflict
Tactics Scale, as well as other questions pertaining to direct violent experiences and
witnessing of domestic violence were administered. Those who either directly
experienced (were hit) or witnessed parental violence or both were found to have higher
than average and similar child abuse rates. Only those with neither form of family
violence had lower than average rates of parental abuse of children. Participants who
were only hit as a teen were less likely to abuse their own children than those who only
witnessed domestic violence and than those who reported both forms of family violence.
Witnessing domestic violence was found to increase levels of child abuse, regardless of
the experience of being hit. Those who were only hit as a teen were found to be more
than twice as likely to abuse their own children as those who experienced no family
violence. Ultimately, the experience of either form of violence was found to significantly
increase the odds of child abuse in the next generation. Cunningham concluded that
those who experience family violence during childhood may become maladjusted adults
61
characterized by dysregulated feelings and negative cognitions; this increases the
likelihood they will abuse their own children.
Based on a review of the past decade of literature, DeBellis (2001) devised a
developmental traumatology model for the intergenerational transmission of
maltreatment. Adverse parenting skills are believed to result from the impact of
childhood traumatic stress on brain development and the development of mental illness
(DeBellis). This pathway has been implicated to lead to the intergenerational
transmission of maltreatment (DeBellis). A history of child maltreatment has been
consistently found to be associated with poor parenting skills and a higher risk of
intergenerational transmission of substance abuse, negative and problematic parent-child
interactions, domestic violence, and child maltreatment (DeBellis).
Green (1998) concluded from an extensive literature review that research has
demonstrated a strong association between dissociation, PTSD, pathological alterations in
the limbic system, and short-term memory deficits. Specifically, it has been indicated
that the tendency to become fixated on traumatic experiences results in aspects of the
trauma being reenacted by the maltreated child through play as well as in relationships
with others through either victimizing of others or by recreating their own victimization.
Regarding alterations in the limbic system, Green reported that researchers have
suggested that PTSD-related damage to hippocampal neurons may be the result of stressinduced hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis imbalance in which glucocorticoids are
hyper-secreted. Overstimulation of the stress response systems produces impulsivity,
hyperactivity, and lower threshold for violence. Additionally, Green’s literature review
revealed dissociation to be common among both adults and children with maltreatment
62
histories. Dissociation’s role in the intergenerational transmission of maltreatment is
related to the resulting impaired memory of one’s own childhood maltreatment
experiences. Learning from the past has not occurred which leads to the inability to
empathize with their child’s feelings about victimization. In addition to dissociation,
other primitive defenses such as avoidance and distancing behavior, identification with
the aggressor, hypervigilance, denial, projection, ambivalent attachment to mother, and
splitting prevent victims from integrating their traumatic memories and emotions into
awareness, which leads to the likelihood of reenacting the abuse trauma with others. The
internalizing and maintenance of these defenses throughout childhood and adulthood
results in the carrying through of pathological and abusive parenting into the next
generation (Green).
Locke and Newcomb (2004) explored child maltreatment, parent alcohol and drug
related problems, polydrug problems, and intergenerational transmission of parenting
practices using 318 parents (237 females) with an average age 35. The Children of
Alcoholics Screening Test, Childhood Trauma Questionnaire, Parental Acceptance
Rejection Questionnaire, and polydrug problem questions were completed. A history of
child maltreatment and parental drug problems were both found to have an adverse
impact on parenting practices in the next generation. Child maltreatment had a direct and
negative influence on parenting in the next generation. The experience of emotional
neglect as a child had a negative influence on parenting even more than the overall
influence of child maltreatment. Parental alcohol or drug related problems predicted
polydrug problems, which in turn predicted poor parenting (Locke & Newcomb).
63
Juvenile Delinquency
Maltreatment and Juvenile Delinquency. Suboptimal parenting has been
implicated in the development of childhood delinquency. Aggressive and delinquent
behaviors in both adolescence and adulthood have been consistently found to be among
the most frequent correlates of physical abuse (Kaplan, Pelcovitz, & Labruna, 1999) and
neglect (Knutson, DeGarmo, & Reid, 2004). A history of physical abuse and neglect
increases the risk for aggression and criminal behavior by increasing levels of impulsivity
and irritability, hypervigilance, paranoia, affiliations with deviant peers, as well as
inhibiting the recognition of pain in both self and others (Kaplan et al.; Knutson et al.).
Traumatic and violent experiences have been found to be related to specific personality
characteristics and emotional functioning that lead to antisocial activity which, in turn,
leads to increased exposure to further violence. This is a negative, self-perpetuating
cycle (Ruchkin et al., 2002).
Stouthamer-Loeber and colleagues explored the relationship between
maltreatment and disruptive and delinquent behavior among 250 delinquent and 250
nondelinquent boys with an average age of 13. Data was obtained from a protective
services agency pertaining to maltreatment, the Child Behavior Checklist, Diagnostic
Schedule for Children, Self-Report Delinquency interview, and the Youth Self Report
were used. A higher prevalence of disruptive or delinquent behavior was found among
the maltreated compared to the nonmaltreated participants. Results indicated that those
who experienced maltreatment had an earlier age of onset for minor covert behavior
(shoplifting, frequent lying) and for moderately serious delinquency (fraud,
pickpocketing) compared to controls. Maltreated boys were more likely to be involved in
64
the steps in the overt (minor aggression, physical fighting, violence) and the covert
(shoplifting, frequent lying, property damage, moderately serious and serious
delinquency) pathways and more likely to reach the most severe step in the authority
conflict (truancy, running away, staying out late) and overt pathways (violence behaviors
of rape, attack, strongarm). Maltreatment was associated with each of the steps in the
authority conflict pathway (stubbornness, defiance, authority avoidance). Compared to
controls, maltreated boys had four times higher risk of displaying authority avoidance
behaviors, such as truancy, staying out late at night, and running away from home. More
than half of the maltreated boys had at least one petition to juvenile court compared to
approximately 38 percent of the controls. Maltreated boys were more likely to have a
petition for both nonindex violence offenses and nonindex property offenses.
Specifically, the risk of court contact was about twice as high for the maltreated boys.
Nearly seven percent of the maltreated boys were homicide offenders compared to three
percent of the controls. Protective agency contact tended to precede or co-occur with
overt and covert problem behavior (Stouthamer-Loeber et al., 2001).
Knutson and colleagues (2004) tested a theoretical model of social disadvantage
and neglectful parenting as precursors to the development of antisocial and aggressive
behavior in childhood. Their sample consisted of 310 first and 361 fifth grade children
(51% girls). Information pertaining to the constructs of social disadvantage, antisocial
behavior and aggression, denial of care neglect, supervisory neglect, and punitive
discipline were obtained through interview questions, direct observations, and parent and
teacher completion of the CBCL initially and again five years later. In both groups,
denial of care neglect was significantly related to both antisocial behavior at baseline and
65
change in antisocial behavior five years later. Supervisory neglect was found to be
significantly related to antisocial outcome for the fifth grade group only. Strong support
was also evident for neglect and punitive discipline as critical factors in determining the
consequences of social disadvantage in the development of antisocial behavior. The
contribution of neglect to current and future antisocial behavior was significantly more
than that of social disadvantage and punitive discipline. Deficient parenting overall was
found to be a strong predictor of future antisocial behavior (Knutson, DeGarmo, & Reid,
2004).
Benda and Corwyn (2002) explored the relationship between abuse and violent
behavior among 1,031 adolescents ages 13-18. A 150-item questionnaire was
administered in the participants’ classrooms that included questions about violent
behavior, race, family structure, father’s education, attachment to mother and father,
moral beliefs, religiosity, self-esteem, physical abuse, sexual abuse, frustration,
alienation, suicide, peer association, differential rewards, and modeling. The researchers
concluded that an important and significant relationship exists between abuse in
childhood and violence among younger adolescents, suggesting that childhood abuse acts
as a key explanatory factor for violent behavior in both younger and older adolescents.
The researchers suggest that the weak attachment that likely accompanies abuse may lead
to frustration and alienation which may in turn lead to violence directed at both the self
and others (Benda & Corwyn).
Bensley and colleagues (1999) examined health risk behaviors that may be
associated with a history of physical abuse, sexual abuse, and combined physical and
sexual abuse. Participants in the 8th, 10th, and 12th grades were recruited from 44
66
Washington State public schools. A total of 4,790 adolescents (2518 female) completed
questionnaires that addressed physical fitness, unintentional and intentional injury
behaviors, alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use, HIV education, abuse history, antisocial
behavior, and suicidal ideation and behavior. Results revealed an abuse history to be
strongly associated with antisocial behavior. The association was found to be stronger
for combined physical and sexual abuse than for physical or sexual abuse alone and
stronger for more severe antisocial behavior than for less severe. Specifically, children
with a combined history of physical and sexual abuse had more than threefold risk of one
antisocial behavior and more than sevenfold risk of two or more antisocial behaviors.
Children who reported only physical abuse had double the risk of reporting one antisocial
behavior and fourfold risk of reporting two or more antisocial behaviors. Gender
differences emerged such that girls were found to be more likely to report suicidal
thoughts and noninjurious suicide attempts while boys were more likely to report
antisocial behavior (Bensley et al.).
Physical maltreatment is an important environmental risk variable that has been
causally linked to children’s antisocial behavior because it increases an individual’s risk
of engaging in violent, antisocial behavior in adolescence and adulthood. Jaffee and
colleagues (2004) investigated the relationship between maltreatment and antisocial
behaviors. Their longitudinal twin study design consisted of 1,116 twin pairs and their
families (51% female) who were interviewed at the age of five and then again at the age
of seven. Physical maltreatment was determined through a standardized clinical
interview of mothers. Mothers also completed the Young Adult Behavior Checklist. A
diagnostic interview of the children was performed. Physical maltreatment was found to
67
predict future antisocial outcome with the amount of physical abuse experienced related
to the amount and severity of subsequent antisocial behaviors. The effects of physical
maltreatment remained significant after controlling for the parents’ history of antisocial
behavior as well as after controlling for any genetic transmission of antisocial behavior.
Approximately half of the intergenerational transmission of antisocial behavior was
found to be environmentally mediated. Parents with a history of antisocial behavior were
found to be more likely to maltreat their children. These parents also had children who
engaged in high levels of antisocial behavior. Physical maltreatment was found to be
significantly related to children’s antisocial behavior, even after controlling for parents’
history of antisocial behavior. The researchers concluded from their longitudinal data
that physical maltreatment is likely not heritable, therefore, it is not likely that genetic
features play a key role in the intergenerational transmission of aggressive behavior and
child maltreatment (Jaffee et al.).
When maltreatment occurs, the child is frequently removed from the care of the
abusing parent or caretaker. Recent research investigating the role of social service
placement and family disorganization in future criminality of abused children found a
significant relationship between placement and criminal behavior (McMahon & ClayWarner, 2002). Utilizing existing juvenile and adult court records of 749 individuals who
had been physically abused or neglected before the age of 12, McMahon and ClayWarner found that placement may act as a contributing factor to criminality for abused or
neglected children who have experienced a recent family separation (divorce, marital
separation, death in family). Specifically, abused or neglected children who experienced
a family separation and were removed from their homes were almost twice as likely to
68
have an adult arrest in comparison to abused or neglected children who experienced a
family separation and were not removed from their homes. The child’s potential support
system of siblings, friends, neighbors, or teachers is lost on removal, thus increasing the
risk for criminality (McMahon & Clay-Warner).
Other Familial Correlates of Delinquency. Relationships between other familial
experiences and delinquent behaviors have also been identified. Goldstein and
colleagues (2003) explored comorbid symptom patterns in 232 female juvenile offenders
ages 12 to 18 years. The Massachusetts Youth Screening Inventory (MAYSI), Youth
Self Report (YSR), and Million Adolescent Clinical Inventory (MACI) were completed.
Results revealed family discord to be significantly related to externalizing symptoms,
specifically lying, stealing, arrests, and hyperactivity.
Sohn (2003) explored characteristics of 196 young people in correctional
institutions (100 males) and a comparative sample of 727 (369 males) community
students who had never been convicted. Ages ranged from 12 to 15 (mean age 14). The
CBCL and Malaise Inventory (which is a measure of melancholic symptomatology) were
used. Offending boys and girls were found to be significantly more likely to be from
nontraditional families (living with single parent or other guardian such as grandparents,
relatives, or others) compared to non-offenders (50% and 4% respectively). Offenders
reported significantly higher rates of internalizing problems (withdrawn, somatic
complaints, anxious/depressed) and social adjustment problems were almost twice as
high among offenders compared to non-offenders. Significantly more externalizing
behaviors, symptoms of malaise, and lower educational attainment were also found
among offenders. Perceived parenting style predicted internalizing/externalizing/social
69
problems and malaise. Poor parenting was reported among 68% of the offenders and
significant levels of emotional and behavioral problems were associated with perceived
poor parenting.
Hunter and colleagues (2004) explored developmental pathways and risk factors
in sexual aggression and delinquency in 157 adolescent males ages 12 to 18 (mean age
15). Hostility Toward Women, Adversarial Sexual Beliefs, Rape Myths Acceptance,
Acceptance of Interpersonal Violence, Mating Effort Scale, Negative/Positive
Masculinity/femininity, Social Self-Esteem Inventory, Youth Self-Reports:
Anxious/Depressed, Social Problems, Withdrawn, Delinquent Behavior, and Aggressive
Behavior scales were used. Nonsexual aggression and delinquency were found to be
significantly and positively associated with Egotistical-Antagonistic Masculinity,
Psychosocial Deficits, Exposure to Abuse of Females, and Exposure to Male-Modeled
Antisocial Behavior. Childhood exposure to violence against women and male-modeled
antisocial behavior significantly increased the risk of nonsexual aggression and
delinquency. The researchers concluded that their results suggest that young males may
be vulnerable to internalizing the values and imitating the behavior of socially deviant
peers and adults. Lack of parental involvement may also lead to aggression and
dominance.
Perrone and colleagues (2004) examined parental efficacy, self-control, and
delinquency among 13,536 adolescents from grades 7-12. The Delinquency Scale was
used. Additional questions were devised pertaining to self control, including impulsivity,
a preference for simple tasks, favoring of physical over mental activities, selfcenteredness, and temper. Parental efficacy questions pertained to attachment to child
70
and effectiveness in recognizing and responding to problematic behavior. Level of
parental efficacy was found to be a significant predictor of youth’s levels of self-control.
Self-control and parental efficacy were both found to be significantly associated with
delinquency.
Bao, Haas, and Pi (2004) explored life-strain, negative emotions, and delinquency
among 615 (310 male) adolescents ages 13 to 18 (mean age 15) attending public school
in grades 8 to 11. Exposure to negative stimuli was assessed with indicators of negative
relations with peers, parents, and teachers. Negative emotions were assessed with
indicators of anger, resentment, anxiety, and depression. Delinquency/deviance was
measured with scales for violent offenses, property offenses, and school-related deviance.
Control variables included demographic traits and variables of social control (attachment
to peers, parents, and school) and social learning theories (affiliation with deviant peers).
Negative relations with parents, teachers, and peers were independently and positively
associated with violent offenses, property offenses, school deviance, anger, resentment,
anxiety, and depression. Negative emotions were significantly and positively associated
with all delinquent or deviant outcomes with anger being the most important mediator.
Adolescents from economically poorer homes were more likely to report violent offenses.
Attachments to parents and school were both significantly and negatively associated with
school deviance.
Juvenile Psychopathy
Psychopathy is one personality characteristic that has been studied in relation to
juvenile delinquency. Psychopathy is viewed as a personality disorder that is
characterized by early onset and long-term social and interpersonal dysfunction (Hare,
71
1998). Psychopathic individuals have been described as grandiose, manipulative,
forceful, and cold-hearted. Shallow and labile emotions; the inability to form longlasting bonds to people, principles, and goals; and lack of empathy, guilt, and remorse are
other prominent characteristics associated with the psychopathic individual. Individuals
with psychopathy also tend to be impulsive, sensation seeking, and irresponsible.
Violation of social and legal norms leads to the disproportionate involvement in crime
and in particular violent crime among psychopathic individuals (Hare, 1998).
Cruise and colleagues (2003) explored the juvenile justice perspective of
adolescent psychopathy among 424 juvenile justice professionals (juvenile detention
officers and juvenile probation officers) who completed a survey on conceptualization of
antisocial behavior of adolescents. The resulting factor structure of psychopathy for
males included criminal versatility/irresponsible behavior, serious violent/conduct
problems (deliberate use of force, physical cruelty to people and animals, destruction of
property), lack of empathy/conning and manipulative use of others,
anger/impulsivity/absence of behavioral controls, and family problems/nonviolent
delinquency. Factors for females included irresponsible behavior/nonviolent
delinquency, serious violent/conduct problems, lack of empathy/callous use of others,
anger/poor behavioral controls, and family problems.
Salekin and colleagues (2004) examined relations between psychopathy and
disruptive behavior disorders in a sample of 130 (92 males) young offenders ages 9 to 18
(mean age 14). The PCL-YV, SRP-II, APSD, APS were completed. Conduct Disorder,
ADHD, ODD, Adjustment disorder, and substance abuse correlated highly with the
psychopathy scales. Specifically, substance abuse, anger, aggression, and interpersonal
72
problems correlated positively with psychopathy. Additionally, psychopathy was found
to be positively correlated with violent and nonviolent offenses, number of physical
fights youth engaged in per year, drug use, history of family arrest, and association with
deviant peers. Rates of psychopathy in the youth sampled were found to be similar to
those in adult samples.
Dixon, Howie, and Starling (2004) examined psychopathology in 100 female
juvenile offenders ages 13 to 19 years old (mean age 16) and a comparison group of 100
females. The schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia for School-age
children – Present and Lifetime Version, and Family Adaptability and Cohesion Scale II
were used. Offenders reported significantly more psychopathology compared to nonoffenders, specifically, conduct disorder, substance abuse, alcohol abuse, depression,
PTSD, psychoses, separation anxiety disorder, ADHD, and suicide attempts. All but one
of the offenders had at least one diagnosis and the average number of diagnoses per
offender was 4. Ninety-three percent of the offenders had more than one diagnosis and
78% of these had three or more diagnoses. In comparison, 41% of the non-offenders had
one or more diagnoses (24% had one diagnosis only, 17% of these had two or more
diagnoses). Offender status was found to be most significantly associated with the
number of psychological diagnoses, with the presence of two or more diagnoses
presenting the highest risk. Offenders were found to have had significantly more types of
traumatic experiences compared to non-offenders. The most common traumatic
experiences among offenders included witnessing violent crime, being confronted with
traumatic news, witnessing domestic violence, sexual abuse, and physical abuse. In
comparison, non-offenders most commonly reported traumatic experiences that included
73
being confronted with traumatic news and witnessing a violent crime. Regarding family
environment, significantly more of the non-offenders were living in intact families
compared to offenders who were found to be more likely to have been homeless, living
independently, in a residential or foster care setting, or with extended family.
Gretton, Hare, and Catchpole (2004) explored psychopathy and offending from
adolescence to adulthood by following the criminal outcomes of 157 adolescent boys
ages 12 to 18 over a period of ten years. The Psychopathy Check List – Youth Version
(PCL:YV) was used to examine psychopathy among the offenders. Results revealed
psychopathy to be a strong predictor of offending behavior over the 10-year period.
Predictive validity of the PCL:YV was particularly strong for violent offending with
higher PCL:YV scores being associated with both an increased likelihood of nonviolent
and violent offending. Those with higher levels of psychopathic features were found to
continue to engage in high rates of both violent and nonviolent offending into adulthood.
The higher potential for long-term violence distinguished psychopathic offenders from
other adolescent offenders. The strong relationship between psychopathy and violent
recidivism remained after controlling for number of previous violent and nonviolent
offenses, age of first offense, and conduct disorder symptoms which is suggestive of
psychopathy as an independent and potent risk factor for violent and nonviolent
delinquent behaviors.
Vincent and colleagues (2003) explored subtypes of adolescent offenders,
specifically affective traits and antisocial behavior patterns among 259 young male
offenders ages 12 to 19 (mean age 16) who were sentenced to maximum and minimum
security settings. The PCL:YV was completed. Results indicated that those who scored
74
higher in psychopathy initiated criminality and conduct significantly earlier, were among
the most serious offenders, and engaged in more frequent and severe offending patterns.
Recidivism among those with higher psychopathy scores was significantly more
prominent and more probable. Specifically, 90% of the high psychopathy group
committed at least one offense approximately four times sooner than those in the low
psychopathy group, with half being charged with at least one violent reoffense (twice that
of those in the low psychopathy group).
Frick and colleagues (2003) explored the four-year stability of psychopathic traits
in 1,136 (53% female) non-referred youth with a mean age of 10. Ninety-eight (47%
female) of these children participated in the longitudinal portion (4 yearly assessments) of
the study. The Antisocial Process Screening Devise (APSD), Kaufman Brief Intelligence
Test, Computerized Reward Dominance Task, Children’s Sensation Seeking Scale,
Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children – fourth edition, Self Report of Delinquency,
and the Alabama Parenting Questionnaire were completed. Results revealed stability of
psychopathic traits across four years. Children with higher levels of conduct problem
behavior tended to have more stable levels of psychopathic traits. Psychopathic traits
were found to be more stable than other problems of adjustment in children and to be
comparable in stability to personality traits assessed in adults. Socioeconomic status and
quality of parenting were found to be the two most consistent predictors of the stability of
these traits across the four years. The researchers suggested parenting to play an
important role in development of guilt and empathy and other aspects of conscience that
have been implicated as components of psychopathy.
75
Wootton and colleagues (1997) explored ineffective Parenting and childhood
conduct problems and the moderating role of callous-unemotional traits. Their sample
included 136 (30% female) children between the ages of 6 and 13 (mean age of 8) and 30
comparative children. The Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children was used in
identifying Oppositional Defiant Disorder and Conduct Disorder. The Disruptive
Behavior Disorders Rating Scale (DBD), Psychopathy screening devise (PSD), and
Alabama Parenting Questionnaire (APQ) were also used. Ineffective parenting (low
parental involvement, low positive reinforcement, low monitoring and supervision,
inconsistent discipline, use of corporal punishment) was associated with conduct
problems only in children without significant levels of callous (lack of empathy,
manipulativeness) and unemotional (lack of guilt, emotional constrictedness) traits.
Children high on these traits exhibited a significant number of conduct problems.
Watson and colleagues (1992) examined psychopathy traits, specifically
narcissism, and perceptions of past parenting experiences among 324 undergraduates
(199 female) with an average age of 19. Participants completed the Goal Instability and
Superiority Scales, Narcissistic Personality Inventory, the Parental Authority
Questionnaire, and Depression and Anxiety Scales. Perceived parental authoritativeness
was associated with less narcissistic maladjustment, parental permissiveness was
associated with immature grandiosity, and parental authoritarianism was associated with
inadequate idealization.
This review of the literature exemplifies the important implications that the
specific variables and processes discussed have for negative outcomes, demonstrating the
76
importance of further examination of these variables to add support and to expand upon
current knowledge.
Statement of the Problem
Though the specific variables and associations described above have been wellresearched and documented, the goal of the current study was to further explore
relationships that have not yet been studied. Specifically, the current study explored
relationships between parenting experiences (warmth, rejection, overprotection, and
discipline) and psychopathy, specifically the Callous-Unemotional trait. Additionally,
previous research has not examined associations between maltreatment experiences,
PTSD, and psychopathy. Processes of intergenerational transmission of parenting
practices were also further explored in relation to the variables of warmth, rejection,
overprotection, discipline, maltreatment, PTSD symptomatology, and the CallousUnemotional psychopathy trait. These variables and expected associations were
informed by studying both a delinquent group and a comparison group of community
adolescents.
Study Hypotheses
1. Positive parenting, maltreatment and PTSD were expected to predict callousunemotional psychopathy.
a. Among both males and females in the public school and JDC samples,
fathers’ and mothers’ positive parenting were expected to be negatively
related to callous-unemotional psychopathy.
77
b. Among both males and females in the public school and JDC samples,
maltreatment was expected to be positively related to callous-unemotional
psychopathy.
c. Among both males and females in the public school and JDC samples,
PTSD was expected to be positively related to callous-unemotional
psychopathy.
2. Positive parenting, maltreatment, PTSD, and callous-unemotional psychopathy
were expected to predict delinquency.
a.
Among both males and females in the public school and JDC samples,
related to number of reported arrests.
maltreatment was expected to be positively related to number of reported
arrests.
symptoms of PTSD were expected to be negatively related to number of
reported arrests.
d. Among both males and females in the public school and JDC samples,
callous-unemotional psychopathy was expected to be positively related to
number of reported arrests.
were expected to predict anticipated warmth in future parenting.
78
fathers’ and mothers’ positive parenting were expected to be positively
related to anticipated warmth in future parenting.
maltreatment was expected to be negatively related to anticipated warmth
in future parenting.
symptoms of PTSD were expected to be negatively related to anticipated
warmth in future parenting.
callous-unemotional psychopathy was expected to be negatively related to
anticipated warmth in future parenting.
were expected to predict anticipated rejection in future parenting.
related to anticipated rejection in future parenting.
maltreatment was expected to be positively related to anticipated rejection
in future parenting.
symptoms of PTSD were expected to be positively related to anticipated
rejection in future parenting.
79
callous-unemotional psychopathy was expected to be positively related to
anticipated rejection in future parenting.
were expected to predict anticipated overprotection in future parenting.
related to anticipated overprotection in future parenting.
maltreatment was expected to be negatively related to anticipated
overprotection in future parenting.
symptoms of PTSD were expected to be positively related to anticipated
overprotection in future parenting.
callous-unemotional psychopathy was expected to be negatively related to
anticipated overprotection in future parenting.
80
Chapter Three
Method
Participants
The total sample consisted of 326 volunteers, 223 of which were recruited from
three Midwestern suburban metropolitan area public high schools and 103 of which were
recruited from a Midwestern metropolitan Juvenile Detention Center.
Public High School Participants.
The public high school sample consisted of 110 female (51.2%) and 105 male
volunteer adolescents who were recruited from three Midwestern suburban community
public high schools (grades 9 through 12). Eight participants did not report their gender.
Age ranged from 14 to 19 years with a mean age of 16.18 (SD = 1.23). The majority of
the sample was age 15 (25.1%), 16 (26.9%), and 17 (20.6%) with the remaining sample
consisting of 7.2 percent age 14 and 16.6 percent age 18, and .9 percent age 19 years of
age. Six participants did not report their age. Distribution of the sample across grades
was as follows: 9th (20.6%), 10th (22.9%), 11th (25.1%), and 12th (25.6%). Thirteen
participants did not report their grade. The racial backgrounds of the sample were
primarily European American (87.4%) with the remaining sample consisting of African
American (.4%), Hispanic American (5.4%), Asian American (1.3%), Biracial (.9%), and
81
Other (1.3%). Seven participants did not report their ethnicity. Gender, age, grade, and
ethnicity distributions are presented in Table 3.
Participants reported on whether they had ever been in trouble with the law and/or
arrested. The majority of the sample (70.9%) reported never having been in trouble with
the law. Six participants did not report on whether they had ever been in trouble with the
law. Of those who reported having been in trouble with the law (26.5%), 37.3 percent
had never actually been arrested, 25.4 percent had been arrested once, 15.3 percent had
been arrested twice, 10.2 percent had been arrested three times, and 11.9 percent had
been arrested four or more times with 20 arrests being the highest reported. The average
number of arrests was 1.86 (SD = 3.45). Distributions of contact with law enforcement
and number of arrests are presented in Table 4.
Participants also reported on whether they had ever been detained in a juvenile
detention center. Of those who had been involved with the law, 71.2 percent had never
been detained in a juvenile detention center, 11.9 percent had been detained once, 10.2
percent had been detained twice, and 6.8 percent had been detained three or more times
with 15 detention center placements being the highest number reported. The average
number of times detained in a juvenile detention center was .90 (SD = 2.47). The
distribution of detention center placements is presented in Table 4.
82
Table 3
Gender, Age, Grade, and Ethnicity Distributions for Public School and Juvenile
Detention Center (JDC) Participants
Public School
______________
JDC
______________
Gender
Male
105
89
Female
110
12
13
0
2
14
16
11
15
56
35
16
60
24
17
46
28
18
37
0
19
2
0
8
0
9
9
46
26
10
51
24
11
56
16
12
57
8
195
27
African American
1
52
Hispanic American
12
10
Asian American
3
0
Biracial
2
10
Other
3
1
Age
Grade
Ethnicity
European American
83
Table 4
Distributions of Contact with Law Enforcement, Number of Arrests, and Number of
Juvenile Detention Center (JDC) Placements for Public School and Juvenile Detention
Center (JDC) Participants
Public School
______________
JDC
______________
Law Enforcement Contact
No
158
0
Yes
59
98
Number of Arrests
0
22
1
15
9
2
9
10
3
6
8
4
4
17
5
0
15
6+
3
34
Number of JDC Placements
0
42
1
7
17
2
6
14
3
1
10
4
0
14
5
0
11
6+
3
27
84
Participants were also asked about frequency of relocations to different homes
over the course of their life to date. It should be noted that this demographic question
was not specific enough to examine inherent differences likely to exist between the
public school sample and the JDC sample regarding relocations to different homes. For
example, relocations among the public school sample were likely to include the entire
family versus JDC participants’ relocations to different living situations (i.e., foster
homes, grandparent or other family member’s homes).Of the total sample, 24.2 percent
had never moved, 23.8 percent reported moving once, 10.3 percent had moved twice,
11.7 percent had moved three times, 12.1 percent had moved four times, and 15 percent
had moved five or more times. Six participants did not report on the number of
relocations. The average number of moves overall was 2.35 (SD = 2.41). The
distribution of relocations to different homes is displayed in Table 5.
Juvenile Detention Center Participants.
The total Juvenile Detention Center sample consisted of 89 male (86.4%) and 12
female volunteer adolescents who were recruited from and currently detained in a local
juvenile detention center. Two participants did not report their gender. Age ranged from
13 to 17 years with a mean age of 15.65 (SD = 1.07). The majority of the sample was 15
(34%), 16 (23.3%), and 17 (27.2%), with the remaining sample consisting of 1.9 percent
age 13 and 10.7 percent age 14. Three participants did not report their age. Distribution
of the sample across grades was as follows: 6th (1%), 7th (1.9%), 8th (8.7%), 9th (25.2%),
10th (23.3%), 11th (15.5%), and 12th (7.8%). Seventeen participants did not report their
grade. The racial backgrounds of the sample were primarily African American (50.5%),
with the remaining sample consisting of European American (26.2%), Hispanic
85
American (9.7%), Biracial (9.7%), and Other (1%). Three participants did not report
their ethnicity. Gender, age, grade, and ethnicity distributions are presented in Table 3.
Table 5
Distributions of Frequency of Relocations to Different homes for Public School and
Juvenile Detention Center (JDC) Participants
Public School
______________
JDC
_______________
Frequency of Relocations
0
54
10
1
53
5
2
23
8
3
26
19
4
27
13
5
13
10
6
7
2
7
7
3
8
3
5
9
0
0
10+
4
17
Participants were also asked to report the extent of their involvement with law or
the juvenile justice system. Frequency of arrests ranged from one (8.7%) to 25 (1.0%)
with the average number of arrests being 6.09 (SD = 5.07). The majority of the sample
reported having been arrested five or fewer times (63.7 percent), 25.6 percent had been
86
arrested between six and ten times, and 10.7 percent had been arrested between 11 to 25
times. Nine participants did not report number of arrests.
The number of reported juvenile detention center placements ranged from one to
20 with the average number of placements being 4.70 (SD = 3.97). The majority of the
sample (71.3%) reported five or fewer separate juvenile detention center placements,
with the remaining sample reporting six to 20 detention center placements. Nine
participants did not report the number of detention center placements. Distributions of
contact with law enforcement, number of arrests, and detention center placements are
presented in Table 4.
Participants were also asked about frequency of relocations to different homes
over the course of their life to date. It should be noted that this demographic question
was not specific enough to examine inherent differences likely to exist between the
public school sample and the JDC sample regarding relocations to different homes. For
example, relocations among the public school sample were likely to include the entire
family versus JDC participants’ relocations to different living situations (i.e., foster
homes, grandparent or other family member’s homes). The range of frequency of moves
was from zero to 50. Of the total sample, 9.7 percent had never moved, 4.9 percent
reported moving once, 7.8 percent had moved twice, 18.4 percent had moved three
times, 12.6 percent had moved four times, and 40.2 percent had moved five or more
times. The average number of moves overall was 6.25 (SD = 7.69). Eleven participants
did not report number of relocations. The distribution of relocations to different homes is
87
Measures
Participants completed a demographic information form (Appendix A) describing
their gender; age; ethnicity; grade level; whether he or she had ever been in trouble with
the law and, if yes, the number of arrests and placements in a juvenile detention center;
frequency of relocations/moves; and parent or guardian’s education level and
employment. They also completed five questionnaires measuring anticipated future
parenting style, PTSD symptoms, Callous/unemotional psychopathy trait, maltreatment
experiences, and past parenting experiences.
Anticipated Future Parenting. The Anticipated Future Parenting Index (API;
Appendix G) was used to measure thoughts about anticipated style of future parenting.
The API was developed for use in prior research (Pasold, 2003). Initially, the questions
that comprised the API were based on the questions on the s-EMBU (Swedish acronym
for Egna Minnen Betraffande Uppfostran – “own memories of parental rearing”), short
version (Arrindell et al., 1999). Initial reliability analysis of the first version of the API
as a whole suggested that reliability was not very strong (approximately .50). Further
reliability analysis of the three anticipated scales of warmth, rejection, and overprotection
revealed an acceptable warmth dimension (Cronbach’s alpha approximately .70), but the
remaining two targeted dimensions of rejection and overprotection were not as reliable
(approximately .40 for each of these scales). Additionally, the measure did not include
other aspects of parenting behavior that have been implicated as being important,
specifically discipline and reward. Data from several focus group discussions was
subsequently obtained and used to revise questions within the API. The revised version
was piloted through administration of the measure to 83 volunteering undergraduates
88
who were recruited from Introduction to Psychology discussion sections. Reliability
analysis was performed on the data. Initial analysis of all items revealed an alpha of .60,
which was improved to .65 upon removal of items 5 and 26. Reliability analysis of the
individual scales revealed acceptable alphas. Specifically, the initial alpha for the
Warmth scale was .38, which was improved to .47 with removal of item 23. For the
Overprotection scale, the initial alpha was .50, which was improved to .59 with removal
of item 6. For the Rejection scale, the initial alpha was .29, which was improved to .47
with removal of item 25. After deletion of item 5 in the initial reliability analysis of the
total items, four items remain on the Discipline scale. The initial alpha for these four
items is .40, which was improved to .53 with the deletion of item 22. Two additional
items were added to this scale and include, If my child does something wrong, I will
ground him/her; and If my child does something wrong, I will throw away something that
he/she really likes to punish him/her.
On the current version of the API, participants are asked to rate the degree that
each statement applies to them using a three-point Likert-type scale (1 – No, 2 – Maybe,
3 – Yes). The 31-question measure contains the following five scales: Warmth (seven
items); Overprotection (eight items); Rejection (nine items); Discipline (six items); and
Encourage/Discourage (one item). Higher scores on the scales of warmth, rejection, and
overprotection mean more displays of warmth, rejection, overprotection. Higher scores
on the encourage/discourage scale represent high encouraging behaviors while lower
scores on this scale mean more discouraging behaviors. Higher scores on the discipline
scale represent more harsh (physical) punishment behaviors. For purposes of the current
89
study, the discipline and encourage/discourage scales were not utilized as these variables
were beyond the scope of the current study.
Factor analyses were performed to examine the scale structure of the API using
the data from the 325 completed questionnaires from the current study. An attempt to
force the anticipated three-factor solution using the Principal Components method with
Varimax rotation revealed that, together, the three factors explained 38% of the variance
with the first factor solution explaining 17%, the second explaining 11%, and the third
explaining 10% of the total variance. The first factor, Warmth, is reflective of displays of
interest in the child’s life and verbal and nonverbal affection and love. The second
factor, Rejection, contains items describing behaviors that demonstrate non-acceptance of
the child’s individual characteristics and abilities. The third factor, overprotection, is
reflective of behaviors that are representative of over-involvement and restriction. Factor
loadings are presented in Appendix H.
Factor analyses were performed to examine the scale structure of the API for all
items within the three scales using the data from the 223 questionnaires completed by the
public school participants in the current study. An attempt to force the anticipated threefactor solution using the Principal Components method with Varimax rotation revealed
that, together, the three factors explained 38% of the variance with the first factor
solution explaining 21%, the second explaining 11%, and the third explaining 6% of the
total variance. Factor loadings are presented in Appendix I.
Factor analyses were performed to examine the scale structure of the API for all
Juvenile Detention Center participants in the current study. An attempt to force the
90
anticipated three-factor solution using the Principal Components method with Varimax
rotation revealed that, together, the three factors explained 41% of the variance with the
first factor solution explaining 23%, the second explaining 11%, and the third explaining
7% of the total variance. Factor loadings are presented in Appendix I.
Reliability analyses using the data from the 223 questionnaires completed by
public school participants from the current study revealed an overall scale reliability for
the 31 items of the API to be .80, which could not be improved by eliminating any of the
present items. Separate reliability analyses for each of the three individual factors
revealed a Cronbach alpha of .80 for Anticipated Warmth, .59 for Anticipated
Overprotection, and .64 for Anticipated Rejection. Reliability could not be improved for
any of the three scales by removing any of the items present within each scale.
Reliability analyses were performed on the API using the data from the 102
questionnaires completed by Juvenile Detention Center participants from the current
study. The overall reliability for the 31 items of the API was .78, which could not be
improved by eliminating any of the present items. Separate reliability analyses for each
of the three individual factors revealed a Cronbach alpha of .80 for Anticipated Warmth,
.56 for Anticipated Overprotection, and .61 for Anticipated Rejection. Reliability could
not be improved for any of the scales by removing any of the items present within each
scale.
Past Parenting Experiences. The Perceptions of Past Parenting Scale (PPPS;
Appendix J) was used to measure past parenting experiences. The 31 questions within
the PPPS were adapted from the Anticipated Future Parenting Index (API) described
above. Two questions were added to the beginning of the PPPS asking the participant to
91
indicate who they will be referring to when they answer the questions about their mother
figure (question 1) and father figure (question 2), making the PPPS a total of 33 items.
Participants are asked to rate the degree that each individual statement applies to them
using a Three-point Likert-type scale (1 – No, 2 – Maybe, 3 – Yes). Each question
provides choices for the participant to indicate the degree to which each behavior applies
to each parent (mother and father figures) separately. The measure contains five scales
that mirror the API scales, including the following: Warmth (seven items);
Overprotection (eight items); Rejection (nine items); Discipline (six items); and
Encourage/Discourage (one item). Higher scores on the scales of warmth, rejection, and
overprotection mean more displays of warmth, rejection, overprotection. Higher scores
on the encourage/discourage scale represent high encouraging behaviors, while lower
scores on this scale mean more discouraging behaviors. Higher scores on the discipline
scale represent more harsh (physical) punishment behaviors. For purposes of the current
study, the discipline and encourage/discourage scales were not utilized as these variables
were beyond the scope of the current study.
Factor analyses were performed to examine the scale structure of the PPPS for all
items within the three scales using the data from the 325 completed questionnaires from
the current study. An attempt to force the anticipated three-factor solution using the
Principal Components method with Varimax rotation revealed that, together, the three
factors explained 47% of the variance with the first factor solution explaining 19%, the
second explaining 16%, and the third explaining 12% of the total variance. The first
factor, Warmth, is reflective of displays of interest in the child’s life and verbal and
nonverbal affection and love. The second factor, Rejection, contains items describing
92
behaviors that demonstrate non-acceptance of the child’s individual characteristics and
abilities. The third factor, overprotection, is reflective of behaviors that are
representative of over-involvement and restriction. Factor loadings are presented in
Appendix K.
Factor analyses were also performed to examine the scale structure of the PPPS
for father and mother items separately using the data from the 325 completed
questionnaires from the current study. An attempt to force the anticipated three-factor
solution using the Principal Components method with Varimax rotation revealed that for
father items, together, the three factors explained 59% of the variance with the first factor
solution explaining 35%, the second explaining 15%, and the third explaining 9% of the
total variance. Factor loadings are presented in Appendix L. An attempt to force the
rotation revealed that for mother items, together, the three factors explained 54% of the
variance with the first factor solution explaining 29%, the second explaining 14%, and
the third explaining 11% of the total variance. Factor loadings are presented in Appendix
M.
public school participants from the current study. An attempt to force the anticipated
three-factor solution using the Principal Components method with Varimax rotation
revealed that, together, the three factors explained 45% of the variance with the first
factor solution explaining 26%, the second explaining 11%, and the third explaining 8%
of the total variance. Due to the results of the factor analyses of the PPPS, the three
93
scales of warmth, overprotection, and rejection were combined into one positive
parenting variable for use in data analyses for the current study. Factor loadings are
presented in Appendix N.
Juvenile Detention Center participants from the current study. An attempt to force the
rotation revealed that, together, the three factors explained 52% of the variance with the
first factor solution explaining 29%, the second explaining 13%, and the third explaining
10% of the total variance. Due to the results of the factor analyses of the PPPS, the three
scales of warmth, overprotection, and rejection were combined into one positive
parenting variable for use in data analyses for the current study. Factor loadings are
presented in Appendix O.
Reliability analyses using the data from the 218 questionnaires completed by
public school participants in the current study revealed an overall scale reliability for the
31 items of the PPPS to be .91, which could not be improved by eliminating any of the
present items. Separate reliability analyses for each of the three individual factors
revealed a Cronbach alpha of .91 for Warmth, .76 for Overprotection, and .88 for
Rejection. Reliability could not be improved for any of the three scales by removing any
of the items present within each scale. Reliability analyses were performed separately on
each of the scales for Father and Mother. Father’s Rejection was .83, Mother’s Rejection
was .84; Father’s Overprotection was .72, Mother’s Overprotection was .61; Father’s
94
Warmth was .90, Mother’s warmth was .89. Reliability could not be improved for any of
the scales by removing any of the items present within each scale.
Using the data from the 100 questionnaires completed by Juvenile Detention
Center participants in the current study, reliability analyses revealed overall scale
reliability for the 31 items of the PPPS to be .91, which could not be improved by
eliminating any of the present items. Separate reliability analyses for each of the three
individual factors revealed a Cronbach alpha of .92 for Warmth, .83 for Overprotection,
and .82 for Rejection. Reliability could not be improved for any of the scales by
removing any of the items present within each scale. Reliability analyses were performed
separately on each of the scales for Father and Mother. Father’s Rejection was .68,
Mother’s Rejection was .78; Father’s Overprotection was .85, Mother’s Overprotection
was .73; Father’s Warmth was .94, Mother’s warmth was .91. Reliability could not be
improved for any of the scales by removing any of the items present within each scale.
Child Maltreatment. A questionnaire pertaining to experiences of maltreatment
(Appendix P), specifically sexual abuse, physical abuse, physical neglect, and emotional
abuse, was developed based on recent research on maltreatment (Bernstein et al., 2003;
Kaplan, Pelcovitz, & Labruna, 1999). Each targeted maltreatment experience is
measured by four questions that were adapted from the Child Trauma Questionnaire
(CTQ; Bernstein et al., 2003), a screening measure for maltreatment histories in both
clinical and nonreferred groups. Participants were asked to rate the degree that each
individual statement applies to them using a four-point Likert-type scale (1 – never true,
2 – rarely true, 3 – sometimes true, 4 – often true). Examples of questions related to
sexual abuse include, Someone tried to make me touch them or they tried to touch me in a
95
sexual way; Someone made threats that they would hurt me or tell lies about me if I did
not do sexual things with them. Examples of physical abuse questions include, I was
punished with a belt, board, or other object; I was hit or beaten badly enough that it was
noticed by someone like a babysitter, teacher, or doctor. Examples of questions
pertaining to physical neglect include, I have felt like there was no one to take care of me
and protect me; I was not taken to the doctor when I was sick or needed a checkup.
Questions related to emotional abuse include, I have been called mean names by people
in my family; I have been scared of being hurt by someone in my family.
The Youth Psychopathic Traits Inventory (YPI; Andershed et al.,2002; Appendix
Q). The YPI is a self-report measure of psychopathic personality traits in youth aged 12
to 18. This measure was chosen for use in the current study because it is appropriate for
use with a community as well as a delinquent sample while other available measures
were designed for use only with delinquent populations.
Andershed and colleagues specifically designed the YPI to overcome the
problems inherent in measuring traits associated with psychopathy through use of selfreport. Items were formulated to indirectly, rather than transparently, measure the
various traits. Specifically, items were developed to appear positive or admirable to
individuals with psychopathic traits but not to others. From an initial pool of six to ten
items, the best five items were selected to comprise each subscale based on reliability
analyses. The final version of the YPI consists of 50 items, ten subscales with five items
each. The subscales include Dishonest Charm (glibness and superficial charm),
Grandiosity (grandiosity/egocentricity), Lying (frequent lying and lying with ease),
Manipulation (conning and manipulative traits), Callousness (callousness and lack of
96
empathy), Unemotionality (shallow affect/poverty in affective reactions),
Remorselessness (lack of adequate feelings of guilt and remorse), Impulsivity, Thrillseeking (need for stimulation and excitement, proneness to boredom), and
Irresponsibility. Participants are asked to rate the degree that each individual statement
applies to them using a four-point Likert-type scale (1 – does not apply at all, 2 – does
not apply well, 3 – applies fairly well, 4 – applies very well).
Reliability and validity of the YPI were examined using a large community
sample of 1,024 (553 female) 16-year-olds (Andershed et al., 2002). Questions
pertaining to conduct problems (property offenses, serious property offenses, violent
offenses, serious violent offenses, vandalism, use of illegal drugs, and caught by police),
early behavioral problems (what participants had done before starting seventh grade),
poor behavioral control (aggressive behavior), and problems with hyperactivity,
impulsivity, and inattention were asked using a self-report format. Results indicated
acceptably high alpha reliabilities ranging from .66 to .82 for each of the subscales of the
YPI.
Principal axis factor analyses with Oblique Promax rotation revealed a distinctive
three-factor structure. Confirmatory factor analyses were used to test the three-factor
model. The YPI subscales of Dishonest Charm, Lying, Grandiosity, and Manipulation
made up the Grandiose-manipulative dimension; Callousness, Unemotionality, and
Remorselessness comprised the Callous-unemotional dimension; and Impulsivity,
Irresponsibility, and Thrill-seeking made up the Impulsive-irresponsible dimension.
Confirmatory factor analyses fit indices suggested a good fit to the data for both boys and
girls.
97
Validity of the YPI was examined through correlational analyses between the
personality dimensions measured by the YPI and conduct problems. Significant
correlations existed between conduct problems and the YPI total and the three
dimensions for both boys and girls. Early behavioral problems, poor behavioral control,
and hyperactivity, impulsivity, and inattention were also found to be strongly correlated
with the YPI total and dimensions. Additional correlational analyses using teachers’
reports of problem behaviors revealed the YPI total score to be highly positively
correlated with teacher-rated problem behaviors, and negatively correlated with school
achievement.
PTSD Symptomatology. Questions related to symptoms of PTSD were based on
Pynoos and colleagues’ (1998) UCLA PTSD Index for DSM-IV (Child Version,
Revision 1). A total of 20 questions were selected to measure symptoms of PTSD that
include re-experiencing (five questions), increased arousal (five questions), and
avoidance behavior (eight questions). Two questions inquire into specific feelings about
traumatic events (Appendix R). Participants are asked to rate the degree that each
individual statement applies to them using a four-point Likert-type scale (1 – never true,
2 – rarely true, 3 – sometimes true, 4 – often true). PTSD severity is obtained by
calculating a total score.
Social Desirability. Questions to measure socially desirable responding were
adapted from the Crandall Social Desirability Test for Children, Short Form (CSDTC-SF;
Carifio, 1994). The original version of the CSDTC was developed to measure the
tendency of children and adolescents to give socially desirable answers rather than
answers reflecting the individual’s true opinion. This 48-item measure was reduced to
98
twelve items using factor analytic techniques to enhance its usefulness in research and
program evaluation (Carifio). Higher scores indicate stronger tendencies to respond in a
socially desirable manner. For use in the current study, the measure was entitled About
Me (Appendix S). The short form was significantly related to middle school students’
tendency to agree with myths about alcohol and drinking (F (1, 254) = 6.1; p < .01;
Carifio).
Procedure
Participants were recruited from public schools in the suburban Northwest Ohio
area and the Lucas County Juvenile Detention Center. Public school administrators were
contacted and information about the current study was presented. Permission was
granted by the principal of three public high schools. The researcher visited each school
and verbally presented information about the study to students and distributed parental
consent forms within study halls. Students who brought back signed parental consents on
the day of the researcher’s follow-up visit or were age 18 or older were provided
information and gave written informed consent immediately prior to their participation in
the study.
At the Detention Center, the presiding administrative judge was presented with
information about the current study and his written consent to recruit participants from
within the detention center was obtained. This judge retains temporary guardianship of
the adolescents while they are detained in the juvenile detention center and has the right
to grant consent for participation in research studies. Adolescents within the detention
center were provided information about the study and informed of their right to
participate or decline participation. Volunteering detention center participants provided
99
written consent prior to their participation in the study. Each participant was also
provided the contact number of an advocate that they could use to discuss any concerns
about the study. All participants were informed of the risks and benefits of the study and
that they would suffer no consequences if they should decide not to participate or to
discontinue participation.
Upon obtaining written consent, participants completed a packet of measures that
included the five self-report measures previously described. The five measures were
administered in the following order, Perceptions of Future Parenting (API); Symptoms of
Trauma Questionnaire (PTSD); Youth Psychopathy Inventory – Callous/Unemotional
scale; Traumatic Events Questionnaire (maltreatment); and Perceptions of Past Parenting
Scale (PPPS). This order was established in an effort to obtain perceptions of anticipated
future parenting styles that have not been directly affected by completion of the
perceptions of past parenting measure (PPPS). Six additional brief self-report measures
that were associated with a separate study were also included in the packet. These
additional questionnaires measured exposure to real life violence, media violence, general
psychopathology, hostility, aggression, and empathy.
The measures were administered within the classroom setting (study halls) for the
public school participants. Participants in the Juvenile Detention Center were taken from
their holding area in groups of up to six to an available office space within the detention
center Psychology Department to complete the measures. Total completion time for all
measures was approximately 45 to 50 minutes for public school participants and 60 to 90
minutes for detention center participants. The experimenter was present throughout
administration of the questionnaires to answer any questions. No substantive questions
100
were asked by public school participants. Juvenile Detention Center participants
sometimes asked questions related to the content of the question, specifically clarification
on what the question was asking. A few of the Juvenile Detention Center participants
asked to have the entire packet of items read to them due to their reading level and
inability to read and/or understand the items. All participants were offered a piece of
candy for their participation. Public school participants were offered the opportunity to
enter a drawing for a twenty-five dollar gift certificate to a local mall.
101
Chapter Four
Results
Data Analyses
Due to the notable demographic differences between the public school and
Juvenile Detention Center samples, analyses were performed separately by group.
Preliminary Analyses.
Means and standard deviations were calculated and are presented separately by
public school and Juvenile Detention Center participant groups for items within the API
in Table 6, the PPPS in Table 7, PTSD symptoms in Table 8, YPI in Table 9,
Maltreatment experiences in Table 10, and About Me (social desirability) in Table 11.
Anticipated warmth, rejection, and overprotection scores for each participant were
obtained by summing the relevant items from the API for each of these three scales. For
the total public school sample, the average score for anticipated warmth was 20.18 (SD =
1.68), for anticipated rejection 11.41 (SD = 2.11), and for anticipated overprotection
15.02 (SD = 2.60). Gender differences were significant for anticipated rejection (t(215) =
3.801, p < .01, d = -.52) with males scoring higher and anticipated warmth (t(215) = 2.808, p < .01, d = .39) with females scoring higher. Gender differences were not
significant for anticipated overprotection (t(215) = .710, p > .05, d = -.10). Means and
standard deviations are presented in Table 12.
102
Table 6
Means and Standard Deviations of Individual Items Within the API for Public School and
Juvenile Detention Center (JDC) Participants
ITEM
Public School
Warmth Scale
1. I will spend one-on-one time
with my children
8. I will attend my child(ren)’s sporting
events and other extracurricular activities
13. I will express affection and caring towards
my child(ren) through words and gestures
16. I will use verbal statements to praise and
encourage my child
18. I will listen to my child(ren)
23. I will show interest in what is going on in
my child’s life
28. I will make sure my child(ren) feels like
he/she can come to me for anything
Overprotection Scale
2. I will require my child(ren) to check in
regularly when out
6. I will try to instill fear in my child(ren) so
that he/she will be afraid to do things
10. I will insist on meeting and approving
all of my child(ren)’s friends
11. It will be hard for me to let my child(ren)
become independent
14. My child(ren) will be expected to tell me
who they are going to be with, where they
are going, what they are planning to do, and
why they want to do it before being allowed
to go out
17. My child(ren) will not be allowed to do things
that other children are allowed to do because
I will be afraid that something will happen
to them
21. I will make my child(ren) feel like he/she
can’t handle things on his/her own
24. I am likely to be overly worried that
something might happen to my child(ren)
Rejection Scale
3. I will make my child(ren) feel like he/she is
not good enough
7. I will compare my child to siblings or other
children
103
M
SD
JDC
M
SD
2.88
.37
2.96
.24
2.91
.31
2.89
.37
2.83
.41
2.64
.59
2.87
2.91
.36
.30
2.79
2.89
.49
.37
2.89
.36
2.85
.41
2.89
.38
2.89
.37
2.59
.56
2.80
.45
1.37
.62
1.60
.75
2.07
.69
2.47
.64
1.80
.71
1.92
.77
2.45
.65
2.49
.64
1.48
.56
1.95
.69
1.25
.55
1.47
.66
2.02
.72
2.23
.77
1.13
.43
1.15
.52
1.16
.42
1.31
.61
9. I will probably favor one child over another
15. I will try to understand and support my
child(ren)’s choices (reverse scored)
19. I will show interest in what my child(ren)
is interested in (reverse scored)
20. I will probably expect too much from
my children
25. I will make decisions for my child
29. No matter how well my child does at
something, I will tell them they could
have done better
31. I will listen to and try to understand
my child(ren) (reverse scored)
Discipline Scale
5. If my child(ren) does something wrong
I will ground him/her
12. I will spank my child when he/she does
something wrong
22. When my child does something wrong,
I will discuss what was done wrong and
why it was wrong with him/her
26. If my child does something wrong, I will
throw away something that he/she really
likes to punish him/her
27. I will give my child added chores to do
as a means of punishment
30. I will use a belt, paddle, or other object
to punish my child
Note. Scores range from 1 to 3 for each item
104
1.15
.41
1.17
.47
1.06
.23
1.18
.45
1.18
.40
1.14
.42
1.70
1.64
.70
.61
1.76
2.05
.72
.67
1.35
.62
1.86
.80
1.05
.25
1.15
.50
2.26
.59
2.44
.59
1.55
.67
1.88
.65
2.81
.45
2.75
.50
1.14
.40
1.34
.57
2.18
.67
2.25
.67
1.13
.42
1.57
.72
Warmth Scale
3. My parents spend one-on-one time
with me
10. My parents come to my school activities
and other activities
15. my parents express affection towards me by
giving me hugs and saying they love me
18. When I do something right, my parents tell
me I did a good job
20. My parents listen to me
25. My parents show interest in what is going on
in my life
30. My parents make sure I feel like I can come
to them for anything
4. My parents want to know where I am all
the time and make me check in when I’m out
8. My parents try to scare me by telling me that
bad things might happen so that I am afraid to
do things
12. My parents want to know all of my friends
13. My parents try to stop me from becoming
independent
ITEM
.80
.68
.74
.76
.78
.76
.63
.77
.60
2.26
2.52
2.31
2.28
2.24
2.27
1.35
2.15
1.31
105
.79
2.16
1.48
1.39
2.41
2.51
2.44
2.49
2.61
2.47
2.52
2.35
2.43
.74
2.18
.70
.64
.67
.68
.74
.68
.63
.68
.69
.77
.69
Mother
M
SD
Father
M
SD
Public School
1.35
1.45
1.74
1.88
1.84
1.93
1.96
1.89
1.82
1.64
.66
.72
.80
.88
.91
.91
.91
.89
.86
.79
.80
Father
SD
1.78
M
JDC
1.52
1.76
2.21
2.43
2.39
2.39
2.49
2.39
2.35
2.05
2.31
.74
.85
.79
.74
.80
.79
.70
.75
.79
.83
.72
Mother
M
SD
Means and Standard Deviations of Individual Items Within the PPPS for Public School and Juvenile Detention Center (JDC) Participants
Table 7
16. I am expected to tell my parents who I am
going to be with, where I am going, what
I am planning to do, and why I want to do it
before being allowed to go out
19. My parents do not allow me to do things
they are afraid that something will happen t
to me
23. My parents try to make me feel like I can’t
handle things on my own
26. My parents tend to be overly worried that
something might happen to me
Rejection Scale
5. My parents make me feel like I am not
good enough
9. My parents think I am not as good as my
brother or sister or other children
11. My parents like my brother or sister more
than they like me
17. My parents try to understand me and what
I want (reverse scored)
21. My parents and I are interested in the same
things (reverse scored)
22. My parents expect too much from me
27. My parents try to make decisions for me
31. No matter how well I do at something, my
parents tell me that I could have done better
33. My parents listen to and try to understand
me (reverse scored)
.77
.67
.67
.72
.67
.62
.66
.76
.70
.72
.69
.65
.74
2.21
1.53
1.45
1.78
1.47
1.36
1.39
1.73
1.86
1.74
1.67
1.49
1.70
106
1.50
1.54
1.89
1.77
1.83
1.51
1.41
1.38
1.45
2.05
1.57
1.64
2.44
.65
.72
.69
.71
.68
.69
.66
.66
.67
.72
.72
.67
.67
2.02
1.64
2.30
1.60
1.65
2.10
1.39
1.42
1.65
1.73
1.47
1.60
1.79
.90
.80
.79
.72
.74
.89
.72
.71
.83
.80
.70
.77
.83
1.59
1.84
2.02
1.82
1.98
1.63
1.58
1.57
1.49
2.16
1.69
1.89
2.28
.79
.78
.73
.78
.75
.76
.79
.79
.77
.81
.77
.79
.69
Discipline Scale
7. To punish me when I do something wrong,
my parents ground me
14. I get hit by my parents when I do something
wrong
24. When I do something wrong, my parents
explain to me what was done wrong and
why it was wrong
28. When I do something wrong, my parents
throw away something of mine that I really
like to punish me
29. When I do something wrong, my parents make
me to extra jobs at home
32. My parents hit me with a belt, paddle, or other
object to punish me when I do something wrong
.75
.43
.77
.45
.74
.49
1.74
1.18
2.21
1.16
1.64
1.20
107
1.14
1.74
1.18
2.34
1.18
1.85
.41
.73
.49
.75
.47
.74
1.42
1.58
1.33
1.78
1.37
1.86
.71
.75
.62
.82
.65
.83
1.59
2.03
1.49
2.22
1.67
2.14
.76
.77
.73
.76
.75
.74
Table 8
Means and Standard Deviations of Individual Items Within the Measure of PTSD Symptoms for
Public School and Juvenile Detention Center (JDC) Participants
ITEM
Public School
M
1. I watch out for danger or things that I am
afraid of
2. I get very upset, afraid, or sad when something
reminds me of a bad thing that happened to me
3. Thoughts, pictures, or sounds of a bad thing that
happened to me come into my mind when I
don’t want them to and they upset me
4. I feel grouchy, angry or mad
5. I have dreams about a bad thing that happened to
me or other bad dreams
6. I feel like I am back when the bad thing happened
and living through it again
7. I feel like being by myself and not being with
my friends
8. I feel alone inside and not close to other people
9. I try not to talk about, think about, or have
feelings about a bad thing that happened to me
10. I have trouble feeling happy or loved
11. I have trouble feeling sad or angry
12. I feel jumpy and easily started, like when I hear
a loud noise or when something surprises me
13. I have trouble getting to sleep or I wake up a lot
during the night
14. I think that part of a bad thing that happened to
me is my fault
15. I have trouble remembering parts of a bad thing
that happened to me
16. I have trouble concentrating or paying attention
17. I try to stay away from people, places, or things
that make me remember a bad thing that
happened
18. When something reminds me of a bad thing that
happened, I have strong feelings in my body,
like my heart beating fast, my head aches, or
my stomach aches
19. I think that I will not live a long life
20. I am afraid that a bad thing that happened to me
will happen again
108
SD
JDC
M
SD
2.79
.86
2.97
.88
2.44
1.01
2.76
1.00
2.13
2.48
.98
.81
2.27
2.62
1.07
.82
1.95
.93
2.17
1.09
1.68
.88
1.99
.99
2.06
2.10
.92
1.04
2.13
2.21
.88
.99
2.48
1.96
1.96
1.06
.99
.89
2.58
2.02
1.85
1.08
1.03
.95
2.26
.99
2.37
1.06
2.48
1.08
2.76
1.09
2.30
1.00
2.47
1.02
1.96
2.57
.90
1.05
1.92
2.50
1.00
1.07
2.15
1.04
2.46
1.05
2.22
2.07
1.02
1.04
2.27
2.16
1.12
1.07
2.09
1.03
2.37
1.10
Table 9
Means and Standard Deviations of Individual Items Within the Youth Psychopathic Traits
Inventory (YPI) for Public School and Juvenile Detention Center (JDC) Participants
ITEM
Public School
1. I usually feel calm when other people
are scared
2. I have the ability not to feel guilt and regret
about things that I think other people would feel
guilty about
3. I think that crying is a sign of weakness, even if
no one sees you
4. When other people have problems, it is often
their own fault, therefore, one should not help
them
5. I seldom regret things I do, even if other people
feel that they are wrong
6. It’s important to me not to hurt other people’s
feelings
7. To be nervous and worried is a sign of weakness
8. When someone finds out about something that
I’ve done wrong, I feel more angry than guilty
9. I often become sad or moved by watching sad
things on TV or film
10. What scares others usually doesn’t scare me
11. I don’t understand how people can be touched
enough to cry by looking at things on TV or
a movie
12. To feel guilt and remorseful about things you
have done that have hurt other people is a
sign of weakness
13. I don’t let my feelings affect me as much as
other people’s feelings seem to affect them
14. To feel guilt and regret when you have done
something wrong is a waste of time
15. I usually become sad when I see other people
crying or being sad
109
JDC
M
SD
M
SD
2.76
.80
2.59
1.02
2.23
.91
2.30
1.06
2.11
1.02
2.13
1.19
1.57
.70
1.96
1.01
2.22
.98
2.36
1.04
1.73
1.92
.92
.89
2.25
2.00
1.03
.97
2.21
1.01
2.53
.99
2.35
2.49
1.07
.86
2.81
2.56
1.04
1.03
2.02
1.06
2.36
1.12
1.76
.88
1.99
1.02
2.36
.99
2.34
1.09
1.98
.94
2.25
1.03
2.39
.94
2.67
1.04
Table 10
Means and Standard Deviations of Individual Items Within the Measure of Maltreatment
Experiences for Public School and Juvenile Detention Center (JDC) Participants
ITEM
Public School
1. I didn’t have enough to eat
2. I have been called mean names by people
in my family
3. I have been scared of being hurt by someone
in my family
4. I have felt like there was no one to take care
of me and protect me
5. I was punished with a belt, board, or other object
6. Someone tried to make me do or watch sexual
things
7. Someone in my family hit me so hard that it
left marks or bruises
8. Someone tried to make me touch them or they
tried to touch me in a sexual way
9. I felt that someone in my family hated me
10. My parents were too drunk or high to take care
of the family
11. I had sex with someone a lot older than me
(more than five years older)
12. Someone in my family said things that were
hurtful or insulting to me
13. I was hit or beaten badly enough that it was
noticed by someone like a babysitter, teacher
or doctor
14. Someone made threats that they would hurt me
or tell lies about me if I did not do sexual things
with them
15. Someone in my family hit or beat me badly
enough that I had to see a doctor
16. I was not taken to the doctor when I was sick
or needed a checkup
110
JDC
M
1.89
SD
.94
M
1.96
SD
1.01
2.18
.99
2.37
1.06
1.67
.96
1.82
1.06
1.63
1.60
.95
.94
1.87
2.36
1.13
1.07
1.29
.76
1.53
.99
1.46
.83
2.01
1.12
1.30
1.79
.78
1.02
1.56
2.09
1.02
1.18
1.21
.58
1.51
.93
1.21
.67
2.30
1.26
2.03
1.01
2.29
1.13
1.18
.61
1.50
.93
1.15
.60
1.39
.84
1.09
.43
1.39
.86
1.43
.82
1.71
.99
Table 11
Means and Standard Deviations Within the Measure of Social Desirability for Public
School and Juvenile Detention Center (JDC) Participants
ITEM
Public School
M
1.
M
SD
1.22
.42
1.25
.43
2. Sometimes I do not feel like doing
what my teachers want me to do
1.20
.40
1.22
.41
3. Sometimes I have felt like throwing
things or breaking them
1.37
.48
1.25
.43
I never talk back to my parent or
guardian
1.80
.40
1.68
.47
When I make a mistake, I always
admit that I am wrong
1.59
.49
1.59
.49
6. I sometimes feel like making fun
of other people
1.35
.48
1.29
.46
I always wash my hands before
every meal
1.66
.48
1.49
.50
Sometimes I wish I could just hang
out instead of going to school
1.10
.31
1.29
.46
I have never been tempted to break
a law or rule
1.75
.43
1.80
.40
10. Sometimes I dislike helping my
parent or guardian even though I know
they need my help around the house
1.17
.38
1.37
.49
11. Sometimes I say things just to
impress my friends
1.58
.49
1.52
.50
12. I never should when I feel angry
1.81
Note. Scores range from 1 to 2 for each item.
.39
1.80
.40
4.
5.
7.
8.
9.
I am always respectful to older people
SD
JDC
111
Table 12
API scales of Anticipated Warmth, Anticipated Rejection, and Anticipated Overprotection
in Future Parenting Means and Standard Deviations for Public School and Juvenile
Detention Center (JDC) Participants by Gender
Public School
Parenting Behavior
M
SD
JDC
M
SD
________________________________________________________________________
Anticipated Warmth*
Males
19.93
1.71
20.02
1.64
Females
20.54
1.44
19.09
3.48
Males
11.89
2.27
12.60
2.37
Females
10.85
1.72
14.18
3.49
Males
15.12
2.75
16.96
2.59
Females
14.87
2.43
16.73
3.29
Anticipated Rejection*
Anticipated Overprotection*
*Note. Possible range of scores: Anticipated Warmth 7 to 21; Anticipated Overprotection 8 to 24;
Anticipated Rejection 9 to 27
112
For the JDC sample, the average score for anticipated warmth was 19.92 (SD =
1.91), for anticipated rejection 12.76 (SD = 2.52), and for anticipated overprotection
16.93 (SD = 2.64). Gender differences were significant for anticipated rejection (t(100) =
-1.98, p < .05, d = .63) with males scoring higher. Gender differences were not
significant for anticipated warmth (t(100) = 1.52, p > .05, d = -.49) or anticipated
overprotection (t(100) = .267, p > .05, d = -.09). Means and standard deviations are
Independent t-tests were performed to compare the means for each of the scales of
the API for the two groups. Significantly higher anticipated rejection was reported by the
Juvenile Detention Center participants (M = 12.76, SD = 2.52) than public school
participants (M = 11.41, SD = 2.11), t(325) = 5.049, p < .01, d = .60. Higher anticipated
overprotection was also reported by the Juvenile Detention Center participants (M =
16.93, SD = 2.64) than the public school participants (M = 15.02, SD = 2.60), t(325) =
6.109, p < .01, d = .73. A significant difference did not exist between the two groups for
anticipated warmth (t(325) = -1.252, p > .05, d = -.15).
Total maltreatment experiences for each participant were obtained by summing all
items from the maltreatment measure. For the total public school sample, the average
total maltreatment score was 24.13 (SD = 8.30). Gender differences were not significant
(t(212) = -1.77, p > .05, d = .24 ). Means and standard deviations are presented in Table
13. For the JDC sample, the average total maltreatment score was 29.64 (S = 10.53).
Gender differences were not significant (t(99) = -1.73, p > .05, d = .58). Means and
standard deviations are presented in Table 13. Independent t-test revealed that the
113
Juvenile Detention Center sample (M = 29.64, SD = 10.53) reported significantly more
maltreatment experiences than the public school sample (M = 24.13, SD = 8.30), t(320) =
5.056, p < .01, d = .61.
Total PTSD symptoms for each participant were obtained by summing all items
from the measure of PTSD symptoms. For the total public school sample, the average
total PTSD symptoms score was 44.13 (SD = 10.72). Gender differences were significant
(t(215) = -3.03, p < .05, d = .41) with females scoring higher. Means and standard
deviations are presented in Table 13. For the JDC sample, the average total PTSD
symptoms score was 46.86 (SD = 11.81). Gender differences were not significant (t(100)
= -1.21, p > .05, d = .39). Means and standard deviations are presented in Table 13. The
Juvenile Detention Center participants reported significantly higher PTSD symptoms on
average than the public school sample, t(323) = 2.065, p < .05, d = .25.
Total callous-unemotional trait for each participant was obtained by summing all
relevant items from the YPI. For the total public school sample, the average total
callous-unemotional score was 21.72 (SD = 5.46). Gender differences were significant
(t(213) = 6.72, p < .01, d = -.92) with males scoring higher. Means and standard
deviations are presented in Table 13. For the JDC sample, the average total callousunemotional score was 23.67 (SD = 4.89). Gender differences were not significant (t(99)
= 1.15, p > .05, d = -.38). Means and standard deviations are presented in Table 13. The
Juvenile Detention Center participants reported more callous-unemotional psychopathy
trait on average than the public school participants, t(319) = 3.074, p < .01, d = .37.
114
Table 13
Total Maltreatment Experiences, Total Callous-Unemotional Psychopathy, Total PTSD
Symptoms, and Social Desirability Total Means and Standard Deviations for Public
School and Juvenile Detention Center (JDC) Participants by Gender
Public School
Variable
M
SD
JDC
M
SD
________________________________________________________________________
Maltreatment*
Males
22.93
7.46
28.94
9.78
Females
24.89
8.59
34.90
14.72
Males
23.96
4.99
23.88
5.03
Females
19.37
4.99
22.00
3.30
Males
42.05
10.98
46.37
11.69
Females
46.39
10.07
50.91
12.24
Males
3.81
2.46
4.08
2.46
Females
3.97
2.34
5.41
2.78
Callous-Unemotional*
PTSD Symptoms*
Social Desirability*
*Note. Possible range of scores: Maltreatment 16 to 64; Callous-Unemotional 10 to 40; PTSD Symptoms
20 to 80; Social Desirability 0 to 12.
115
A social desirability total was obtained by summing all items from the About Me
measure after recoding of specific items. For the total public school sample, the average
total social desirability score was 3.93 (SD = 2.40). Gender differences were not
significant (t(212) = .47, p > .05, d = .07). Means and standard deviations are presented
in Table 13. For the JDC sample, the average total social desirability score was 4.32 (SD
= 2.56). Gender differences were not significant (t(97) = 1.74, p > .05, d = .54). Means
and standard deviations are presented in Table 13. A significant difference did not exist
between samples on the social desirability total (t(319) = 1.31, p > .05, d = .16).
Perceived warmth, rejection, and overprotection scores for mothers and fathers for
each participant were obtained by summing the relevant items from the PPPS for each of
these three scales. The average score for father’s warmth for the total public school
sample was 15.96 (SD = 4.19), for father’s rejection 14.41 (SD = 4.01), and for father’s
overprotection 14.06 (SD = 3.24). Gender differences were not significant for fathers’
warmth (t(211) = .61, p > .05, d = -.08), rejection (t(211) = -1.60, p > .05, d = .22), or
presented in Table 14. The average score for mother’s warmth for the total public school
sample was 17.31 (SD = 3.80), for mother’s rejection 14.26 (SD = 4.07), and for mother’s
overprotection 15.50 (SD = 2.83). Gender differences were not significant for mother’s
warmth (t(211) = -.68, p > .05, d = .10), rejection (t(211) = -1.34, p > .05, d = .19), or
For the total JDC sample, the average score for father’s warmth was 12.86 (SD =
5.16), for father’s rejection 15.77 (SD = 3.78) and for father’s overprotection 13.01 (SD =
116
4.31). Gender differences were significant for father’s warmth (t(98) = 2.39, p < .05, d =
-.80) with males scoring higher and father’s rejection (t(98) = -3.18, p < .01, d = 1.06)
with females scoring higher. Gender differences were not significant for father’s
overprotection (t(98) = 1.09, p > .05, d = -.37). Means and standard deviations are
Table 14
PPPS Father’s Warmth, Rejection, and Overprotection Means and Standard Deviations
for Public School and Juvenile Detention Center (JDC) Participants by Gender
Public School
Parenting Behavior
M
SD
JDC
M
SD
________________________________________________________________________
Father’s Warmth*
Males
16.17
3.82
13.25
5.24
Females
15.82
4.50
9.20
3.36
Males
13.96
3.46
15.27
3.46
Females
14.84
4.45
19.00
3.94
Males
14.05
2.96
13.05
4.33
Females
14.04
3.49
11.50
3.21
Father’s Rejection*
Father’s Overprotection*
*Note. Possible range of scores: Father’s Warmth 7 to 21; Father’s Overprotection 8 to 24; Father’s
Rejection 9 to 27
117
Table 15
PPPS Mother’s Warmth, Rejection, and Overprotection Means and Standard Deviations
for Public School and Juvenile Detention Center (JDC) Participants by Gender
Public School
Parenting Behavior
M
SD
JDC
M
SD
________________________________________________________________________
Mother’s Warmth*
Males
17.18
3.51
16.49
4.34
Females
17.54
3.99
14.90
4.07
Males
13.84
3.45
15.04
3.95
Females
14.59
4.53
18.70
4.16
Males
15.58
2.81
15.76
3.53
Females
15.44
2.85
16.30
4.06
Mother’s Rejection*
Mother’s Overprotection*
*Note. Possible range of scores: Mother’s Warmth 7 to 21; Mother’s Overprotection 8 to 24; Mother’s
Rejection 9 to 27
118
The average score for mother’s warmth for the JDC sample was 16.35 (SD =
4.31), for mother’s rejection 15.53 (SD = 4.20) and for mother’s overprotection 15.94
(SD = 3.63). Gender differences were not significant for mother’s warmth (t(99) = 1.11,
p > .05, d = -.37) or mothers’ overprotection (t(99) = -.45, p > .05, d = .15). Gender
differences were significant for mother’s rejection (t(99) = -2.76, p < .05, d = .92) with
females scoring higher. Means and standard deviations are presented in Table 15.
Independent t-test comparisons of the means of the two samples for each of the
scales of the PPPS revealed some significant differences. Public school participants
reported experiencing significantly more father’s warmth, t(316) = -5.676, p < .01, d = .69), and father’s overprotection, t(316) = -2.397, p < .05, d = -.29, and less father’s
rejection, t(316) = 2.851, p = .01, d = .35, than the Juvenile Detention Center participants.
Regarding perceptions of mother’s past parenting behaviors, public school participants
reported experiencing significantly more mother’s warmth, t(317) = -2.021, p < .05, d = .24, and less mother’s rejection, t(317) = 2.574, p = .01, d = .31, than Juvenile Detention
Center participants. Differences between groups were not significant for mother’s
overprotection, t(317) = 1.191, p > .05, d = .14.
For the purposes of analysis, all items within the PPPS were combined to reflect
one positive parenting variable for mother behaviors and one positive parenting variable
for father behaviors. Negative items were recoded and relevant items were totaled
separately for father items and for mother items, producing a total father positive
parenting score and a total mother positive parenting score, with a higher score reflecting
the experience of more positive parenting behaviors. For the public school sample, the
119
average total father’s positive parenting score was 55.49 (SD = 7.82) and the average
total mother’s positive parenting score was 55.56 (SD = 7.86) Gender differences were
not significant for father’s positive parenting (t(211) = 1.15, p < .05, d = -.16) or for
mother’s positive parenting (t(211) = .23, p < .05, d = -.03). Means and standard
deviations are presented in Table 16. For the JDC sample, the average total father’s
positive parenting score was 52.08 (SD = 7.14) and the average total mother’s positive
parenting score was 52.87 (SD = 7.50). Gender differences were significant for father’s
positive parenting (t(98) = 2.78, p < .05, d = -.93) and for mother’s positive parenting
(t(99) = 2.44, p < .05, d = -.81) with males scoring higher. Means and standard
deviations are presented in Table 16. The public school sample reported more father’s
positive parenting (t(316) = -3.709, p < .01, d = -.45) and more mother’s positive
parenting (t(317) = -2.878, p < .01, d = -.35) than Juvenile Detention Center participants.
Bivariate correlations between primary study variables are presented in Table 17.
As anticipated, significant correlations existed at the p < .05 level between anticipated
warmth in future parenting and past parenting experiences of father’s rejection and
overprotection. Anticipated warmth was negatively correlated with father’s rejection and
positively correlated with father’s overprotection. Significant correlations existed at the
p < .01 level between anticipated warmth in future parenting and the callous-unemotional
trait, total maltreatment experiences, and past parenting experiences of father’s warmth,
mother’s rejection and mother’s warmth. Anticipated warmth was negatively correlated
with the callous-unemotional trait, total maltreatment experiences, and mother’s
rejection. Anticipated warmth was positively correlated with both father’s warmth and
mother’s warmth.
120
Table 16
Total Father’s and Mother’s Positive Parenting Means and Standard Deviations for
Public School and Juvenile Detention Center (JDC) Participants by Gender
Public School
M
SD
JDC
M
SD
________________________________________________________________________
Father’s Positive Parenting*
Males
56.17
6.67
52.93
6.81
Females
54.94
8.60
46.70
5.70
Males
55.76
6.90
53.69
7.08
Females
55.51
8.63
47.90
7.45
Mother’s Positive Parenting*
*Note. Possible range of scores: 24 to 72
A significant positive correlation existed at the p < .05 level between anticipated rejection
in future parenting and past parenting experience of father’s rejection. Significant
correlations existed at the p < .01 level between anticipated rejection in future parenting
and total symptoms of posttraumatic stress, the callous-unemotional trait, total
maltreatment experiences, and past parenting experiences of father’s warmth, mother’s
121
rejection, and mother’s overprotection. Anticipated rejection was negatively correlated
with past parenting experience of father’s warmth and positively correlated with total
symptoms of posttraumatic stress, the callous-unemotional trait, total maltreatment
experiences, and past parenting experiences of mothers’ rejection and mother’s
overprotection. Anticipated overprotection in future parenting was positively correlated
at the p < .01 level with total symptoms of posttraumatic stress and past parenting
experience of mother’s overprotection.
Partial correlations were performed to examine relationships between study
variables after controlling for the effects of social desirability and gender. Significant
correlations continued to exist between study variables after removing the effects of both
gender and social desirability. Results are presented in Table 18.
122
.16**
.22**
-.12*
.39**
-.00
-.08
-.03
-.05
-.06
.03
-.06
3. AntProtect
4. AntReject
5. PTSD
6. CalUnemo
7. Maltreat
8. F Reject
9. F Protect
10. F Warm
11. M Reject
12. M Protect
13. M Warm
.25**
.04
-.17**
.25**
.12*
-.11*
-.25**
-.25**
-.07
-.51**
.14*
.07
.23**
.02
-.05
.06
.06
.09
.09
.20**
.28**
-.07
.18**
.17**
-.21**
-.04
.14*
.22**
.30**
.20**
-.20**
.16**
.31**
-.26**
.03
.33**
.49**
.02
-.21**
.05
.15**
-.22**
-.06
.08
.18**
-.44**
-.02
.43**
-.40**
-.09
.39**
-.38**
.04
.52**
-.67*
.00
.13*
.38**
.00
.48**
.51**
.09
-.39**
-.67**
.14*
.29**
*p < .05, **p < .01
123
14. Social Desire
-.04
.07
.16**
.03
-.16**
-.13*
-.12*
-.13*
.05
.17**
-.10
.05
.16**
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
-.12*
2. AntWarm
1. Gender
Variable
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Bivariate Correlations Between all Study Variables
Table 17
-.43**
-.04
-.17*
-.21**
-.11*
.10
.21**
-.15**
.06
.23**
3. AntReject
4. PTSD
5. CalUnemo
6. Maltreat
7. F Reject
8. F Protect
9. F Warm
10. M Reject
11. M Protect
12. M Warm
.07
.22**
.05
-.06
.06
.10
.12*
.05
.28**
.30**
-.04
.18**
.18**
-.18**
-.03
.17**
.19**
.21**
.22**
-.18**
.18**
.30**
-.23**
.03
.31**
.47**
.02
-.18**
.05
.17**
-.17**
-.04
.09
.14*
-.43**
-.01
.44**
-.38**
-.08
.40**
-.36**
.02
.48**
-.67**
-.04
.15**
.38**
-.03
.51**
.48**
.10
-.37**
-.69**
.11
.29**
*p < .05, **p < .01
124
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
.10
2. AntProtect
1. AntWarm
Variable
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Partial Correlations Between All Study Variables
Table 18
Regression Analyses
The Enter method was utilized for all regression analyses. For the public school
sample, all regressions were performed separately by gender due to initial regression
analyses indicating significant gender differences.
Positive Parenting, Maltreatment Experiences, and PTSD Symptoms as Predictors of
Callous-Unemotional Psychopathy
Multiple regression analyses were conducted to examine predictors of callousunemotional psychopathy. Independent variables were father’s positive parenting,
maltreatment experiences, and PTSD symptoms. Social desirability was entered in Step
1. Father’s positive parenting was entered in Step 2. In Step three, maltreatment and
PTSD scores were entered. For the public school sample, for females, social desirability
accounted for 5% of the variance in callous-unemotional psychopathy (F [1, 106] = 5.00,
p < .05). Father’s positive parenting accounted for another 8% of the variance and the
change in R was significant (F [1, 105] = 9.51, p < .01). Maltreatment and PTSD
explained another 1% of the variance above the other two variables and the change in R
was not significant. Father’s positive parenting was a significant predictor of callousunemotional psychopathy with less experiences of father’s positive parenting related to
higher scores on callous-unemotional psychopathy among females. Results of the
regression are presented in Table 19. For males in the public school sample, social
desirability accounted for 3% of the variance in callous-unemotional psychopathy (F [1,
99] = 2.45, p > .05). Father’s positive parenting explained less than one percent of the
variance above the first variable and the change in R was not significant. Maltreatment
and PTSD accounted for an additional 1% of the variance above the first two variables
125
and the change in R was not significant. None of the variables were found to be
significant predictors of callous-unemotional psychopathy among males. Results of the
regression are presented in Table 20.
Table 19
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Father’s Positive Parenting,
Maltreatment Experiences, and PTSD Symptoms Predicting Callous-Unemotional
Psychopathy for the Public School Sample, Females Only
________________________________________________________________________
Variable
∆R²
B
SE B
β
________________________________________________________________________
Step 1
Social Desirability
.05
-.45
.20
-.21*
-.33
.20
-.15
-.17
.05
-.29**
Social Desirability
-.31
.21
-.15
Father’s Positive Parenting
-.14
.07
-.25*
Maltreatment
.06
.07
.11
-.02
.06
-.04
Step 2
Social Desirability
.08
Step 3
PTSD
.01
Note. * p < .05. ** p < .01; N = 107
126
Table 20
Psychopathy for the Public School Sample, Males Only
________________________________________________________________________
Variable
∆R²
B
SE B
β
________________________________________________________________________
Step 1
Social Desirability
.02
-.32
.21
-.16
-.31
.21
-.15
-.02
.08
-.03
Social Desirability
-.27
.22
-.13
-.00
.08
-.01
Maltreatment
.05
.08
.09
-.00
.05
-.01
Step 2
Social Desirability
.00
Step 3
PTSD
.01
Note. * p < .05. ** p < .01; N = 100
127
For the Juvenile Detention Center sample, Step 1 of the regression also included
gender. Gender and social desirability accounted for 2% of the variance in callousunemotional psychopathy (F [2, 93] = 1.10, p > .05). Father’s positive parenting
explained an additional less than one percent of the variance over the first two variables
and the change in R was not significant. Maltreatment and PTSD accounted for an
additional 2% of the variance and the change in R was not significant. None of the
variables were found to be significant predictors of callous-unemotional psychopathy
among the Juvenile Detention Center participants. Results from the regression are
The same regression analyses were repeated using the mother’s positive parenting
variable entered in Step 2 in place of the father’s positive parenting variable.
Independent variables were mother’s positive parenting, maltreatment experiences, and
PTSD symptoms. Social desirability was entered in Step 1. Mother’s positive parenting
was entered in Step 2. In Step three, maltreatment and PTSD scores were entered.
Among females in the public school sample, social desirability accounted for 5% of the
variance in callous-unemotional psychopathy (F [1, 106] = 5.00, p < .05). Mother’s
positive parenting explained an additional 8% of the variance and the change in R was
significant (F [1, 105] = 9.83, p < .01). Maltreatment and PTSD accounted for an
additional 1% of the variance above the other two variables and the change in R was not
significant. Mother’s positive parenting was found to significantly predict callousunemotional psychopathy with less experiences of mother’s positive parenting related to
higher scores on callous-unemotional psychopathy among females. Results of the
128
Table 21
Psychopathy for the Juvenile Detention Center Sample
________________________________________________________________________
Variable
∆R²
B
SE B
β
________________________________________________________________________
Step 1
Gender
1.23
1.61
.08
-.21
.19
-.12
.95
1.71
.06
-.24
.20
-.13
.03
.08
.06
Gender
1.14
1.72
.07
Social Desirability
-.26
.20
-.14
.02
.08
.04
Maltreatment
.06
.05
.14
-.04
.05
-.12
Social Desirability
.02
Step 2
Gender
Social Desirability
.00
Step 3
PTSD
.02
Note. * p < .05. ** p < .01; N = 95
129
Table 22
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Mother’s Positive Parenting,
Psychopathy for the Public School Sample, Females Only
________________________________________________________________________
Variable
∆R²
B
SE B
β
________________________________________________________________________
Step 1
Social Desirability
.05
-.45
.20
-.21*
-.30
.20
-.14
-.17
.05
-.30**
Social Desirability
-.27
.21
-.13
Mother’s Positive Parenting
-.15
.06
-.25*
Maltreatment
.07
.07
.13
-.02
.06
-.05
Step 2
Social Desirability
.08
Step 3
PTSD
.01
Note. * p < .05. ** p < .01; N = 107
Among the males in the public school sample, social desirability accounted for
2% of the variance in callous-unemotional psychopathy (F [1, 99] = 2.45, p > .05).
Mother’s positive parenting explained another 2% of the variance and the change in R
130
was not significant. Maltreatment and PTSD explained less than one percent additional
variance above the first two variables and the change in R was not significant. None of
the variables were found to significantly predict callous-unemotional psychopathy among
males. Results of the regression are presented in Table 23.
Table 23
Psychopathy for the Public School Sample, Males Only
________________________________________________________________________
Variable
∆R²
B
SE B
β
________________________________________________________________________
Step 1
Social Desirability
.02
-.32
.21
-.16
-.24
.21
-.12
-.11
.08
-.15
Social Desirability
-.21
.22
-.10
-.10
.08
-.14
.04
.08
.07
-.01
.05
-.04
Step 2
Social Desirability
.02
Step 3
Maltreatment
PTSD
.00
Note. * p < .05. ** p < .01; N = 100
131
For the Juvenile Detention Center sample, Step 1 of the regression included
gender. Gender and social desirability accounted for 2% of the variance in callousunemotional psychopathy (F [2,94] = 1.03, p > .05). Mother’s positive parenting
accounted for an additional 1% of the variance over the first two variables and the change
in R was not significant. Maltreatment and PTSD accounted for an additional 1% of the
variance and the change in R was not significant. None of the variables were found to be
significant predictors of callous-unemotional psychopathy among Juvenile Detention
Center participants. Results from the regression are presented in Table 24.
Positive Parenting, Maltreatment, PTSD Symptoms, and Callous-Unemotional
Psychopathy as predictors of Delinquency
Multiple regression analyses were conducted to examine predictors of
delinquency. Independent variables were positive past parenting experiences,
maltreatment experiences, PTSD symptoms, and callous-unemotional psychopathy.
Social desirability was entered in Step 1. Father’s positive parenting was entered in Step
2. In Step three, maltreatment and PTSD scores were entered and the callousunemotional psychopathy score was entered in Step 4.
132
Table 24
Psychopathy for the Juvenile Detention Center Sample
________________________________________________________________________
Variable
∆R²
B
SE B
β
________________________________________________________________________
Step 1
Gender
1.35
1.62
.09
-.19
.19
-.10
Gender
1.65
1.67
.11
Social Desirability
-.19
.20
-.10
-.05
.07
-.08
Gender
1.62
1.68
.11
Social Desirability
-.22
.20
-.12
-.04
.08
-.08
Maltreatment
.04
.06
.09
-.04
.05
-.12
Social Desirability
.02
Step 2
.01
Step 3
PTSD
.01
Note. * p < .05. ** p < .01; N = 95
133
Among females in the public school sample, social desirability accounted for 3%
of the variance in delinquency (F [1, 106] = 2.92, p > .05). Father’s positive parenting
accounted for an additional 2% of the variance and the change in R was not significant.
Maltreatment and PTSD explained an additional 22% of the variance above the first two
variables and the change in R was significant (F [2, 103] = 15.25, p < .01). Callousunemotional psychopathy accounted for an additional less than one percent of the
variance and the change in R was not significant. Maltreatment significantly predicted
delinquency with more reported maltreatment experiences related to higher reported
arrests. PTSD was also found to significantly predict delinquency with fewer reported
PTSD symptoms related to higher reported arrests. Results of the regression are
For males in the public school sample, social desirability accounted for 5% of the
variance in delinquency (F [1, 99] = 4.68, p < .05). Father’s positive parenting explained
less than one percent additional variance over the first variable and the change in R was
not significant. Maltreatment and PTSD accounted for an additional 31% of the variance
over the first two variables and the change in R was significant (F [2, 96] = 22.68, p <
.01). Callous-unemotional psychopathy accounted for less than one percent additional
variance in delinquency and the change in R was not significant. Maltreatment was
found to significantly predict delinquency with more reported maltreatment experiences
related to higher reported arrests. Results of the regression are presented in Table 26.
134
Table 25
Maltreatment Experiences, PTSD Symptoms, and Callous-Unemotional Psychopathy
Predicting Delinquency for the Public School Sample, Females Only
________________________________________________________________________
Variable
∆R²
B
SE B
β
________________________________________________________________________
Step 1
Social Desirability
.03
-.13
.07
-.16
-.10
.07
-.14
-.02
.02
-.13
Social Desirability
-.07
.07
-.10
.01
.02
.10
Maltreatment
.12
.02
.61**
-.04
.02
-.26**
-.07
.07
-.10
.02
.02
.10
Maltreatment
.12
.02
.61**
-.04
.02
-.26**
.00
.03
.01
Step 2
Social Desirability
.02
Step 3
PTSD
.22
Step 4
Social Desirability
PTSD
Callous-Unemotional Trait
.00
Note. * p < .05. ** p < .01; N = 107
135
Table 26
Predicting Delinquency for the Public School Sample, Males Only
________________________________________________________________________
Variable
∆R²
B
SE B
β
________________________________________________________________________
Step 1
Social Desirability
.05
-.19
.09
-.21*
-.19
.09
-.21*
-.00
.03
-.01
Social Desirability
-.07
.08
-.08
.04
.03
.13
Maltreatment
.19
.03
.64**
-.03
.02
-.16
-.06
.08
-.08
.04
.03
.13
Maltreatment
.18
.03
.64**
-.03
.02
-.16
.01
.04
.05
Step 2
Social Desirability
.00
Step 3
PTSD
.31
Step 4
Social Desirability
PTSD
.00
Note. * p < .05. ** p < .01; N = 100
136
For the Juvenile Detention Center sample, gender was included in Step 1 of the
regression. Gender and social desirability accounted for 7% of the variance in
delinquency (F [2, 88] = 3.16, p = .05). Father’s positive parenting accounted for less
than one percent of the variance over the first two variables and the change in R was not
significant. Maltreatment and PTSD explained an additional 1% of the variance above
the other three variables and the change in R was not significant. Callous-unemotional
psychopathy explained less than one percent additional variance and the change in R was
not significant. Social desirability was a significant predictor of delinquency with higher
social desirability scores related to lower reported number of arrests. Results of the
The same regression analyses were performed with the mother’s positive
parenting variable entered in Step 2 in place of the father’s positive parenting variable.
Independent variables were mother’s positive parenting, maltreatment experiences, PTSD
symptoms and callous-unemotional psychopathy. Social desirability was entered in Step
1. Mother’s positive parenting was entered in Step 2. In Step three, maltreatment and
PTSD scores were entered and the callous-unemotional psychopathy score was entered in
Step 4.
137
Table 27
Predicting Delinquency for the Juvenile Detention Center Sample
________________________________________________________________________
Variable
∆R²
B
SE B
β
________________________________________________________________________
Step 1
Gender
.45
1.78
.03
Social Desirability
.07
-.50
.21
Gender
.09
1.88
Social Desirability
-.53
.21
-.27*
.04
.08
.07
Gender
.38
1.91
.02
Social Desirability
-.53
.22
-.27*
.06
.08
.09
Maltreatment
.04
.06
.10
-.00
.05
-.01
.38
1.93
.02
-.53
.22
-.27*
.06
.09
.09
Maltreatment
.04
.06
.10
-.00
.05
-.01
.00
.11
.00
-.25*
Step 2
.00
.01
Step 3
PTSD
.01
Step 4
Gender
Social Desirability
PTSD
.00
Note. * p < .05. ** p < .01; N = 91
138
of the variance in delinquency (F [1,106] = 2.92, p > .05). Mother’s positive parenting
accounted for an additional 4% of the variance and the change in R was significant (F
[1,105] = 3.99, p < .05). Maltreatment and PTSD explained an additional 20% of the
variance above the first two variables and the change in R was significant (F [2, 103] =
13.58, p < .01). Callous-unemotional psychopathy accounted for an additional less than
one percent of the variance and the change in R was not significant. Maltreatment was
found to significantly predict delinquency with more reported maltreatment experiences
related to more reported arrests. PTSD also significantly predicted delinquency with
fewer reported symptoms of PTSD related to higher reported arrests. Results of the
variance in delinquency (F [1, 99] = 4.68, p < .05). Mother’s positive explained less than
one percent additional variance and the change in R was not significant. Maltreatment
and PTSD accounted for an additional 30% of the variance in delinquency above the first
two variables and the change in R was significant (F [2, 96] = 22.11, p < .01). Callousunemotional psychopathy accounted for less than one percent additional variance and the
change in R was not significant. Maltreatment was the only significant predictor of
delinquency among males with more reported maltreatment experiences related to higher
reported arrests. Results of the regression are presented in Table 29.
139
Table 28
Predicting Delinquency for the Public School Sample, Females Only
________________________________________________________________________
Variable
∆R²
B
SE B
β
________________________________________________________________________
Step 1
Social Desirability
.03
-.12
.07
-.16
-.08
.07
-.12
-.03
.02
-.20*
Social Desirability
-.07
.07
-.09
-.01
.02
-.05
Maltreatment
.11
.02
.54**
-.04
.02
-.28*
Social Desirability
-.07
.07
-.10
-.01
.02
-.06
Maltreatment
.11
.02
.55**
PTSD
-.04
.02
-.28*
-.00
.03
-.02
Step 2
Social Desirability
.04
Step 3
PTSD
.20
Step 4
.00
Note. * p < .05. ** p < .01; N = 107
140
Table 29
Predicting Delinquency for the Public School Sample, Males Only
________________________________________________________________________
Variable
∆R²
B
SE B
β
________________________________________________________________________
Step 1
Social Desirability
.05
-.19
.09
-.21*
-.18
.09
-.21*
-.00
.03
-.02
-.07
.08
-.09
.03
.03
.10
Maltreatment
.18
.03
.63**
-.02
.02
-.15
Social Desirability
-.06
.08
-.08
.03
.03
.11
Maltreatment
.18
.03
.63**
PTSD
-.02
.02
-.15
.02
.04
.06
Step 2
Social Desirability
.00
Step 3
Social Desirability
PTSD
.30
Step 4
.00
Note. * p < .05. ** p < .01; N = 100
141
regression. Gender and social desirability accounted for 6% of the variance in
delinquency (F [2, 89] = 3.01, p = .05). Mother’s positive parenting accounted for less
than one percent of the variance and the change in R was not significant. Maltreatment
and PTSD explained less than one percent of the variance above the other three variables
and the change in R was not significant. Callous-unemotional psychopathy accounted for
less than one percent of the variance and the change in R was not significant. Social
desirability was a significant predictor of delinquency with higher social desirability
scores related to lower reported number of arrests. Results of the regression are
Positive Parenting Experiences, Maltreatment, PTSD Symptoms, and CallousUnemotional Psychopathy as Predictors of Anticipated Future Parenting Anticipated
Warmth in Future Parenting
Multiple regression analyses were performed to examine predictors of anticipated
warmth in future parenting. Independent variables were perceptions of past parenting
experiences, maltreatment experiences, PTSD symptoms, and callous-unemotional
psychopathy. Social desirability were entered in Step 1. Father’s positive parenting was
entered in Step 2. In Step 3, Maltreatment and PTSD were entered. Callous-unemotional
psychopathy was entered in Step 4.
142
Table 30
Predicting Delinquency for the Juvenile Detention Center Sample
________________________________________________________________________
Variable
∆R²
B
SE B
β
________________________________________________________________________
Step 1
Gender
.53
1.77
-.49
.21
Gender
.75
1.84
.04
Social Desirability
-.49
.21
-.25*
-.03
.07
-.05
Gender
.88
1.87
.05
Social Desirability
-.48
.21
-.24*
-.01
.09
-.02
.03
.07
.08
-.00
.05
-.02
.85
1.89
.05
Social Desirability
-.48
.22
-.24*
-.01
.09
-.02
Maltreatment
.03
.07
.08
PTSD
-.00
.05
-.02
.02
.11
.02
Social Desirability
.06
.03
-.25*
Step 2
.00
Step 3
Maltreatment
PTSD
.00
Step 4
Gender
.00
Note. * p < .05. ** p < .01; N = 91
143
of the variance in anticipated warmth in future parenting (F [1, 106] = 5.17, p < .05).
Father’s positive parenting accounted for an additional 3% of the variance and the change
in R was significant (F [1, 105] = 3.81, p = .05). Maltreatment and PTSD explained an
additional 4% of the variance above the first two variables and the change in R was not
significant. Callous-unemotional psychopathy explained an additional 4% of the
variance in anticipated warmth in future parenting and the change in R was significant (F
[1,102] = 5.21, p < .05). Callous-unemotional psychopathy was found to significantly
predict anticipated warmth in future parenting with higher callous-unemotional
psychopathy scores related to lower anticipated warmth. Results of the regression are
variance (F [1, 99] = 2.70, p > .05). Father’s positive parenting explained an additional
4% of the variance and the change in R approached significance (F [1, 98] = 3.62, p =
.06). Maltreatment and PTSD accounted for an additional 7% of the variance in
anticipated warmth in future parenting above the first two variables and the change in R
was significant (F [2, 96] = 3.90, p < .05). Callous-unemotional psychopathy explained
an additional 1% of the variance and the change in R was not significant. Maltreatment
was found to significantly predict anticipated warmth in future parenting with higher
reported maltreatment experiences related to lower anticipated warmth. Results of the
144
Table 31
Predicting Anticipated Warmth in Future Parenting for the Public School Sample,
Females Only
________________________________________________________________________
Variable
∆R²
B
SE B
β
________________________________________________________________________
Step 1
Social Desirability
.05
.13
.06
.22*
.11
.06
.18
.03
.02
.19*
Social Desirability
.11
.06
.18
.01
.02
.12
-.03
.02
-.23*
.02
.02
.15
Social Desirability
.08
.06
.14
.01
.02
.06
Maltreatment
-.03
.02
-.21
.02
.02
.15
-.06
.03
-.22*
Step 2
Social Desirability
.03
Step 3
Maltreatment
PTSD
.04
Step 4
PTSD
.04
Note. * p < .05. ** p < .01; N = 107
145
regression. Gender and social desirability explained 1% of the variance in anticipated
warmth in future parenting (F [2, 93] = .49, p > .05). Father’s positive parenting
explained less than one percent additional variance above the first two variables and the
change in R was not significant. Maltreatment and PTSD accounted for 3% additional
variance and the change in R was not significant. Callous-unemotional psychopathy
explained less than one percent additional variance and the change in R was not
significant. None of the variables were found to be significant predictors of anticipated
warmth in future parenting. Results of the regression are presented in Table 33.
The same regression analyses were performed with the mother’s positive
parenting variable entered in Step 2 the place of father’s positive parenting. Independent
variables were mother’s positive parenting, maltreatment experiences, PTSD symptoms
and callous-unemotional psychopathy. Social desirability was entered in Step 1.
Mother’s positive parenting was entered in Step 2. In Step three, maltreatment and PTSD
scores were entered and the callous-unemotional psychopathy score was entered in Step
4.
146
Table 32
Predicting Anticipated Warmth in Future Parenting for the Public School Sample, Males
Only
________________________________________________________________________
Variable
∆R²
B
SE B
β
________________________________________________________________________
Step 1
Social Desirability
.03
.12
.07
.16
.08
.07
.12
.05
.03
.19
Social Desirability
.04
.07
.06
.03
.03
.12
-.06
.03
-.30*
.00
.02
.03
Social Desirability
.03
.07
.04
.03
.03
.12
-.06
.03
-.29*
.00
.02
.03
-.03
.03
-.11
Step 2
Social Desirability
.04
Step 3
Maltreatment
PTSD
.07
Step 4
Maltreatment
PTSD
.01
Note. * p < .05. ** p < .01; N = 100
147
Table 33
Predicting Anticipated Warmth in Future Parenting for the Juvenile Detention Center
Sample
________________________________________________________________________
Variable
∆R²
B
SE B
β
________________________________________________________________________
Step 1
Gender
-.12
.51
-.03
-.06
.06
-.11
Gender
-.15
.54
-.03
Social Desirability
-.06
.06
-.11
.00
.02
.02
Gender
-.24
.54
-.05
Social Desirability
-.06
.06
-.10
.00
.03
.01
Maltreatment
-.02
.02
-.19
.01
.02
.09
Gender
-.23
.55
-.05
Social Desirability
-.06
.07
-.11
.00
.03
.01
Maltreatment
-.02
.02
-.18
.01
.02
.09
-.00
.03
-.03
Social Desirability
.01
Step 2
.00
Step 3
PTSD
.03
Step 4
PTSD
.00
Note. * p < .05. ** p < .01; N = 95
148
of the variance in anticipated warmth in future parenting (F [1, 106] = 5.17, p < .05).
Mother’s positive parenting explained an additional 3% of the variance and the change in
R was not significant. Maltreatment and PTSD accounted for an additional 4% of the
variance in anticipated warmth in future parenting above the first two variables and the
change in R was not significant. Callous-unemotional psychopathy explained an
additional 4% of the variance and the change in R was significant (F [1, 102] = 5.03, p <
.05). Callous-unemotional psychopathy was found to significantly predict anticipated
warmth in future parenting with lower scores on callous-unemotional psychopathy related
to higher anticipated warmth in future parenting. Results of the regression are presented
in Table 34.
variance in anticipated warmth in future parenting (F [1, 99] = 2.70, p > .05). Mother’s
positive parenting explained an additional 6% of the variance and the change in R was
significant (F [1, 98] = 6.77, p = .01). Maltreatment and PTSD accounted for an
additional 6% of the variance in anticipated warmth in future parenting above the first
two variables and the change in R was significant (F [2, 96] = 3.59, p < .05). Callousunemotional psychopathy explained an additional 1% and the change in R was not
significant. Maltreatment was found to significantly predict anticipated warmth in future
parenting with lower reported maltreatment experiences related to higher anticipated
warmth. Results of the regression are presented in Table 35.
149
Table 34
Predicting Anticipated Warmth in Future Parenting for the Public School Sample,
Females Only
________________________________________________________________________
Variable
∆R²
B
SE B
β
________________________________________________________________________
Step 1
Social Desirability
.05
.13
.06
.22*
.11
.06
.17
.03
.02
.18
Social Desirability
.10
.06
.17
.02
.02
.13
-.04
.02
-.24*
.02
.02
.16
Social Desirability
.08
.06
.14
.01
.02
.07
Maltreatment
-.03
.02
-.22
PTSD
.02
.02
.15
-.06
.03
-.22*
Step 2
Social Desirability
.03
Step 3
Maltreatment
PTSD
.04
Step 4
.04
Note. * p < .05. ** p < .01; N = 107
150
Table 35
Predicting Anticipated Warmth in Future Parenting for the Public School Sample, Males
Only
________________________________________________________________________
Variable
∆R²
B
SE B
β
________________________________________________________________________
Step 1
Social Desirability
.03
.12
.07
.16
.06
.07
.09
.06
.03
.26*
Social Desirability
.02
.07
.04
.04
.03
.20*
-.06
.03
-.29*
.00
.02
.05
Social Desirability
.01
.07
.03
.04
.03
.19
-.06
.03
-.28*
.00
.02
.05
-.03
.03
-.09
Step 2
Social Desirability
.06
Step 3
Maltreatment
PTSD
.06
Step 4
Maltreatment
PTSD
.01
Note. * p < .05. ** p < .01; N = 100
151
regression. Gender and social desirability accounted for one percent of the variance in
anticipated warmth in future parenting (F [2, 94] = .45, p > .05). Mother’s positive
parenting explained less than one percent additional variance and the change in R was not
significant. Maltreatment and PTSD accounted for an additional 3% of the variance
above the other three variables and the change in R was not significant. Callousunemotional psychopathy explained less than one percent additional variance and the
change in R was not significant. None of the variables were found to be significant
predictors of anticipated warmth in future parenting. Results of the regression are
Positive Parenting Experiences, Maltreatment, PTSD Symptoms, and CallousUnemotional Psychopathy as Predictors of Anticipated Rejection in Future Parenting
Multiple regression analyses were conducted to examine predictors of anticipated
rejection in future parenting. Independent variables were father’s positive parenting,
maltreatment experiences, PTSD symptoms, and callous-unemotional psychopathy.
Social desirability was entered in Step 1. Father’s positive parenting was entered in Step
2. In Step three, maltreatment and PTSD scores were entered and the callousunemotional psychopathy score was entered in Step 4.
152
Table 36
Predicting Anticipated Warmth in Future Parenting for the Juvenile Detention Center
Sample
________________________________________________________________________
Variable
∆R²
B
SE B
β
________________________________________________________________________
Step 1
Gender
-.10
.51
-.02
-.05
.06
-.10
Gender
-.13
.53
-.03
Social Desirability
-.05
.06
-.10
.00
.02
.02
Gender
-.18
.53
-.04
Social Desirability
-.05
.06
-.10
-.01
.03
-.06
Maltreatment
-.03
.02
-.21
.01
.02
.09
Gender
-.17
.53
-.04
Social Desirability
-.05
.06
-.10
-.01
.03
-.06
Maltreatment
-.03
.02
-.21
PTSD
.01
.02
.09
-.00
.03
-.02
Social Desirability
.01
Step 2
.00
Step 3
PTSD
.03
Step 4
.00
Note. * p < .05. ** p < .01; N = 95
153
of the variance in anticipated rejection in future parenting (F [1, 106] = 4.89, p < .05).
Father’s positive parenting accounted for an additional 2% of the variance and the change
in R was not significant. Maltreatment and PTSD explained less than one percent
additional variance in anticipated rejection in future parenting and the change in R was
not significant. Callous-unemotional psychopathy accounted for an additional 4% of the
variance above the first four variables and the change in R was significant (F [1, 102] =
4.74, p < .05). Callous-unemotional psychopathy significantly predicted anticipated
rejection in future parenting with higher scores on callous-unemotional psychopathy
related to higher anticipated rejection. Results of the regression are presented in Table
37.
For males in the public school sample, social desirability accounted for less than
one percent of the variance in anticipated rejection in future parenting (F [1, 99] = .03, p
> .05). Father’s positive parenting explained an additional 2% of the variance and the
change in R was not significant. Maltreatment and PTSD accounted for an additional
10% of the variance in anticipated rejection in future parenting above the first two
variables and the change in R was significant (F [2, 96] = 5.52, p = .01). Callousunemotional psychopathy accounted for an additional 3% of the variance and the change
in R approached significance (F [1, 95] = 3.54, p = .06). PTSD symptoms significantly
predicted anticipated rejection in future parenting with more reported symptoms of PTSD
38.
154
Table 37
Predicting Anticipated Rejection in Future Parenting for the Public School Sample,
Females Only
________________________________________________________________________
Variable
∆R²
B
SE B
β
________________________________________________________________________
Step 1
Social Desirability
.04
-.16
.07
-.21*
-.13
.07
-.18
-.02
.02
-.15
Social Desirability
-.14
.08
-.20
-.03
.02
-.17
Maltreatment
-.00
.03
-.01
-.01
.02
-.06
Social Desirability
-.12
.07
-.16
-.02
.02
-.12
Maltreatment
-.00
.03
-.03
PTSD
-.00
.02
-.05
.07
.04
.22*
Step 2
Social Desirability
.02
Step 3
PTSD
.00
Step 4
.04
Note. * p < .05. ** p < .01; N = 107
.
155
Table 38
Males Only
________________________________________________________________________
Variable
∆R²
B
SE B
β
________________________________________________________________________
Step 1
Social Desirability
.00
.01
.09
.02
.05
.10
.06
-.05
.04
-.16
.07
.10
.08
-.02
.04
-.07
.03
.03
.11
.05
.02
.27*
.09
.09
.11
-.02
.04
-.07
Maltreatment
.02
.03
.09
PTSD
.05
.02
.27*
.08
.04
.18
Step 2
Social Desirability
.02
Step 3
Social Desirability
Maltreatment
PTSD
.10
Step 4
Social Desirability
.03
Note. * p < .05. ** p < .01; N = 100
156
regression. Gender and social desirability accounted for 2% of the variance in anticipated
rejection in future parenting (F [2, 93] = 1.13, p > .05). Father’s positive parenting
accounted for an additional one percent of the variance and the change in R was not
significant. Maltreatment and PTSD explained an additional 3% of the variance above
the other three variables and the change in R was not significant. Callous-unemotional
psychopathy accounted for an additional 3% of the variance and the change in R was not
significant. None of the variables were found to significantly predict anticipated
rejection in future parenting. Results of the regression are presented in Table 39.
The same regression analyses were performed with mother’s positive parenting
entered in Step 2 in the place of father’s positive parenting. Independent variables were
mother’s positive parenting, maltreatment experiences, PTSD symptoms and callousunemotional psychopathy. Social desirability was entered in Step 1. Mother’s positive
parenting was entered in Step 2. In Step three, maltreatment and PTSD scores were
entered and the callous-unemotional psychopathy score was entered in Step 4.
157
Table 39
Predicting Anticipated Rejection in Future Parenting for the Juvenile Detention Center
Sample
________________________________________________________________________
Variable
∆R²
B
SE B
β
________________________________________________________________________
Step 1
Gender
-.82
.82
-.10
.08
.10
.09
-.51
.87
-.07
.12
.10
.12
-.04
.04
-.12
-.44
.87
-.06
.14
.10
.15
-.02
.04
-.06
Maltreatment
.00
.03
.00
.03
.03
.17
Gender
-.54
.87
-.07
Social Desirability
.16
.10
.17
-.02
.04
-.07
Maltreatment
-.00
.03
-.02
PTSD
.03
.03
.19
.08
.05
.16
Social Desirability
.02
Step 2
Gender
Social Desirability
.01
Step 3
Gender
Social Desirability
PTSD
.03
Step 4
.03
Note. * p < .05. ** p < .01; N = 96
158
of the variance in anticipated rejection in future parenting (F [1, 106] = 4.89, p < .05).
Mother’s positive parenting accounted for an additional 2% of the variance and the
change in R was not significant. Maltreatment and PTSD explained less than one percent
additional variance in anticipated rejection in future parenting and the change in R was
not significant. Callous-unemotional psychopathy accounted for an additional 4% of the
variance above the first four variables and the change in R was significant (F [1, 102] =
4.60, p < .05). Callous-unemotional psychopathy significantly predicted anticipated
rejection in future parenting with higher scores on callous-unemotional psychopathy
40.
For males in the public school sample, social desirability accounted for less than
one percent of the variance in anticipated rejection in future parenting (F [1, 99] = .03, p
> .05). Mother’s positive parenting explained an additional 4% of the variance and the
change in R approached significance (F [1, 98] = 3.69, p = .06). Maltreatment and PTSD
explained an additional 9% of the variance in anticipated rejection in future parenting
above the first two variables and the change in R was significant (F [2, 96] = 5.02, p =
.01). Callous-unemotional psychopathy accounted for an additional 3% of the variance
and the change in R approached significance (F [1, 95] = 3.17, p = .08). PTSD
significantly predicted anticipated rejection in future parenting with more reported
symptoms of PTSD related to higher anticipated rejection. Results of the regression are
159
Table 40
Females Only
________________________________________________________________________
Variable
∆R²
B
SE B
β
________________________________________________________________________
Step 1
Social Desirability
.04
-.16
.07
-.21*
-.13
.07
-.17
-.03
.02
-.16
Social Desirability
-.14
.08
-.18
-.03
.02
-.17
.00
.02
.02
-.01
.02
-.06
Social Desirability
-.12
.07
-.16
-.02
.02
-.12
Maltreatment
-.00
.02
-.01
PTSD
-.00
.02
-.05
.07
.04
.22*
Step 2
Social Desirability
.02
Step 3
Maltreatment
PTSD
.00
Step 4
.04
Note. * p < .05. ** p < .01; N = 107
160
Table 41
Males Only
________________________________________________________________________
Variable
∆R²
B
SE B
β
________________________________________________________________________
Step 1
Social Desirability
.00
.01
.09
.02
.06
.10
.07
-.06
.03
-.20
Social Desirability
.08
.10
.09
-.03
.04
-.10
.03
.03
.10
.05
.02
.26*
Social Desirability
.10
.10
.11
-.02
.04
-.08
Maltreatment
.02
.03
.09
PTSD
.05
.02
.27*
.07
.04
.17
Step 2
Social Desirability
.04
Step 3
Maltreatment
PTSD
.09
Step 4
.03
Note. * p < .05. ** p < .01; N = 100
161
rejection in future parenting (F [2, 94] = 1.14, p > .05). Mother’s positive parenting
accounted for less than one percent additional variance above the first two variables and
the change in R was not significant. Maltreatment and PTSD accounted for an additional
3% of the variance and the change in R was not significant. Callous-unemotional
psychopathy explained an additional 2% of the variance above the other variables and the
change in R was not significant. None of the variables significantly predicted anticipated
rejection in future parenting. Results of the regression are presented in Table 42.
Positive Parenting Experiences, Maltreatment, PTSD Symptoms, and CallousUnemotional Psychopathy as Predictors of Anticipated Overprotection in Future
Parenting
Multiple regression analyses were performed to examine predictors of anticipated
overprotection in future parenting. Independent variables were positive parenting
experiences, maltreatment experiences, PTSD symptoms, and callous-unemotional
psychopathy. Social desirability was entered in Step 1. Father’s positive parenting was
entered in Step 2. In Step three, maltreatment and PTSD scores were entered and the
callous-unemotional psychopathy score was entered in Step 4.
162
Table 42
Predicting Anticipated Rejection in Future Parenting for the Juvenile Detention Center
Sample
________________________________________________________________________
Variable
∆R²
B
SE B
β
________________________________________________________________________
Step 1
Gender
-.81
.82
-.10
.09
.10
.10
-.69
.84
-.09
.08
.10
.10
-.02
.04
-.07
-.58
.84
-.08
Social Desirability
.13
.10
.14
.00
.04
.01
Maltreatment
.00
.03
.01
.03
.02
.19
-.71
.84
-.09
Social Desirability
.15
.10
.15
.00
.04
.02
-.00
.03
-.00
.04
.02
.21
.07
.05
.16
Social Desirability
.02
Step 2
Gender
Social Desirability
.00
Step 3
Gender
PTSD
.03
Step 4
Gender
Maltreatment
PTSD
.02
Note. * p < .05. ** p < .01; N = 96
163
of the variance in anticipated overprotection in future parenting (F [1, 106] = 1.84, p >
.05). Father’s positive parenting explained an additional 1% of the variance and the
change in R was not significant. Maltreatment and PTSD accounted for an additional 2%
of the variance in anticipated overprotection in future parenting above the first two
variables and the change in R was not significant. Callous-unemotional psychopathy
accounted for less than one percent additional variance and the change in R was not
significant. None of the variables were significant predictors of anticipated
overprotection in future parenting. Results of the regression are presented in Table 43.
variance in anticipated overprotection in future parenting (F [1, 99] = 3.16, p > .05).
Father’s positive parenting accounted for an additional less than one percent of the
variance and the change in R was not significant. Maltreatment and PTSD explained an
additional 18% of the variance in anticipated overprotection in future parenting above the
first two variables and the change in R was significant (F [2, 96] = 10.62, p < .01).
Callous-unemotional psychopathy explained less than one percent additional variance
and the change in R was not significant. PTSD was found to significantly predict
anticipated overprotection in future parenting with more reported symptoms of PTSD
related to higher anticipated over protection. Results of the regression are presented in
Table 44.
164
Table 43
Predicting Anticipated Overprotection in Future Parenting for the Public School Sample,
Females Only
________________________________________________________________________
Variable
∆R²
B
SE B
β
________________________________________________________________________
Step 1
Social Desirability
.02
.14
.10
.13
.16
.10
.15
-.02
.03
-.09
.15
.11
.14
-.04
.03
-.04
.04
-.16
.01
.03
.07
Social Desirability
.14
.11
.14
-.04
.03
-.16
Maltreatment
-.04
.04
-.16
PTSD
.01
.03
.07
-.01
.05
-.02
Step 2
Social Desirability
.01
Step 3
Social Desirability
-.15
Maltreatment
PTSD
.02
Step 4
.00
Note. * p < .05. ** p < .01; N = 107
165
Table 44
Males Only
________________________________________________________________________
Variable
∆R²
B
SE B
β
________________________________________________________________________
Step 1
Social Desirability
.03
.20
.11
.18
.19
.12
.16
.02
.04
.05
Social Desirability
.21
.11
.19
.06
.04
.15
Maltreatment
.02
.04
.06
.10
.03
.41**
Social Desirability
.21
.11
.18
.06
.04
.15
Maltreatment
.02
.04
.06
PTSD
.10
.03
.40**
-.02
.05
-.04
Step 2
Social Desirability
.00
Step 3
PTSD
.18
Step 4
.00
Note. * p < .05. ** p < .01; N = 100
166
regression. Gender and social desirability explained 2% of the variance in anticipated
overprotection in future parenting (F [2, 93] = .69, p > .05). Father’s positive parenting
Maltreatment and PTSD explained an additional 9% of the variance above the other three
variables and the change in R was significant (F [2, 90] = 4.29, p < .05). Callousunemotional psychopathy accounted for another 5% of the variance and the change in R
was significant (F [1, 89] = 4.97, p < .05). Maltreatment was found to significantly
predict anticipated overprotection in future parenting with more reported maltreatment
experiences related to lower anticipated over protection. PTSD also significantly
predicted anticipated overprotection in future parenting with more reported symptoms of
PTSD related to more anticipated overprotection. Callous-unemotional psychopathy was
also a significant predictor of anticipated overprotection with higher scores on callousunemotional psychopathy related to more anticipated overprotection. Results of the
167
Table 45
Predicting Anticipated Overprotection in Future Parenting for the Juvenile Detention
Center Sample
________________________________________________________________________
Variable
∆R²
B
SE B
β
________________________________________________________________________
Step 1
Gender
-.53
.87
-.06
.08
.11
.09
-.25
.92
-.03
.12
.11
.12
-.03
.04
-.11
-.34
.90
-.04
.15
.11
.15
-.01
.04
-.04
Maltreatment
-.05
.03
-.21
.07
.03
.34*
Gender
-.47
.88
-.06
Social Desirability
.18
.10
.18
-.01
.04
-.05
Maltreatment
-.05
.03
-.24*
PTSD
.07
.03
.36**
.12
.05
.22*
Social Desirability
.02
Step 2
Gender
Social Desirability
.01
Step 3
Gender
Social Desirability
PTSD
.09
Step 4
.05
Note. * p < .05. ** p < .01; N = 96
168
The same regression analyses were performed with mother’s positive parenting
entered in Step 2 in the place of father’s positive parenting. Independent variables were
mother’s positive parenting, maltreatment experiences, PTSD symptoms and callousunemotional psychopathy. Social desirability was entered in Step 1. Mother’s positive
parenting was entered in Step 2. In Step three, maltreatment and PTSD scores were
entered and the callous-unemotional psychopathy score was entered in Step 4. Among
females in the public school sample, social desirability accounted for 2% of the variance
in anticipated overprotection in future parenting (F [1, 106] = 1.84, p > .05). Mother’s
positive parenting explained an additional less than one percent of the variance and the
change in R was not significant. Maltreatment and PTSD accounted for an additional 1%
of the variance above the first two variables and the change in R was not significant.
Callous-unemotional psychopathy explained less than one percent additional variance
and the change in R was not significant. None of the variables were found to be
significant predictors of anticipated overprotection in future parenting. Results of the
For males, social desirability accounted for 3% of the variance in anticipated
overprotection in future parenting (F [1, 99] = 3.16, p > .05). Mother’s positive parenting
explained an additional less than one percent of the variance and the change in R was not
significant. Maltreatment and PTSD accounted for an additional 17% of the variance
above the first two variables and the change in R was significant (F [2, 96] = 10.22, p <
.01). Callous-unemotional psychopathy explained an additional less than one percent of
the variance and the change in R was not significant. PTSD was found to significantly
169
predict anticipated overprotection in future parenting with more reported symptoms of
PTSD related to higher anticipated overprotection. Results of the regression are
Table 46
Females Only
________________________________________________________________________
Variable
∆R²
B
SE B
β
________________________________________________________________________
Step 1
Social Desirability
.02
.14
.10
.13
.12
.10
.12
.01
.03
.05
Social Desirability
.14
.11
.13
.01
.03
.05
Maltreatment
-.02
.03
-.07
.02
.03
.10
Social Desirability
.14
.11
.13
.01
.03
.05
Maltreatment
-.02
.04
-.08
PTSD
.02
.03
.10
.00
.05
.02
Step 2
Social Desirability
.00
Step 3
PTSD
.01
Step 4
.00
Note. * p < .05. ** p < .01; N = 107
170
Table 47
Males Only
________________________________________________________________________
Variable
∆R²
B
SE B
β
________________________________________________________________________
Step 1
Social Desirability
.03
.20
.11
.18
.20
.12
.18
-.00
.04
-.01
Social Desirability
.21
.11
.19
.04
.04
.12
Maltreatment
.01
.04
.04
.11
.03
.41**
Social Desirability
.21
.11
.18
.04
.04
.11
Maltreatment
.01
.04
.05
PTSD
.11
.03
.41**
-.01
.05
-.03
Step 2
Social Desirability
.00
Step 3
PTSD
.17
Step 4
.00
Note. * p < .05. ** p < .01; N = 100
171
overprotection in future parenting (F [2, 94] = .69, p > .05). Mother’s positive parenting
Maltreatment and PTSD accounted for an additional 9% above the other three variables
and the change in R was significant (F [2, 91] = 4.91, p = .01). Callous-unemotional
psychopathy accounted for an additional 4% of the variance and the change in R was
significant (F [1, 90] = 4.17, p < .05). Maltreatment was found to significantly predict
anticipated overprotection in future parenting with more reported maltreatment
experiences related to lower anticipated over protection. PTSD also significantly
predicted anticipated overprotection in future parenting with more reported symptoms of
PTSD related to more anticipated overprotection. Callous-unemotional psychopathy was
also a significant predictor of anticipated overprotection with higher scores on callousunemotional psychopathy related to more anticipated overprotection. Results of the
172
Table 48
Predicting Anticipated Overprotection in Future Parenting for the Juvenile Detention
Center Sample
________________________________________________________________________
Variable
∆R²
B
SE B
β
________________________________________________________________________
Step 1
Gender
-.54
.86
-.07
.08
.10
.09
-.22
.89
-.03
.08
.10
.09
-.05
.04
-.15
-.23
.86
-.03
.13
.10
.13
-.06
.04
-.19
Maltreatment
-.06
.03
-.28*
.06
.02
.31*
-.40
.85
-.05
Social Desirability
.15
.10
.15
-.05
.04
-.17
Maltreatment
-.07
.03
-.30*
PTSD
.07
.02
.34**
.11
.05
.20*
Social Desirability
.02
Step 2
Gender
Social Desirability
.02
Step 3
Gender
Social Desirability
PTSD
.09
Step 4
Gender
.04
Note. * p < .05. ** p < .01. N = 96
173
The results of the current study offer support to existing research specifically
related to the predictor and outcome variables examined. Additionally, these results
contribute important knowledge to the processes involved in the intergenerational
transmission of parenting styles. An overview of the findings of the current study are
174
-
-
Yes (-)
Yes (-)
-
Callous-unemotional
psych
PS
PS
JDC
Male female
Yes
(+)
PS
male
Yes (-)
Yes
(+)
Yes (-)
PS
female
Delinquency
JDC
175
Note. Direction of existing relationship is indicated by + or -
C-U Psych
PTSD
Maltreatment
Dad +
Parenting
Mom +
Parenting
Predictors
PS
female
Yes
(+)
Yes (-)
Yes (-) Yes (-)
Yes
(+)
PS
male
Ant Warmth
JDC
Outcome variables
Summary of Relationships Found Between Predictor and Outcome Variables
Table 49
Yes
(+)
PS
male
Yes
(+)
PS
female
Ant Reject
JDC
Yes
(+)
PS
male
PS
female
Yes
(+)
Yes
(+)
Yes (-)
JDC
Ant Overprotect
Chapter Five
Discussion
The purpose of the present study was to examine relationships among perceptions
of past parenting experiences, maltreatment experiences, PTSD symptoms, delinquency,
callous-unemotional psychopathy, and anticipated future parenting. It was anticipated
that past parenting experiences, maltreatment experiences, and existing symptoms
associated with PTSD would predict callous-unemotional psychopathy. Additionally,
past parenting experiences, maltreatment experiences, existing symptoms of PTSD, and
callous-unemotional psychopathy were expected to predict delinquency as well as
anticipated future parenting. The results of the current study supported many of these
predictions.
Parenting Measures
The current study utilized measures of past and future parenting that are currently
in development.
Past Parenting Experiences. The Perceptions of Past Parenting Scale (PPPS) was
utilized in the current study. Overall reliability analyses of the 31 items within the
measure revealed strong reliability (Cronbach alpha of .91). Reliability alphas were
identical for both samples. The PPPS was developed to contain three major scales of
176
warmth, rejection, and overprotection. Reliability analyses revealed robust alphas (.8 or
higher) for each of the scales of warmth, rejection, and overprotection across both
samples. However, results of factor analyses did not reveal a distinct three-factor
solution. A strong warmth dimension existed with all items loading on one factor within
both mother and father domains for both public school and detention center data.
Reliability alphas for father’s and mother’s warmth scales for both samples revealed
strong reliability alphas (.90 or higher). Reliability analyses of father’s and mother’s
rejection scales revealed adequate alphas of .7 or higher for both samples, with some
variability in father’s rejection across samples; .8 and .7 for public school and Juvenile
Detention Center respectively. Mother’s rejection alpha was .8 for both samples. For the
overprotection scale, reliability alphas were also adequate and variable for both father’s
and mother’s overprotection between samples, with father’s overprotection alphas of .7
and .9; mother’s overprotection alphas of .6 and .7 for public school and Juvenile
Detention Center samples respectively. However, factor analyses revealed the structure
of the scales of rejection and overprotection to be less distinct, with items within these
scales loading across two factors, the warmth factor and an overprotection/rejection
factor for both mother and father domains for both the public school and the detention
center data. Because of this, one positive parenting dimension was created for purposes
of major analyses by recoding negative items and summing all items into a total positive
parenting variable for both father and mother.
Anticipated Future Parenting. The Anticipated Future Parenting Index (API)
utilized in the current study to measure anticipated future parenting was developed to
mirror the three major scales within the PPPS of warmth, rejection, and overprotection.
177
Overall reliability analyses of the 31 items within the API revealed robust and consistent
alphas between samples (.8 for both samples). Scale reliability was strong for the
anticipated warmth dimension (.8 for both samples) with adequate reliability of .6 for
anticipated rejection and anticipated overprotection scales across samples. Results of the
factor analyses indicated a distinct warmth dimension with all items loading on one factor
for both the public school and the Juvenile Detention Center data. A distinct
overprotection scale also existed with most of the items loading on one factor for the data
from the public school sample; only two of the eight items within the scale loaded on the
“rejection” factor. However, the overprotection scale was not as distinct when analyzed
using the Juvenile Detention Center data, with four items within the scale loading on the
“overprotection” factor, three items loading on the “warmth” factor and one item on the
“rejection” factor. Regarding the rejection scale, five of the nine items within the scale
loaded on a distinct factor for the public school sample, with the other four items loading
on the warmth factor. For the Juvenile Detention Center data, the rejection scale was less
distinct, with four items loading on the rejection factor, three on the overprotection factor,
and two on the warmth factor. Overall, these results suggest a strong three-factor
structure within the API when the measure is used with a general population. The
structure becomes less reliable when used on special populations (e.g., forensic,
delinquent). This may be due to differing levels of motivation and/or effort with respect
to fully reading each item, attending to content, and answering honestly. Differing
interpretations of the content of individual items within each scale across samples may
also be reflected in the inconsistent reliability and factor structure of the measures across
samples. For instance, overprotection behaviors may be perceived as expressions of
178
warmth by participants in one sample and not the other, as reflected in many of the
overprotection items loading on the warmth factor for the Juvenile Detention Center
population. For the Juvenile Detention Center participants, any parental involvement
may be viewed as positive particularly if negative or uninvolved parenting is more the
norm among this population. Differing education and/or reading levels may also
contribute to the differences that existed between samples regarding reliability and factor
structure of the measures.
Sample Comparisons
Consistent with expectations, notable differences existed between the public
school and Juvenile Detention Center (JDC) samples among the majority of the variables
studied. Significant gender differences were also revealed within the public school
sample. Due to the small number of females present within the Juvenile Detention
Center sample, gender differences could not be examined in this sample.
Previous research has demonstrated a higher prevalence of negative parenting
experiences among delinquent youth (Caspi et al., 2004; Moris, Meesters, & van den
Berg, 2003). The experience of more parental rejection and lack of warmth has been
found to be a predictor of conduct problems, antisocial and delinquent behavior (Caspi et
al., 2004; Moris et al., 2003; Palmer & Hollin, 1999; Ruchkin et al., 2001) as has the
experience of too low or too high overprotection (Chambers et al., 2001). Similar
findings regarding parenting experiences were identified in the current study as the public
school sample reported significantly more positive parenting experiences from both
father and mother overall than the Juvenile Detention Center sample. Public school
participants reported experiencing significantly more of both father’s and mother’s
179
warmth; significantly less of both father’s and mother’s rejection; and more of father’s
overprotection on average than the JDC participants. The experience of mother’s
overprotection was not significantly different between the two groups. The potentially
higher prevalence of residing in single parent homes and/or the absence of a father figure
in the lives of many of the Juvenile Detention Center participants may be one explanation
regarding the lower perceived levels of father’s warmth and overprotection and higher
perceived father’s rejection overall among this population. Significant gender differences
within the public school sample were not found for father’s or mother’s past parenting
variables.
JDC participants reported significantly more maltreatment experiences, which is
consistent with other research that has found that offenders have experienced more
negative and traumatic experiences in comparison to non-offenders, particularly negative
parenting, maltreatment and witnessing of violence (Dixon et al., 2004). Behaviors
associated with maltreatment, including physical abuse, sexual abuse, neglect, and
emotional abuse, are typically linked to parent or caregiver and, thus, these outcomes can
be viewed in general as an impact of parenting experiences. Maltreatment has been
identified as a significant predictor of both internalizing and externalizing problems
overall (Manly et al., 2001). Maltreated individuals have been found to display higher
levels of aggression, oppositional, conduct, delinquent and antisocial behaviors (Bensley
et al., 1999; Jaffee et al., 2004; Maughan & Cicchetti, 2002; Stouthamer-Loeber et al.,
2001). A history of maltreatment has been found to predict aggression and criminal
behavior by increasing levels of irritability, impulsivity, hypervigilance, and paranoia as
well as affiliation with deviant peers (Kaplan et al., 1999; Knutson et al., 2004).
180
As expected, JDC participants also scored significantly higher on symptoms of
PTSD. Higher rates of PTSD have often been found among delinquent populations
(Ruchkin et al., 2002). As reported earlier, previous research and results of the current
study have found higher rates of maltreatment among delinquent populations.
Maltreatment experiences have been found to be related to symptoms of PTSD (Holden,
2003; Mabanglo, 2002; Rodriguez et al., 1998) with symptoms of PTSD being identified
as one of the most commonly occurring outcomes of maltreatment experiences
(Ackerman et al., 1998; Kendall-Tackett, 2002). Oppositional behaviors, conduct
problems, and delinquent behaviors have been consistently found to occur at significantly
higher rates among individuals with a history of maltreatment (Kaplan, Pelcovitz, &
Labruna, 1999).
Consistent with expectations based on prior research, higher levels of callousunemotional psychopathy were found among JDC participants than for the public school
participants. In past research, delinquent adolescents, both males and females, have been
found to score significantly higher on traits of psychopathy than non-delinquent
populations (Salekin et al., 2004). Psychopathy traits have been found to be highly
correlated with oppositional behaviors, conduct problems, aggression, and delinquent and
offending behaviors (Gretton et al., 2004; Salekin et al., 2004; Vincent et al., 2003).
Specific personality characteristics and emotional functioning associated with
psychopathy that lead to antisocial activity and delinquent behavior have been found to
be predicted by maltreatment and other traumatic and violent experiences (Ruchkin et al.,
2002) and negative parenting experiences (Frick et al., 2003). These experiences have
been found to be more predominant among delinquent populations.
181
Previous research has identified a strong intergenerational transmission of
parenting behaviors (Simons, Bearman, Conger, & Chao, 1992; Simons, Whitbeck,
Conger, & Wu, 1991; Whitbeck et al., 1992). The persistence of parenting behaviors
across generations has been viewed to be primarily the result of parental modeling
(Serbin & Karp, 2003). Specifically, the modeling of negative parenting behaviors as
well as aggressive and antisocial behaviors has been shown to persist and to be carried
forth into adulthood and future parenthood. Results of the current study regarding
anticipated future parenting support other research regarding the transmission of
parenting behaviors across generations. Juvenile Detention Center participants reported
significantly higher anticipated rejection and overprotection in future parenting than the
public school participants. High levels of both rejection and overprotection in parenting
have been found to be related to negative outcomes (Chambers et al., 2001). However,
similar anticipated warmth was reported by both samples. The experience of negative
parenting and the associated negative feelings related to these experiences may lead to
Juvenile Detention Center participants’ desire to express more warmth to their children as
future parents because it is something that they may have wanted more of from their
parents.
Significant gender differences existed regarding anticipated future parenting
among public school sample participants. Males were higher in anticipated rejection in
their future parenting than females. Females anticipated providing notably more warmth
in future parenting in comparison to males. The potential for the societal environment to
encourage males to be more masculine or tough and females to display more warmth and
to be more accepting may have contributed to these responses.
182
Importance of Parenting Experiences, Maltreatment, and PTSD for Callous-Unemotional
Psychopathy
Previous research has found positive relationships to exist between negative
parenting behaviors (Frick et al., 2003; Kim & Rohner, 2003), maltreatment experiences
(Shields & Cicchetti, 2001) and psychopathy among both males and females. In the
current study, both mother’s and father’s parenting behaviors were found to predict
psychopathy, specifically traits of callousness and unemotionality, only among female
public school participants. For the females, experiencing of less father’s positive
parenting and less mother’s positive parenting was found to predict higher callousunemotional traits, which are associated with psychopathy.
Interestingly, none of the variables included in the study were found to play a role
in callousness and unemotionality among male public school participants or Juvenile
Detention Center participants. These results are unexpected and may be explained by
inherent differences that exist between males and females as a result of differing societal
sex-role expectations and resulting socialization approaches to the genders. For instance,
the general attitude held by society that boys should be “tougher” and girls more
vulnerable and emotionally expressive may lead to inherent differences in experiences
between the genders. It is possible that some of this socialization of boys may foster
traits that may be similar to callousness and unemotionality that may be more stable and
less influenced by the predictor variables examined in the current study.
Maltreatment experiences may not have been found in the current study to
contribute significantly to callous-unemotional psychopathy because these types of
experiences appear to have stronger implications for other problematic psychological
183
functioning, primarily internalizing problems, including depression (Maughan &
Cicchetti, 2002; Ruchkin et al., 2002; Safren et al., 2002), anxiety (Maughan & Cicchetti,
2002; Ruchkin et al., 2002; Safren et al., 2002), PTSD (Muller et al., 2000; Ruchkin et
al., 2002), and suicidal ideation (Johnson et al., 2002; Mabanglo, 2002).
Importance of Parenting Experiences, Maltreatment, PTSD, and Callous-Unemotional
Psychopathy for Delinquency
Delinquent behavior, as indicated by self-reported number of arrests, was related
to maltreatment experiences among both females and males in the public school sample.
Males and females who reported a higher frequency of maltreatment related experiences
(e.g., physical abuse, sexual abuse, neglect, emotional abuse) reported a higher number of
arrests. These results are consistent with other research that has indicated that a
relationship exists between physical abuse (Jaffee et al., 2004), sexual abuse (Bensley et
al., 1999), neglect (Knutson, DeGarmo, & Reid, 2004), and combined maltreatment
experiences and delinquent behaviors (Benda & Corwyn, 2002; Kaplan, Pelcovitz, &
Labruna, 1999; Knutson, DeGarmo, & Reid, 2004; Stouthamer-Loeber et al., 2001).
Traumatic and violent experiences have been found to be related to specific personality
characteristics and emotional functioning, such as lack of both empathy and guilt, that
lead to antisocial activity (Ruchkin et al., 2002).
For females in the public school sample, PTSD was also found to be related to
delinquency, with fewer reported symptoms of PTSD associated with more reported
arrests. Previous research has found a relationship between posttraumatic stress and
behavior inhibition, particularly high harm avoidance and low self-directedness, and
being more fearful, nervous, passive, and low in energy (Ruchkin et al., 2002). Because
184
symptoms of PTSD may serve as behavioral inhibitors, particularly for females, these
symptoms may serve as a protective factor against delinquent behavior among females.
Mother’s positive parenting was also indicated to play an important role in
delinquency among females with experiences of more mother’s positive parenting related
to fewer reported arrests. This relationship was no longer significant when the variables
of maltreatment and PTSD were considered in addition to mother’s positive parenting,
which suggests that maltreatment and PTSD may have introduced unrelated variance into
the equation.
Interestingly, results of the current study did not find a significant relationship
between parenting experiences, specifically warmth, rejection, and overprotection, and
delinquency among males, which is inconsistent with previous research that has
consistently found a strong relationship to exist between these specific parenting
experiences and delinquent behavior among both males and females (Caspi et al., 2004;
Chambers et al., 2001; Kim et al., 2003; Knutson et al., 2004; Moris et al., 2003). These
results may be explained by the important role of socially desirable responding among
males in their reporting their delinquent behaviors.
Among the Juvenile Detention Center participants, none of the variables were
determined to predict delinquency with the exception of social desirability. Socially
desirable responding was associated with fewer reported arrests among the Juvenile
Detention Center population. It is likely that participants within the Juvenile Detention
Center sample were motivated to respond in a socially desirable manner to the study
questions, particularly related to delinquency, as a function of the environment and
185
participants’ perceived implications of honestly reporting the extent of their delinquent
behavior.
Callous-unemotional psychopathy was not significantly related to delinquency
among participants within either sample, which is contradictory to research that has
indicated a significant relationship between these two variables (Salekin et al., 2004;
Gretton et al., 2004). In past research, negative parenting experiences, particularly low
involvement; support; and supervision; and callous-unemotional psychopathy traits have
been found to co-exist in children and adolescents with conduct problems (Wootton et al.,
1997). Among the Juvenile Detention Center participants, this may be explained by the
socially desirable responding style among these participants regarding their delinquent
behaviors.
Importance of Parenting Experiences, Maltreatment, PTSD, and Callous-Unemotional
Psychopathy for Anticipated Future Parenting
The current study also explored participants’ perceptions of their anticipated style
of future parenting, specifically anticipated warmth, anticipated rejection, and anticipated
overprotection in future parenting. As expected, many of the study variables were found
to significantly predict anticipated style of future parenting. Previous research has
implicated pathways of modeling, learning, and development of specific personality traits
to have important implications for future parenting, increasing the transmission of
parenting styles and behaviors (Simons et al., 1992; Whitbeck et al., 1992) and
maltreatment (Knutson et al., 2004; Stouthamer-Loeber et al., 2001) across generations.
Research has also found symptoms of PTSD that are associated with maltreatment to
predict the perseverance of maltreatment across generations through a compulsive need
186
to reenact the trauma through victimization of others or re-victimization of the self
(Green, 1998).
Anticipated Warmth. For females in the public school sample, callousunemotional psychopathy significantly predicted anticipated warmth in future parenting,
with higher levels of callous-unemotional psychopathy related to lower anticipated
warmth in future parenting. This is consistent with the emotional and behavioral
functioning associated with callous (lack of empathy, manipulativeness) and unemotional
(lack of guilt, emotional constrictedness) traits (Hare, 1998). These results may support
callous-unemotional psychopathy as an important pathway in the transmission of
parenting behaviors across generations among females. Previous research that has found
negative parenting behaviors to contribute to psychopathy among both males and females
(Frick et al., 2003; Kim & Rohner, 2003) and other results of the current study implicate
both mother’s and father’s parenting behaviors as contributing to callous-unemotional
psychopathy among females.
Callous-unemotional psychopathy did not play a notable role in anticipated
warmth among males. Gender-role expectations could result in more moderate levels
among males of behaviors associated with expressions of warmth as reflected in the items
within the anticipated warmth scale of the API.
Father’s positive parenting was also found to significantly predict anticipated
warmth in future parenting among public school females, with more father’s positive
parenting experiences related to more anticipated warmth, though this relationship did not
continue to be significant after inclusion of maltreatment and PTSD.
187
Among males, mother’s positive parenting was an important predictor of
anticipated warmth, with more mother’s positive parenting experiences related to more
anticipated warmth in future parenting, though the strength of this relationship was no
longer significant after inclusion of callous-unemotional psychopathy. The addition of
spurious variance or a non-linear relationship may explain these results.
Additionally, among both females and males, a negative relationship existed
between maltreatment experiences and anticipated warmth with more maltreatment
experiences related to less anticipated warmth in future parenting. These results support
previous research that has illustrated the negative impact of maltreatment and its related
emotional and behavioral sequelae on future parenting (Knutson et al., 2004; StouthamerLoeber et al., 2001). However, among females, the relationship between maltreatment
and anticipated warmth did not continue to be significant after inclusion of callousunemotional psychopathy. Introduction of spurious variance or a non-linear relationship
may again be implicated in these results.
Regarding the Juvenile Detention Center participants, none of the variables
examined were found to be significant predictors of anticipated warmth in future
parenting. It may be that the significantly different backgrounds and experiences of the
participants within this sample may contribute to differing results between the samples
regarding the importance of study variables on outcomes. In the JDC participants, lower
reading levels may have compromised comprehension of items. Differing interpretations
of items, lower motivation to carefully read and answer items and socially desirable
response patterns may also have impacted their responses. Additionally, other variables
not examined by the current study may be more important in predicting the outcome
188
variables examined due to the substantial differences, such as familial background and
experiences, socioeconomic status, and history of trauma and violence, inherent within
the Juvenile Detention Center sample.
Anticipated Rejection. For females in the public school sample, as anticipated,
callous-unemotional psychopathy was found to be significantly related to anticipated
rejection in future parenting with higher levels of callous-unemotional psychopathy
related to higher anticipated rejection in future parenting. Rejecting behaviors, as
reflected in the items of the API, are consistent with the emotional and behavioral
functioning associated with callous (lack of empathy, manipulativeness) and unemotional
(lack of guilt, emotional constrictedness) traits (Hare, 1998). These results are similar to
other results of this study that suggest callous-unemotional psychopathy as an important
pathway in the transmission of parenting behaviors across generations among females.
As noted earlier in this section, negative parenting behaviors have been found to predict
psychopathy among both males and females (Frick et al., 2003; Kim & Rohner, 2003),
which is consistent with other results of the current study that suggest a relationship
between both mother’s and father’s parenting behaviors and callous-unemotional
psychopathy among females.
Among males, PTSD was found to be a significant predictor of anticipated
rejection in future parenting with more symptoms of PTSD related to more anticipated
rejection. The behavioral inhibition, emotional unavailability, and negativity that has
been shown to be associated with symptoms of PTSD (Ruchkin et al., 2002), for males,
may contribute to rejecting behaviors in anticipated future parenting. It may be possible
that the PTSD symptoms reported by the males in the current study was related to
189
negative parenting experiences or maltreatment, which would demonstrate symptoms of
PTSD as a pathway to intergenerational transmission of parenting behaviors among
males.
For the Juvenile Detention Center participants, none of the variables investigated
were found to significantly predict anticipated rejection in future parenting. Again, as
noted elsewhere in this section, numerous factors may have contributed to this outcome.
Anticipated Overprotection. PTSD was found to be a significant predictor of
anticipated overprotection in future parenting among males in the public school sample
with more symptoms of PTSD related to more anticipated overprotection. This finding
is similar to other findings of this study that suggest a relationship between PTSD and
anticipated future parenting among males. Behaviors associated with overprotection, as
reflected within those items on the API, may be predicted by symptoms of PTSD. For
instance, the high harm avoidance and being more fearful and nervous (Ruchkin et al.,
2002), for males, may contribute to overprotecting behaviors in anticipated future
parenting. Negative parenting experiences including maltreatment may be related to the
symptoms of PTSD noted among males in the current study, and it may therefore be
speculated that symptoms of PTSD may play an important role in the intergenerational
transmission of parenting behaviors among males.
Among females in the public school sample, none of the variables investigated
were found to be significant predictors of anticipated overprotection in future parenting.
This finding is unexpected based on prior research that has consistently implicated
parenting experiences (Serbin & Karp, 2003; Simons et al., 1992; Whitbeck et al., 1992),
maltreatment experiences (Cunningham, 2003; DeBellis, 2001; Locke & Newcomb,
190
2004) and symptoms of PTSD (Green, 1998) to predict anticipated future parenting style.
Among females without severe conduct problems, behaviors associated with
overprotection, as reflected in the items within the API, may be more stable and
consistent with the level of involvement that may be perceived to be appropriate for
motherhood, thus making this variable less influenced by the predictor variables
examined in this study.
Among the Juvenile Detention Center participants, maltreatment was a significant
predictor of anticipated overprotection in future parenting, with more maltreatment
experiences related to less anticipated overprotection. Maltreatment experiences appear
to contribute to less anticipated involvement among this population as reflected by the
negative relationship that existed between maltreatment experiences and overprotection.
Other results of this study reflected the experience of significantly more negative
parenting experiences and maltreatment among the Juvenile Detention Center
participants. In addition to other negative parenting behaviors, the experience of too low
or too high parental overprotection has been found to be related to increased conduct
problems, antisocial and delinquent behavior (Chambers et al., 2001). In the current
study, the JDC participants were found to experience significantly less overprotection
from their fathers, which may be important for future parenting among this population.
As anticipated, PTSD symptomatology was found to significantly predict
anticipated overprotection among Juvenile Detention Center participants, with more
symptoms of PTSD related to more anticipated overprotection in future parenting.
Behaviors associated with overprotection, as reflected within those items on the API, may
be predicted by symptoms of PTSD among these participants. The majority of the JDC
191
sample were males. The PTSD symptoms of high harm avoidance and being more
fearful and nervous may contribute to overprotecting behaviors in anticipated future
parenting particularly among males, as the results of this study have found PTSD to be
related to anticipated overprotection among the males in both samples.
Negative
parenting experiences including maltreatment may be related to the symptoms of PTSD
noted among males in the current study, suggesting that symptoms of PTSD may play an
important role in the intergenerational transmission of parenting behaviors among males.
Callous-unemotional psychopathy also significantly predicted anticipated
overprotection among Juvenile Detention Center participants with higher trait levels of
callous-unemotional psychopathy predicting more anticipated overprotection in future
parenting. These results are counterintuitive to expectations that high levels of callousunemotional traits would predict lack of overprotection due to lack of empathy and care
and concern. Bivariate correlational analysis of the items within the anticipated
overprotection scale and the items of the YPI callous-unemotional measure was
performed to further explore this outcome. No correlations were found among items that
would explain the relationship found between callous-unemotional psychopathy and
overprotection among JDC participants. Experiment-wise error could explain these
findings.
Study Limitations
The current study has several important limitations. The measures of past and
future parenting, the PPPS and the API respectively, remain in development. Though
psychometrics are fair to adequate for both measures, the use of measures that are in their
infancy and still undergoing development may have implications for the current findings
192
and the extent to which conclusions can be drawn. The reliability and validity of
measures that are early in their development do not have a solid body of research to
support the accuracy of the measure in assessing the constructs targeted. Future research
could further develop these measures through further examination of the appropriateness
of current items and through inclusion of more items within each dimension.
Aspects of the implementation of the study, particularly the number of measures
administered to participants, should be noted as having a potentially detrimental effect on
results. Eleven measures were administered to participants in one packet. The
considerable number of questions and amount of time and effort required of each
participant may have had a negative impact on motivation and amount of effort expended
over the course of completion of the packet of questions. The order that the measures
were placed in the packet was varied so as to minimize the impact of decreased effort on
one study over the other. It happened that some participants were not able to complete all
questions due to time constraints and not enough time to answer all of the numerous
questions contained in the packet. This would have implications for the results of the
current study because of the possible outcomes of inaccurate responding associated with
decreasing effort, motivation, and concentration. Important information may not have
been collected from those who were not able to complete all items or findings could have
been compromised by response patterns that were not accurate due to the effects of effort,
motivation, and concentration levels that were less than optimal.
The comprehensive design of the current study is not without its influence on the
limitations of the results. The number of predictor variables and outcome variables
investigated made the interpretation of results complex. The number of predictor
193
variables included in the multiple regression analyses may have introduced spurious
variance or resulted in nonlinear relationships, thus obscuring potentially important
results.
The notable sample differences that existed among the two populations sampled
may have important implications for results. Differing familial environment and
experiences, particularly more negative familial experiences overall as well as having
numerous caregivers, likely influenced the lack of findings by the current study for the
Juvenile Detention Center population. The lower educational level on average among the
Juvenile Detention Center participants has important implications for reading levels and
comprehension skills of those within this sample. JDC participants’ overall lower ability
to read and comprehend items within the study questionnaires should be considered in
interpretation of the results for this sample. The detention center environment and
current situation of these participants likely may have had some important influence on
results. For instance, fears of perceived potential consequences of honest reporting of
delinquent behaviors may have resulted in a minimizing of actual legal involvement.
Additionally, the increased prevalence of significant and likely untreated mental health
related issues among delinquent populations may have consequences for motivation,
effort, attention and concentration.
Clinical Implications
The results of the current research suggest that there are important relationships
between past parenting, psychopathy, delinquency and anticipated future parenting.
These findings can inform the focus of clinical attention to specific areas that will be
more likely to have the most impact on preventing negative outcomes.
194
Negative parenting experiences (Caspi et al., 2004; Moris, Meesters, & van den
Berg, 2003), maltreatment (Dixon et al., 2004), PTSD (Ruchkin et al., 2002), and callousunemotional psychopathy (Salekin et al., 2004) have been found to be more prevalent
among delinquent populations. This was supported by the results of the current study,
further demonstrating a relationship between these variables and delinquent outcomes.
These results illustrate the importance of inclusion of interventions that address these
variables as part of delinquency prevention and intervention.
The important role of maltreatment in predicting delinquent behavior among both
males and females was demonstrated by results of the current research. Additional
results of the current research suggest that positive parenting experiences, particularly
mother’s positive parenting for females, could be a protective factor in reducing
delinquent behavior. These results amplify the importance of developing and
implementing strategies to prevent maltreatment as well as to treat those who have
endured maltreatment experiences. Because positive parenting experience may serve a
protective function, strategies that foster positive parenting will also promote more
positive outcomes.
Support was found for the likely intergenerational transmission of parenting
behaviors. Future parenting that was significantly more negative was found by the
current research to be anticipated by those who demonstrated higher levels of each of the
variables of negative parenting experiences, maltreatment, PTSD, and callousunemotional psychopathy. These results support the likely important role of these
variables in the intergenerational transmission of negative parenting behaviors and
maltreatment. For instance, the development of callous-unemotional psychopathy, traits
195
which have been found to be related to numerous negative outcomes, was found by the
current study to be related to negative parenting experiences, particularly among females.
Improving parenting behaviors could have a significant and protective impact,
particularly among females, in overall psychological well-being and adjustment by
possibly hindering the development of callous-unemotional traits. Reducing the
prevalence of callous-unemotional psychopathy traits reduces the propensity for the
negative outcomes associated with these traits. Because negative parenting may foster
the development of callous-unemotional traits, focusing on supporting more positive
approaches to parenting will be one important pathway to address in attempts to reduce
the development of these traits. Additionally, callous-unemotional psychopathy may
have a predictive role in anticipated future parenting styles that are more negative,
specifically less anticipated warmth and more anticipated rejection in future parenting.
Negative parenting by itself has been shown to be transferred across generations. Results
of the current research suggest that the experience of negative parenting may possibly
gather strength in its transmission through affecting the development of traits of callousunemotional psychopathy, traits which may negatively influence future parenting.
Experience of father’s positive parenting among females and the experience of
mother’s positive parenting among males may have important protective factors in
supporting the transmission of positive parenting, specifically more anticipated warmth in
future parenting as reflected in results of the current study. Maltreatment’s significant
relationship to intergenerational transmission of negative parenting among both males
and females further confirms the importance of addressing the issue of maltreatment in
society, particularly because of the numerous negative sequelae associated with
196
experiences of maltreatment that compound the impact of these experiences. For
example, among males, the presence of symptoms of PTSD, which are strongly
associated with maltreatment, were found to predict anticipated negative parenting,
specifically anticipated rejection and overprotection in future parenting.
In summary, a strong and continuously growing evidence base exists to support the
important influence of parenting on a wide range of outcomes. Altering the negative
cycle of parenting through addressing the specific variables that are consistently found to
predict negative parenting styles and the transmission of these forward into future
parenting will have a positive impact on outcomes for future generations.
197
References
Ackerman, P., Newton, J., McPherson, W., Jones, J., & Dykman, R. (1998). Prevalence
of post traumatic stress disorder and other psychiatric diagnoses in three groups of
abused children (sexual, physical, and both). Child Abuse & Neglect, 22, 759774.
Alessandri, S. & Lewis, M. (1993). Parental evaluation and its relation to shame and
pride in young children. Sex Roles, 29(5), 335-343.
Allaman, J., Joyce, C., & Crandall, V. (1972). The antecedents of social
desirability response tendencies of children and young adults. Child
Development, 43, 1135-1160.
Andershed, H., Kerr, M., Stattin, H., & Levander, S. (2002). Psychopathic traits in nonreferred youths: A new assessment tool. In E. Blaauw & L. Sheridan (Eds.),
Psychopaths: Current International Perspectives (pp. 131-158). The Hague:
Elsevier.
Arrindell, W., Emmelkamp, P., Monsma, A., & Brilman, E. (1983). The role of
perceived parental rearing practices in the aetiology of phobic disorders: a
controlled study. British Journal of Psychiatry, 143, 183-187.
Arrindell, W., Kwee, M., Methorst, G., van der Ende, J., Pol, E., & Moritz, B. (1989).
Perceived parental rearing styles of agoraphobic and socially phobic in-patients.
British Journal of Psychiatry, 155, 526-535.
198
Arrindell, W. A., Sanavio, E., Aguilar, G., Sica, C., Hatzichristou, C., Eisemann, M.,
Recinos, L. A., Gaszner, P., Peter, M., Battagliese, G., Kallai, J., & van der Ende,
J. (1999). The development of a short form of the EMBU: its appraisal with
students in Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, and Italy. Personality and Individual
Differences, 27, 613-628.
Bao, W., Haas, A., & Pi, Y. (2004). Life-strain, negative emotions, and delinquency: an
empirical test of general strain theory in the people’s republic of china.
International Journal of Offender Therapy & Comparative Criminology, 48, 281297.
Beers, S. & DeBellis, M. (2002). Neuropsychological function in children with
maltreatment related posttraumatic stress disorder. American Journal of
Psychiatry, 159, 483-486.
Benda, B., & Corwyn, R. (2002). The effect of abuse in childhood and in adolescence on
violence among adolescents. Youth and Society, 33, 339-365.
Benjaminsen, S., Jorgensen, J., Kragh-Hansen, L., & Pedersen, L. (1984). Memories
of parental rearing practices and personality features. Acta Psychiatrica
Scandinavica, 69, 426-434.
Bensley, L., Van Eenwyk, J., Spieker, S., & Schoder, J. (1999). Self-reported abuse
history and adolescent problem behaviors: antisocial and suicidal behaviors.
Journal of Adolescent Health, 24, 163-172.
Bernstein, D., Stein, J., Newcomb, M., Walker, E., Pogge, D., Ahluvalia, T. (2003).
Development and validation of a brief screening version of the Childhood Trauma
Questionnaire. Child Abuse & Neglect, 27(2), 169-190.
199
Bogels, S., van Oosten, A., Muris, P., & Smulders, D. (2001). Familial correlates of
social anxiety in children and adolescents. Behavior Research and Therapy, 39,
273-287.
Bolger, K., Patterson, C., & Kupersmidt, J. (1998). Peer relationships and self-esteem
among children who have been maltreated. Child Development, 69, 1171-1197.
Brendgen, M., Vitaro, F., Tremblay, R., & Lavoie, F. (2001). Reactive and proactive
aggression: predictions to physical violence in different contexts and moderating
effects of parental monitoring and caregiving behavior. Journal of Abnormal
Child Psychology, 29(4), 293-304.
Carifio, J. (1994). Sensitive Data and Students’ Tendencies to Give Socially Desirable
Responses. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, 39, 74-84.
Caspi, A., Moffitt, T., Morgan, J., Rutter, M., Taylor, A., Arseneault, L., Tully, L.,
Jacobs, C., Kim-Cohen, J., & Polo-Tomas, M. (2004). Maternal expressed
emotion predicts chidren’s antisocial behavior problems: Using monozygotictwin differences to identify environmental effects on behavioral development.
Developmental Psychology, 40, 149-161.
Chambers, J., Power, K., Loucks, N., & Swanson, V. (2001). The interaction of
perceived maternal and paternal parenting styles and their relation with the
psychological distress and offending characteristics of incarcerated young
offenders. Journal of Adolescence, 24, 209-227.
Chang, L., Schwartz, D., Dodge, K., & McBride-Chang, C. (2003). Harsh parenting in
relation to child emotion regulation and aggression. Journal of Family
Psychology, 17, 598-606.
200
Cheng, H., & Furnham, A. (2004). Perceived parental rearing style, self-esteem and selfcriticism as predictors of happiness. Journal of Happiness Studies, 5, 1-21.
Cicchetti, D., & Rogosch, F. (2001). The impact of child maltreatment and
psychopathology on neuroendocrine functioning. Development and
Psychopathology, 13, 783-804.
Cruise, K., Colwell, L, Lyons, P., & Baker, M. (2003). Prototypical analysis of
adolescent psychopathy: investigating the juvenile justice perspective.
Behavioral Sciences & The Law, 21, 829-846.
Cunningham, S. (2003). The joint contribution of experiencing and witnessing violence
during childhood on child abuse in the parent role. Violence and Victims, 18,
619-639.
DeBellis, M. (2001). Developmental traumatology: the psychobiological development of
maltreated children and its implications for research, treatment, and policy.
Development and Psychopathology, 13, 539-564.
Dixon, A., Howie, P., & Starling, J. (2004). Psychopathology in female juvenile
offenders. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 45, 1150-1158.
Edens, J., Skeem, J., Cruise, K., & Cauffman, E. (2001). The assessment of juvenile
psychopathy and its association with violence: a critical review. Behavioral
Sciences & the Law, 19, 53-80.
Edwards, V., Holden, G., Felitti, V., & Anda, R. (2003). Relationship between multiple
forms of childhood maltreatment and adult mental health in community
respondents: results from the adverse childhood experiences study. American
Journal of Psychiatry, 160, 1453-1460.
201
Flisher, A., Kramer, R., Hoven, C., Greenwald, S., Alegria, M., Bird, H., Canino, G.,
Connell, R., & Moore, R. (1997). Psychosocial characteristics of physically
abused children and adolescents. Journal of the American Academy of Child and
Adolescent Psychiatry, 36, 123-132.
Frick, P., Kimonis, E., Dandreaux, D., & Farell, J. (2003). The 4 year stability of
psychopathic traits in non-referred youth. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 21,
713-736.
Glaser, D. (2000). Child abuse and neglect and the brain – a review. Association for
Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 97-116.
Goldstein, N., Arnold, D., Weil, J., Mesiarik, C., Peuschold, D., Grisso, T., & Osman, D.
(2003). Comorbid symptom patterns in female juvenile offenders. International
Journal of Law & Psychiatry, 26, 565-582.
Green, A. (1998). Factors contributing to the generational transmission of child
maltreatment. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry, 37, 1334-1336.
Gretton, H., Hare, R., & Catchpole, R. (2004). Psychopathy and offending from
adolescence to adulthood: a 10 year follow-up. Journal of Consulting & Clinical
Hare, R. (1998). Psychopaths and their nature: implications for the mental health and
criminal justice systems. In T. Millon, E. Simonson, M. Burket-smith, & R.
Davis (Eds.) Psychopathy: antisocial, criminal, and violent behavior (pp. 188212). New york: Guilford press.
202
Harrison, P., Fulkerson, J., & Beebe, T. (1997). Multiple substance use among
adolescent physical and sexual abuse victims. Child Abuse and Neglect, 21, 529539.
Higgins, D. & McCabe, M. (2003). Maltreatment and family dysfunction in childhood
and the subsequent adjustment of children and adults. Journal of Family
Violence, 18, 107-120.
Holden, G. (2003). Children exposed to domestic violence and child abuse: terminology
and taxonomy. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 6, 151-160.
Holmes, S. & Robins, L. (1987). The influence of childhood disciplinary
experience on the development of alcoholism and depression. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 28(3), 399-415.
Hunter, J., Figueredo, A., Malamuth, N., & Becker, J. (2004). Developmental pathways
in youth sexual aggression and delinquency: risk factors and mediators. Journal
of Family Violence, 19, 233-242.
Jaffee, S., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T., & Taylor, A. (2004). Physical maltreatment victim to
antisocial child: evidence of an environmentally mediated process. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 113, 44-55.
Johnson, J., Cohen, P., Gould, M., Kasen, S., Brown, J., & Brook, J. (2002). Childhood
adversities, interpersonal difficulties, and risk for suicide attempts during late
adolescence and early adulthood. Archives of General Psychiatry, 59, 741-749.
203
Kaplan, S., Pelcovitz, D., & Labruna, V. (1999). Child and adolescent abuse and neglect
research: a review of the past 10 years. Part I: physical and emotional abuse and
neglect. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,
38, 1214-1222,
Kendall-Tackett, K. (2002). The health effects of childhood abuse: four pathways by
which abuse can influence health. Child Abuse & Neglect, 26, 715-729.
Kerver, M., van Son, M., & de Groot, P. (1992). Predicting symptoms of
depression from reports of early parenting: a one-year prospective study in a
community sample. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 86, 267-272.
Kim, I., Ge, X., Brody, G., Conger, R., Gibbons, F., & Simons R. (2003). Parenting
behaviors and the occurrence and co-occurrence of depressive symptoms and
conduct problems among african American children. Journal of Family
Kim, S., & Rohner, R. (2003). Perceived parental acceptance and emotional empathy
among university students in korea. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 34,
723-735.
Kim-Cohen, J., Moffitt, T., Caspi, A., & Taylor, A. (2004). Genetic and environmental
processes in young children’s resilience and vulnerability to socioeconomic
deprivation. Child Development, 75, 651-668.
Kitahara, M. (1987). Perception of parental acceptance and rejection among Swedish
university students. Child Abuse and Neglect, 11, 223-227.
204
Knutson, J., DeGarmo, D., & Reid, J. (2004). Social disadvantage and neglectful
parenting as precursors to the development of antisocial and aggressive child
behavior: testing a theoretical model. Aggressive Behavior, 30, 187-205.
Koestner, R., Zuroff, D., & Powers, T. (1991). Family origins of adolescent selfcriticism and its continuity into adulthood. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,
100(2), 191-197.
Kokkevi, A. & Costas, S. (1988). Parental rearing patterns and drug abuse. Acta
Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 78(344 suppl), 151-157.
Lau, A., & Weisz, J. (2003). Reported maltreatment among clinic-referred children:
implications for presenting problems, treatment attrition, and long-term outcomes.
Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 42, 13271334.
Leung, C., McBride-Chang, C., & Lai, B. (2004). Relations among maternal parenting
style, academic competence, and life satisfaction in chinese early adolescents.
Journal of Early Adolescence, 24, 113-143.
Libby, A., Orton, H., Novins, D., Spicer, P., Buchwald, D., Beals, J., & Manson, S.
(2004). Childhood physical and sexual abuse and subsequent alcohol and drug
use disorders in two American Indian tribes. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 65,
74-83.
Locke, T., & Newcomb, M. (2004). Child maltreatment, parent alcohol and drug related
problems, polydrug problems, and parenting practices: a test of gender differences
and four theoretical perspectives. Journal of Family Psychology, 18, 120-134.
205
Lumley, M., Mader, C., Gramzow, J., & Papineau, K. (1996). Family factors related
to alexithymia characteristics. Psychosomatic Medicine, 58, 211-216.
Mabanglo, M. (2002). Trauma and the effects of violence exposure and abuse on
children: a review of the literature. Smith Studies in Social Work, 72, 232-251.
Magnus, K., Cowen, E., Wyman, P., Fagen, D., & Work, W. (1999). Parent-child
relationship qualities and child adjustment in highly stressed urban black and
white families. Journal of Community Psychology, 27, 55-71.
Manly, J., Kim, J., Rogosch, F., & Cicchetti, D. (2001). Dimensions of child
maltreatment and children’s adjustment: contributions of developmental timing
and subtype. Development and Psychopathology, 13, 759-782.
Maughan, A., & Cicchetti, D. (2002). Impact of child maltreatment and interadult
violence on children’s emotional regulation abilities and socioemotional
adjustment. Child Development, 73, 1525-1542.
McCreadie, R., Williamson, D., Athawes, R., Connolly, M., & TilakSingh, D. (1994). The Nithsdale Schizophrenia Surveys XIII. Parental rearing
patterns, current symptomatology and relatives’ expressed emotion. British
Journal of Psychiatry, 165, 347-352.
McLean, L., & Gallop, R. (2003). Implications of childhood sexual abuse for adult
borderline personality disorder and complex posttraumatic stress disorder.
American Journal of Psychiatry, 160, 369-371.
206
McMahon, J., & Clay-Warner, J. (2002). Child abuse and future criminality, the role of
social service placement, family disorganization, and gender. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 17, 1002-1019.
Meesters, C. & Muris, P. (1996). The relationship between hostility and perceived
parental rearing behaviours: a study of male myocardial infarction patients and
healthy controls. Personality and Individual Differences, 21(2), 271-281.
Meesters, C., Muris, P., & Esselink, T. (1995). Hostility and perceived parental rearing
behaviour. Personality and Individual Differences, 18(4), 567-570.
Moris, P, Meesters, C., & van den Berg, S. (2003). Internalizing and externalizing
problems as correlates or self-reported attachment style and perceived parental
rearing in normal adolescents. Journal of Child & Family Studies, 12, 171-183.
Muller, R., Geobel-Fabbri, A., Diamond, T., & Dinklage, D. (2000). Social support and
the relationship between family and community violence exposure and
psychopathology among high risk adolescents. Child Abuse & Neglect, 24, 449464.
Muris, P., Bogels, S., Meesters, C., van der Kamp, N., & van Oosten, A. (1996). Parental
rearing practices, fearfulness, and problem behaviour in clinically referred
children. Personality and Individual Differences, 21(5), 813-818.
O’Connor, B., & Dvorak, T. (2001). Conditional associations between parental
behavior and adolescent problems: a search for personality-environment
interactions. Journal of Research in Personality, 35, 1-26.
207
Palmer, E., & Hollin, C. (1996). Sociomoral reasoning, perceptions of own
parenting and self-reported delinquency. Personality and Individual Differences,
21(2), 175-182.
Palmer, E., & Hollin, C. (1997). The influence of perceptions of own parenting on
sociomoral reasoning, attributions for criminal behaviour, and self-reported
delinquency. Personality and Individual Differences, 23(2), 193-197.
Palmer, E., & Hollin, C. (1999). An evaluation of the shortened EMBU scale in
young offenders and non-offenders in England. Personality and Individual
Differences, 27, 171-179.
Parish, T., & McCluskey, J. (1992). The relationship between parenting styles and
young adults’ self-concepts and evaluations of parents. Adolescence, 27(108),
915-918.
Pasold, T. (2003). Perceptions of Past Parenting, Emotional Intelligence, and Intentions
for Future Parenting. Unpublished Master’s thesis, University of Toledo, Toledo,
Ohio.
Peretti, P., Clark, D., & Johnson, P. (1985). Affect of parental rejection on negative
attention-seeking classroom behaviors. Education, 104(3), 313-317.
Perrone, D., Sullivan, C., Pratt, T., & Margaryan, S. (2004). Parental efficacy, selfcontrol, and delinquency: a test of a general theory of crime on a nationally
representative sample of youth. International Journal of Offender Therapy &
Comparative Criminology, 48, 298-312.
208
Pittman, L., & Chase-Lansdale, P. (2001). African American adolescent girls in
impoverished communities: parenting style and adolescent outcomes. Journal of
Research on Adolescence, 11(2), 199-224.
Pynoos, R., Rodriquez, N., Steinberg, A., Stuber, M., & Frederick, C. (1998). UCLA
PTSD Index for DSM IV, Child Version, Revision 1. California: UCLA Trauma
Psychiatry Service.
Rey, J., & Plapp, J. (1990). Quality of perceived parenting in oppositional and
conduct disordered adolescents. Journal of the American Academy of Child and
Adolescent Psychiatry, 29(3), 382-385.
Rodriguez, N., Vande Kemp, H., & Foy, D. (1998). Posttraumatic stress disorder in
survivors of childhood sexual and physical abuse: a critical review of the
empirical research. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 7, 17-44.
Rohner, R. (1986). The Warmth Dimension. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Ross, M., Clayer, J., & Campbell, R. (1983). Parental rearing patterns and
suicidal thoughts. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 67, 429-433.
Ruchkin, V., Eisemann, M., & Hagglof, B. (1998). Parental rearing and problem
behaviours in male delinquent adolescents versus controls in northern Russia.
Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 33, 477-482.
Ruchkin, V., Eisemann, M., & Hagglof, B. (1999). Coping styles in delinquent
adolescents and controls: the role of personality and parental rearing. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence, 28(6), 705-717.
209
Ruchkin, V., Koposov, R., Eisemann, M., & Hagglof, B. (2001). Conduct
problems in Russian adolescents: the role of personality and parental rearing.
European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 10, 19-27.
Ruchkin, V., Schwab-Stone, M., Koposov, R., Vermeiren, R., & Steiner, H. (2002).
Violence exposure, posttraumatic stress, and personality in juvenile delinquents.
Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 41, 322329.
Safren, S., Gershuny, B., Marzoi, P., Otto, M., & Pollack, M. (2002). History of
childhood abuse in panic disorder, social phobia, and generalized anxiety
disorder. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 190, 453-456.
Salekin, R., Leistico, A., Neumann, C., DiCicco, T., & Duros, R. (2004). Psychopathy
and comorbidity in a young offender sample: taking a close look at psychopathy’s
potential importance over disruptive behavior disorders. Journal of Abnormal
Salzinger, S., Feldman, R., Ng-Mak, D., Mojica, E., & Stockhammer, T. (2001). The
effect of physical abuse on children’s social and affective status: a model of
cognitive and behavioral processes explaining the association. Development and
Psychopathology, 13, 805-825.
Serbin, L., & Karp, J. (2003). Intergenerational studies of parenting and the transfer of
risk from parent to child. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12, 138142.
210
Shaw, B., Krause, N., Chatters, L., Connell, C., & Ingersoll-Dayton, B. (2004).
Emotional support from parents early in life, aging, and health. Psychology and
Aging, 19, 4-12.
Shields, A., & Cicchetti, D. (2001). Parental maltreatment and emotion dysregulation as
risk factors for bullying and victimization in middle childhood. Journal of
Clinical Child Psychology, 30, 349-363.
Simons, R., Bearman, J., Conger, R., & Chao, W. (1992). Gender differences in
the intergenerational transmission of parenting beliefs. Journal of Marriage and
Family, 54(4), 823-836.
Simons, R., Robertson, J., & Downs, W. (1989). The nature of the association
between parental rejection and delinquent behavior. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 18(3), 297-310.
Simons, R., Whitbeck, L., Conger, R., & Wu, C. (1991). Intergenerational
transmission of harsh parenting. Developmental Psychology, 27, 159-171.
Sohn, B. (2003). Are young people in correctional institutions different from community
students who have never been convicted?: differences in internalizing and
externalizing behaviors. British Journal of Social Work, 33, 739-752.
Stouthamer-Loeber, M., Loeber, R., Homish, D., & Wei, E. (2001). Maltreatment of
boys and the development of disruptive and delinquent behavior. Development
and Psychopathology, 13, 941-955.
211
Swanston, H., Parkinson, P., O’Toole, B., Plunkett, A., Shrimpton, S., & Oates, R.
(2003). Juvenile crime, aggression and delinquency after sexual abuse: a
longitudinal study. British Journal of Criminology, 43, 729-749.
Teichman, M., & Kefir, E. (2000). The effects of perceived parental behaviors, attitudes,
and substance-use on adolescent attitudes toward and intent to use psychoactive
substances. Journal of Drug Education, 30(2), 193-204.
Tousignant, M., Bastien, M., & Hamel, S. (1993). Suicidal attempts and ideations
among adolescents and young adults: the contribution of the father’s and mother’s
care and of parental separation. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology,
28, 256-261.
Van IJzendoorn, M. (1992). Intergenerational Transmission of Parenting: A Review
of Studies in Nonclinical Populations. Developmental Review, 12, 76-99.
Vincent, G., Vitacco, M., Grisso, T., & Corrado, R. (2003). Subtypes of adolescent
offenders: affective traits and antisocial behavior patterns. Behavioral Sciences &
the Law, 21, 695-712.
Vitaro, F., Brendgen, M., & Tremblay, R. (2000). Influence of deviant friends on
delinquency: searching for moderator variables. Journal of Abnormal Child
Psychology, 28(4), 313-325.
Vrasti, R., Eisemann, M., & Bucur, M. (1993). Discriminative features of alcoholics
classified according to family history. Journal of Substance Abuse,5, 145-155.
Wagner, B., & Cohen, P. (1994). Adolescent sibling differences in suicidal
symptoms: the role of parent-child relationships. Journal of Abnormal Child
Psychology, 22(3), 321-337.
212
Watson, P., Little, T., & Biderman, M. (1992). Narcissism and parenting styles.
Psychoanalytic Psychology, 9, 231-244.
Whitbeck, L., Hoyt, D., Simons, R., Conger, R., Elder, jr., G., Lorenz, F., & Huck, S.
(1992). Intergenerational continuity of parental rejection and depressed affect.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(6), 1036-1045.
Winefield, H., Goldney, R., Tiggemann, M., & Winefield, A. (1989). Reported
parental rearing patterns and psychological adjustment: a short form of the
EMBU. Personality and Individual Differences, 10(4), 459-465.
Wolfradt, U., Hempel, S., & Miles, J. (2003). Perceived parenting styles,
depersonalization, anxiety and coping behavior in adolescents. Personality &
Individual Differences, 34, 521-532.
Wootton, J., Frick, P., Shelton, K., & Silverthorn, P. (1997). Ineffective Parenting and
childhood conduct problems: the moderating role of callous-unemotional traits.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 301-308.
Xia, G., & Qian, M. (2001). The relationship of parenting style to self-reported mental
health among two subcultures of Chinese. Journal of Adolescence, 24, 251-260.
Zemore, R., & Rinholm, J. (1989). Vulnerability to depression as a function of parental
rejection and control. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 21(4), 364-376.
213
APPENDICES
214
Appendix A
DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
Please circle the letter or fill in the blank with information about yourself
GENDER:
A) Female
AGE:__________
B) Male
GRADE IN SCHOOL: ____________
ETHNICITY:
A) White/European American
B) Black/African American
C) Hispanic American
D) Asian American
E) Biracial (please describe:__________)
F) Other (please describe:___________)
MOTHER/FEMALE GUARDIAN’S JOB: ___________________________________
MOTHER/FEMALE GUARDIAN’S EDUCATION LEVEL:
A) Some high school
B) Graduated from high school
C) Some college
D) Graduated from college
E) Graduated with a post-graduate degree (Masters, Ph.D., M.D.)
F) Don’t know/don’t have
FATHER/MALE GUARDIAN’S JOB: ______________________________________
FATHER/MALE GUARDIAN’S EDUCATION LEVEL:
A) Some high school
B) Graduated from high school
C) Some college
D) Graduated from college
E) Graduated with a post-graduate degree (Masters, Ph.D., M.D.)
F) Don’t know/don’t have
Have you ever been in trouble with the law or involved in juvenile court? YES
Number of times in juvenile detention center:____________
Number of times you have moved:_______________
215
NO
Appendix B
Lucas County Juvenile Detention Center: Informed Consent for Research
Project Topic: Exploring Adolescents’ Parenting Experiences, Emotions,
Behaviors, and Exposure to Violence
Student Investigators: Jennifer Gunderson, M.A., Tracie L. Pasold, M.A.
Faculty Advisor: Jeanne Funk, Ph.D.
Affiliation: University of Toledo Psychology Department
I, Judge James Ray of the Lucas County Juvenile Detention Center, agree to allow
adolescents who give their consent to participate in projects examining the effects of
media violence and parenting experiences on delinquent and non-delinquent adolescents,
to be conducted by Jennifer Gunderson and Tracie L. Pasold, doctoral graduate students
from the University of Toledo. I understand that participating adolescents will be asked to
complete several questionnaires measuring exposure to violence (in the home
environment, community, and through the media), parenting experiences,
psychopathology, hostility, aggression, empathy, and socially desirable responding. This
should take adolescents approximately 60 minutes total. Participant responses will remain
anonymous and all information will be kept strictly confidential. I am aware of the risks
involved in this study, specifically that some adolescents might become distressed while
completing the questionnaires. I am also of aware of study benefits, including increasing
our knowledge of the effects of violence.
___________________________________
Signature
216
__________________
Date of Signature
Appendix C
Public Schools: Informed Consent for Research
Project Topics: Exploring Adolescents’ Parenting Experiences, Emotions, Behaviors,
and Exposure to Violence
Student Investigators: Jennifer Gunderson, M.A.; Tracie L. Pasold, M.A.
________________________________ school agrees to allow students who have
parental consent and who give their consent themselves to participate in projects
examining the effects of media violence and parenting experiences on delinquent and
non-delinquent adolescents, to be conducted by Jennifer Gunderson and Tracie L. Pasold,
Doctoral graduate students from the University of Toledo. I understand that participating
students will be asked to complete several questionnaires measuring parenting
experiences, emotions, behaviors, and exposure to violence. This should take students
approximately 60 minutes total. Student responses will remain anonymous and all
information will be kept strictly confidential.
___________________________________
Authorized Signature
217
__________________
Date of Signature
Appendix D
Parents… We need your help!
You can help us understand more about adolescent experiences.
A study will be conducted at your child’s school under the supervision of Dr. Jeanne
Funk from the University of Toledo. We hope that all students will participate. Students
who have permission and agree to participate will be asked to provide basic demographic
information and will complete several questionnaires measuring parenting experiences,
emotions, behaviors, and exposure to violence.
This session, which will take place at your child’s school during or immediately following regular
hours of attendance, will last about 60 minutes. All answers will be confidential and your child’s
name will never be used in any research report.
Participants will be entered into a drawing for a $25.00 Westfield Gift Card, which can be used at
any Westfield location, such as the Franklin Park Mall. If your child wishes to stop participating,
she or he may do so at any time, and still have a chance to win the gift card.
There may be some minor risks associated with this study. It is possible that your child may feel
anxious when asked to share negative experiences. If this does occur, students will be
encouraged to speak with the school counselor or psychologist. The benefit of this project is that
we may learn more about experiences of today’s youth, and how these may relate to hostility,
aggression, empathy, and other emotional/personality functioning. This information may help us
develop more effective prevention and treatment programs. If you choose not to participate, this
will not affect you or your child’s relationship with the school or with the University of Toledo.
If you permit your child to participate in this study, please sign below and ask your child to return
it to her/his teacher.
CONSENT: My son/daughter may participate in this study.
________________________________
Name of student (please print)
________________________________
Name of parent/guardian (please print)
________________________________
Signature of parent
________________________________
Date of signature
I am interested in receiving a summary of the study results:
yes
no
(circle one)
Address to send results:____________________________________________________
* For more information, contact Tracie Pasold or Jen Gunderson at 419-530-2721.
218
Appendix E
JDC Participants: Informed Consent for Research
You are asked to participate in a study that looks at how your experiences at home and
through the media (for example watching TV and movies) might be related to your
feelings and behavior. If you agree to participate in this study, you will be asked to write
down basic information about yourself and to complete several different questionnaires.
There are no right or wrong answers, so please be honest on all questionnaires. These
usually take 60 minutes to complete. You will not be writing your name on any of the
questionnaires so all of your answers will be anonymous and confidential – this means no
one will ever know how you answered the questions.
We would like you to participate in this study, but you are free to say no or to stop
working on questionnaires at any time. You do not have to answer questions that make
you feel upset. You will not be punished if you decide you do not want to be in the study.
There is a risk that you might feel upset when reading some of the questions (for
example, about your feelings or experiences of violence). The benefit of this study is that
you are helping us to learn more about teens’ experiences, feelings, and behaviors. To
thank you for participating in this study, you will receive a piece of candy. If you decide
to stop during the study, you can still choose a piece of candy.
If you have any questions, please ask them now. If you would like to talk to someone
before, during, or after the study, please ask a staff member to call the Rescue Mental
Health Office (Robin Jackson, 419-255-9585).
By signing below, you agree to participate in this study.
_______________________________
Signature
_____________
Date
219
Appendix F
Public School Students: Informed Consent for Research
You are asked to participate in a study that looks at how your experiences at home and
through the media (for example, watching TV and movies) might be related to your
feelings and behavior. If you agree to participate in this study, you will be asked to write
down basic information about yourself and to complete several different questionnaires.
There are no right or wrong answers, so please be honest on all questionnaires. These
usually take 60 minutes to complete. You will not be writing your name on any of the
questionnaires so all of your answers will be anonymous and confidential – this means no
one will ever know how you answered the questions.
We would like you to participate in this study, but you are free to say no or to stop
working on questionnaires at any time. You do not have to answer questions that make
you feel upset. You will not be punished if you decide you do not want to be in the study.
There is a risk that you might feel upset when reading some of the questions (for
example, about your feelings or experiences of violence). The benefit of this study is that
you are helping us to learn more about teens’ experiences, feelings, and behaviors. To
thank you for participating in this study, your name will be entered into a drawing to win
a 25.00 Westfield gift card, which can be used at Franklin Park Mall. If you decide to
stop during the study, you will still have a chance to win the gift card.
If you have any questions, please ask them now.
By signing below, you agree to participate in this study.
_______________________________
Signature
_____________
Date
220
Appendix G
Anticipated Future Parenting Index (API) – Revised, Dissertation Version
Each of us has certain ideas about what principles we anticipate we will use in parenting
our children. Below are a number of questions concerning your anticipated style of
future parenting. When filling out this questionnaire, it is essential that you try to think
about how YOU would behave as a parent. For each question please circle the answer
choice that most closely represents your own beliefs or perceptions about how you
think you will behave towards your child(ren). Be careful not to leave any questions
unanswered.
1. I will spend one-on-one time with my child(ren).
No
1
Maybe
2
Yes
3
2. I will require my child(ren) to check in regularly when out.
No
1
Maybe
2
Yes
3
3. I will make my child(ren) feel like he/she is not good enough.
No
1
Maybe
2
Yes
3
4. I will reward my child with money or material items.
No
1
Maybe
2
Yes
3
5. If my child(ren) does something wrong, I will ground him/her.
No
1
Maybe
2
Yes
3
6. I will try to instill fear in my child(ren) so that he/she will be afraid to do things.
No
1
Maybe
2
Yes
3
7. I will compare my child to siblings or other children.
No
1
Maybe
2
Yes
3
221
8. I will attend my child(ren)’s sporting events and other extracurricular activities.
No
1
Maybe
2
Yes
3
9. I will probably favor one child over another.
No
1
Maybe
2
Yes
3
10. I will insist on meeting and approving all of my child(ren)’s friends.
No
1
Maybe
2
Yes
3
11. It will be hard for me to let my child(ren) become independent.
No
1
Maybe
2
Yes
3
12. I will spank my child when he/she does something wrong.
No
1
Maybe
2
Yes
3
13. I will express affection and caring towards my child(ren) through words and gestures.
No
1
Maybe
2
Yes
3
14. My child(ren) will be expected to tell me who they are going to be with, where they are
going, what they are planning to do, and why they want to do it before being allowed to
go out.
No
1
Maybe
2
Yes
3
15. I will try to understand and support my child(ren)’s choices.
No
1
Maybe
2
Yes
3
16. I will use verbal statements to praise and encourage my child.
No
1
Maybe
2
Yes
3
222
17. My child(ren) will not be allowed to do things that other children are allowed to do
because I will be afraid that something will happen to them.
No
1
Maybe
2
Yes
3
18. I will listen to my child(ren).
No
1
Maybe
2
Yes
3
19. I will show interest in what my child(ren) is interested in.
No
1
Maybe
2
Yes
3
20. I will probably expect too much from my children.
No
1
Maybe
2
Yes
3
21. I will make my child(ren) feel like he/she can’t handle things on his/her own.
No
1
Maybe
2
Yes
3
22. When my child does something wrong, I will discuss what was done wrong and why it
was wrong with him/her.
No
1
Maybe
2
Yes
3
23. I will show interest in what is going on in my child’s life.
No
1
Maybe
2
Yes
3
24. I am likely to be overly worried that something might happen to my child(ren).
No
1
Maybe
2
Yes
3
25. I will make decisions for my child.
No
1
Maybe
2
Yes
3
223
26. If my child does something wrong, I will throw away something that he/she really likes to
punish him/her.
No
1
Maybe
2
Yes
3
27. I will give my child added chores to do as a means of punishment.
No
1
Maybe
2
Yes
3
28. I will make sure my child(ren) feels like he/she can come to me for anything.
No
1
Maybe
2
Yes
3
29. No matter how well my child does at something, I will tell them they could have done
better.
No
1
Maybe
2
Yes
3
30. I will use a belt, paddle, or other object to punish my child.
No
1
Maybe
2
Yes
3
31. I will listen to and try to understand my child(ren).
No
1
Maybe
2
Yes
3
224
ITEM
Warmth Scale
1. I will spend one-on-one time with my children
8. I will attend my child(ren)’s sporting events and other
extracurricular activities
13. I will express affection and caring towards my child(ren) through
words and gestures
16. I will use verbal statements to praise and encourage my child
23. I will show interest in what is going on in my child’s life
28. I will make sure my child(ren) feels like he/she can come to me
for anything
2. I will require my child(ren) to check in regularly when out
6. I will try to instill fear in my child(ren) so that he/she will be
afraid to do things
10. I will insist on meeting and approving all of my child’s friends
11. It will be hard for me to let my child(ren) become independent
14. My child(ren) will be expected to tell me who they are going to
be with, where they are going, what they are planning to do, and
why they want to do it before being allowed to go out
Center Questionnaires
225
.34
.33
.49
.41
.32
.37
.38
.54
.67
.70
.73
.65
2.91
2.77
2.85
2.91
2.88
2.89
2.66
1.44
2.20
1.84
2.46
SD
2.91
M
.20
-.06
.14
.02
.23
.63
.61
.62
.58
.64
.63
.65
1
-.05
.59
.11
-.00
.01
-.11
-.10
-.02
-.29
-.36
-.17
.05
2
Factors
.58
.09
.57
.49
.55
.08
-.09
.11
.21
.22
.10
.13
3
Means, Standard Deviations, and Factor Loadings of the Anticipated Future Parenting Index (API) Using Public School and Juvenile Detention
Appendix H
226
17. My child(ren) will not be allowed to do things that other children
are allowed to do because I will be afraid that something will
happen to them
21. I will make my child(ren) feel like he/she can’t handle things
on his/her own
24. I am likely to be overly worried that something might happen to
my child(ren)
Rejection Scale
3. I will make my child(ren) feel like he/she is not good enough
7. I will compare my child to siblings or other children
15. I will try to understand and support my child(ren)’s
choices (reverse scored)
19. I will show interest in what my child is interested in (reverse scored)
20. I will probably expect too much from my children
29. No matter how well my child does at something, I will tell
them they could have done better
31. I will listen to and try to understand my child (reverse scored)
Note. Numbers in bold indicate loadings on that factor.
.64
.59
.74
.46
.49
.43
.32
.41
.71
.66
.72
.35
1.63
1.32
2.08
1.13
1.21
1.15
1.10
1.17
1.72
1.77
1.51
1.08
-.24
-.73
-.69
-.40
-.07
.01
-.15
.04
-.26
.07
-.06
-.16
.44
.20
-.06
.33
.50
.35
.53
.62
.48
.13
.54
.23
.29
-.08
.06
-.31
.28
.27
-.00
-.12
-.01
.61
.11
.59
Warmth Scale
1. I will spend one-on-one time with my children
8. I will attend my child(ren)’s sporting events and other
extracurricular activities
13. I will express affection and caring towards my child(ren) through
words and gestures
16. I will use verbal statements to praise and encourage my child
23. I will show interest in what is going on in my child’s life
28. I will make sure my child(ren) feels like he/she can come to me
for anything
2. I will require my child(ren) to check in regularly when out
6. I will try to instill fear in my child(ren) so that he/she will be
afraid to do things
10. I will insist on meeting and approving all of my child’s friends
11. It will be hard for me to let my child(ren) become independent
14. My child(ren) will be expected to tell me who they are going to
be with, where they are going, what they are planning to do, and
why they want to do it before being allowed to go out
ITEM
.16
-.17
- .15
.04
-.25
-.22
-.22
.04
.67
-.01
.03
.03
.70
.52
.56
.64
.67
.67
.29
-.02
.12
.03
.22
227
3
1
.57
.12
.58
.56
.48
.01
-.03
.14
.13
.19
.18
-.02
.50
-.11
.45
.09
.44
.50
.56
.65
.54
.71
.64
.81
.07
.43
.26
-.13
.01
-.14
-.11
-.08
-.43
-.44
.05
-.09
2
Factors
Factors
2
JDC
Public School
.69
1
Questionnaires Completed by Juvenile Detention Center (JDC) Participants
Factor Loadings of the Anticipated Future Parenting Index (API) Using Questionnaires Completed by Public School Participants and
Appendix I
.25
.11
.36
.32
.24
.30
-.07
.01
.14
-.13
-.28
-.00
3
17. My child(ren) will not be allowed to do things that other children
are allowed to do because I will be afraid that something will
happen to them
21. I will make my child(ren) feel like he/she can’t handle things
on his/her own
24. I am likely to be overly worried that something might happen to
my child(ren)
Rejection Scale
3. I will make my child(ren) feel like he/she is not good enough
7. I will compare my child to siblings or other children
15. I will try to understand and support my child(ren)’s
choices (reverse scored)
19. I will show interest in what my child is interested in (reverse sc)
20. I will probably expect too much from my children
29. No matter how well my child does at something, I will tell
them they could have done better
31. I will listen to and try to understand my child (reverse scored)
.53
.12
.51
.64
.37
-.22
.24
.55
.30
.46
.27
-.14
.04
-.13
.08
-.52
-.57
-.45
-.16
-.03
-.19
-.71
228
.19
-.21
.20
-.09
.02
-.24
.26
.05
.14
-.19
.12
.66
-.12
.51
-.17
-.71
-.68
-.36
-.05
.23
-.17
-.25
.15
.14
-.00
.04
.35
.29
.18
.64
.02
.22
.69
.14
.72
-.22
.19
-.01
.35
-.09
.02
-.19
.66
.41
.05
.35
-.02
.61
.53
.61
Appendix J
Perceptions of Parenting Scale – Dissertation Version
Below are a number of questions concerning your ideas about your parents’ behavior
towards you as you experience it. For each question, please circle the answer choice
that applies to your own mothers’ and father’s behavior towards you.
Try to answer all questions that apply. We are aware that certain questions are
impossible to answer if you do not have any sister(s) or brother(s) or if you have been
raised by one parent only. Read through each question carefully and consider which
one of the possible answers applies to you. ANSWER SEPARATELY FOR
YOUR MOTHER AND YOUR FATHER. Choose ONE person to be the person
you will be thinking about when you answer each question about mother. Choose
ONE person who you will be thinking about when you answer each question about
father.
1. This form will be asking you questions about your experience of your mother.
Who will you be thinking of when you answer the questions about your mom
(i.e., real mom, stepmom, grandmother, aunt, foster mother, etc.)?
Please indicate:_________________________________
2. This form will be asking you questions about your experience of your father.
Who will you be thinking of when you answer the questions about your dad (i.e.,
real dad, stepfather, grandfather, uncle, foster father, etc.)?
Please indicate:_________________________________
3. My parents spend one-on-one time with me.
Father:
Mother:
No, never
1
1
Sometimes
2
2
Yes, often
3
3
4. My parents want to know where I am all the time and make me check in when I’m out.
Father:
Mother:
No, never
1
1
Sometimes
2
2
Yes, often
3
3
5. My parents make me feel like I am not good enough.
No, never
Father:
1
Mother:
1
Sometimes
2
2
Yes, often
3
3
229
6. When I do something right, my parents give me something like money.
Father:
Mother:
No, never
1
1
Sometimes
2
2
Yes, often
3
3
7. To punish me when I do something wrong, my parents ground me.
Father:
Mother:
No, never
1
1
Sometimes
2
2
Yes, often
3
3
8. My parents try to scare me by telling me that bad things might happen so that I am afraid
to do things.
Father:
Mother:
No, never
1
1
Sometimes
2
2
Yes, often
3
3
9. My parents think I am not as good as my brother or sister or other children.
Father:
Mother:
No, never
1
1
Sometimes
2
2
Yes, often
3
3
10. My parents come to my school activities and other activities.
Father:
Mother:
No, never
1
1
Sometimes
2
2
Yes, often
3
3
11. My parents like my brother or sister more than they like me.
Father:
Mother:
No, never
1
1
Sometimes
2
2
Yes, often
3
3
12. My parents want to know all of my friends.
Father:
Mother:
No, never
1
1
Sometimes
2
2
Yes, often
3
3
13. My parents try to stop me from becoming independent.
Father:
Mother:
No, never
1
1
Sometimes
2
2
Yes, often
3
3
230
14. I get hit by my parents when I do something wrong.
Father:
Mother:
No, never
1
1
Sometimes
2
2
Yes, often
3
3
15. My parents express affection towards me by giving me hugs and saying they love me.
Father:
Mother:
No, never
1
1
Sometimes
2
2
Yes, often
3
3
16. I am expected to tell my parents who I am going to be with, where I am going, what I am
planning to do, and why I want to do it before being allowed to go out.
Father:
Mother:
No, never
1
1
Sometimes
2
2
Yes, often
3
3
17. My parents try to understand me and what I want.
Father:
Mother:
No, never
1
1
Sometimes
2
2
Yes, often
3
3
18. When I do something right, my parents tell me that I did a good job.
No, never
Father:
1
Mother:
1
Sometimes
2
2
Yes, often
3
3
19. My parents do not allow me to do things that other children are allowed to do because
they are afraid that something will happen to me.
Father:
Mother:
No, never
1
1
Sometimes
2
2
Yes, often
3
3
Sometimes
2
2
Yes, often
3
3
20. My parents listen to me.
Father:
Mother:
No, never
1
1
21. My parents and I are interested in the same things.
Father:
Mother:
No, never
1
1
Sometimes
2
2
Yes, often
3
3
231
22. My parents expect too much from me.
Father:
Mother:
No, never
1
1
Sometimes
2
2
Yes, often
3
3
23. My parents try to make me feel like I can’t handle things on my own.
Father:
Mother:
No, never
1
1
Sometimes
2
2
Yes, often
3
3
24. When I do something wrong, my parents explain to me what was done wrong and
why it was wrong.
Father:
Mother:
No, never
1
1
Sometimes
2
2
Yes, often
3
3
25. My parents show interest in what is going on in my life.
Father:
Mother:
No, never
1
1
Sometimes
2
2
Yes, often
3
3
26. My parents tend to be overly worried that something might happen to me.
Father:
Mother:
No, never
1
1
Sometimes
2
2
Yes, often
3
3
27. My parents try to make decisions for me.
Father:
Mother:
No, never
1
1
Sometimes
2
2
Yes, often
3
3
28. When I do something wrong, my parents throw away something of mine that I
really like to punish me.
No, never
Father:
1
Mother:
1
Sometimes
2
2
Yes, often
3
3
29. When I do something wrong, my parents make me do extra jobs at home.
Father:
Mother:
No, never
1
1
Sometimes
2
2
Yes, often
3
3
232
30. My parents make sure I feel like I can come to them for anything.
Father:
Mother:
No, never
1
1
Sometimes
2
2
Yes, often
3
3
31. No matter how well I do at something, my parents tell me that I could have done
better.
Father:
Mother:
No, never
1
1
Sometimes
2
2
Yes, often
3
3
32. My parents hit me with a belt, paddle, or other object to punish me when I do
something wrong.
Father:
Mother:
No, never
1
1
Sometimes
2
2
Yes, often
3
3
33. My parents listen to and try to understand me.
Father:
Mother:
No, never
1
1
Sometimes
2
2
Yes, often
3
3
233
Warmth Scale
with me
15. My parents express affection towards me by
me I did a good job
in my life
do things
ITEM
Juvenile Detention Center Questionnaires
SD
.78
.82
.84
.80
.81
.83
.84
.82
.66
.80
M
2.05
2.00
2.12
2.34
2.18
2.17
2.12
2.15
1.38
2.02
234
.07
.72
.69
.80
.80
.77
.81
.77
.68
.75
1
Factors
-.05
.12
.13
.21
.23
.24
.18
.17
.31
.16
2
.46
.16
.18
-.16
-.11
-.08
-.14
-.07
-.03
.00
3
1.51
2.35
2.48
2.42
2.45
2.57
2.45
2.46
2.26
2.39
M
.73
.72
.70
.76
.72
.65
.70
.73
.80
.70
SD
-.17
.19
.16
.16
.19
.20
.21
.18
.23
.18
1
Factors
-.11
.50
.63
.78
.77
.78
.76
.70
.62
.69
2
.32
.26
.08
-.16
-.11
-.13
-.17
-.10
-.02
-.06
3
FATHER
MOTHER
________________________________ _________________________________
Means, Standard Deviations, and Factor Loadings of all Items on the Perceptions of Past Parenting Scale (PPPS) Using Public School and
Appendix K
independent
they are afraid that something will happen to me
Rejection Scale
good enough
9. My parents think I am not as good as my brother
or sister or other children
11. My parents like my brother or sister more than
they like me
me (reverse scored)
.62
.81
.70
.68
.75
.73
.65
.68
.82
.75
.72
.70
.70
.81
1.32
2.08
1.55
1.46
1.77
1.53
1.38
1.39
1.85
2.00
1.70
1.66
1.54
1.80
235
-.84
.06
-.67
.09
.14
-.82
-.32
-.28
-.51
.45
-.02
.27
.73
.03
-.25
-.11
-.20
.12
-.03
-.21
-.16
-.10
-.05
.11
-.11
.05
.14
.03
.19
.54
.08
.55
.64
.11
.41
.50
.31
.51
.58
.53
.18
.56
1.53
1.63
1.93
1.78
1.88
1.55
1.46
1.44
1.46
2.08
1.61
1.72
2.39
1.49
.70
.75
.71
.73
.71
.72
.71
.71
.69
.75
.74
.72
.68
.71
-.21
-.09
-.11
-.09
-.14
-.18
-.21
-.15
-.14
-.03
-.08
-.02
.24
-.07
-.80
-.13
-.63
-.09
.02
-.78
-.44
-.37
-.45
.47
-.25
.29
.55
-.01
.24
.50
.13
.52
.59
.17
.40
.42
.43
.38
.49
.42
.19
.54
.79
.84
.85
.85
.84
.84
.80
.81
.83
.84
.82
.66
.80
.62
.81
.70
.68
.75
2.12
2.34
2.18
2.17
2.12
2.15
1.38
2.02
1.32
2.08
1.55
1.46
1.77
.34
.14
-.14
.67
.05
.67
-.05
.63
1
.76
.73
Father
M
SD
2.05
.78
2.00
.82
236
Warmth Scale
3. My parents spend one-on-one time with me
10. My parents come to my school activities and other activities
15. My parents express affection towards me by giving me hugs
and saying they love me
18. When I do something right, my parents tell me I did a good job
25. My parents show interest in what is going on in my life
30. My parents make sure I feel like I can come to them for anything
4. My parents want to know where I am all the time and make me
check in when I’m out
8. My parents try to scare me by telling me that bad things might
happen so that I am afraid to do things
13. My parents try to stop me from becoming independent
16. I am expected to tell my parents who I am going to be with,
where I am going, what I am planning to do, and why I want
to do it before being allowed to go out
19. My parents do not allow me to do things that other children are
allowed to do because they are afraid that something will
happen to me
23. My parents try to make me feel like I can’t handle things on my own
26. My parents tend to be overly worried that something might happen
to me
Questionnaires
.68
.73
.63
.38
.47
.32
.63
.38
.04
.01
-.06
-.01
-.05
Factors
2
.11
.06
-.09
-.04
.24
-.11
.19
-.04
.11
-.11
-.12
.00
-.13
-.08
-.13
3
-.06
-.05
Means, Standard Deviations, and Factor Loadings of the Father Items on the Perceptions of Past Parenting Scale (PPPS) Using All Completed
Appendix L
Rejection Scale
5. My parents make me feel like I am not good enough
9. My parents think I am not as good as my brother or sister or other
children
11. My parents like my brother or sister more than they like me
17. My parents try to understand me and what I want (reverse scored)
21. My parents and I are interested in the same things (reverse scored)
31. No matter how well I do at something, my parents tell me that I
could have done better
33. My parents listen to and try to understand me (reverse scored)
.65
.68
.82
.75
.72
.70
.70
.81
1.38
1.39
1.85
2.00
1.70
1.66
1.54
1.80
237
.73
1.53
.01
-.88
-.21
-.24
-.86
-.73
.05
.02
-.49
.46
.03
.22
.09
.07
.04
.45
.76
.17
.37
.20
.81
.82
.12
.03
.53
.17
.44
238
Warmth Scale
3. My parents spend one-on-one time with me
10. My parents come to my school activities and other activities
15. My parents express affection towards me by giving me hugs
and saying they love me
18. When I do something right, my parents tell me I did a good job
25. My parents show interest in what is going on in my life
30. My parents make sure I feel like I can come to them for anything
4. My parents want to know where I am all the time and make me
check in when I’m out
8. My parents try to scare me by telling me that bad things might happen
so that I am afraid to do things
13. My parents try to stop me from becoming independent
16. I am expected to tell my parents who I am going to be with, where
I am going, what I am planning to do, and why I want to do it
19. My parents do not allow me to do things that other children are
allowed to do because they are afraid that something will happen to me
23. My parents try to make me feel like I can’t handle things on my own
Questionnaires
.70
.80
.73
.65
.70
.72
.76
.70
.73
.72
.71
.68
.72
.74
2.39
2.26
2.46
2.57
2.45
2.45
2.42
2.48
1.51
2.35
1.49
2.39
1.72
1.61
Mother
SD
M
.13
-.32
.49
-.05
.44
-.18
.50
.75
.79
.79
.80
.83
.70
.60
1
.08
.36
-.02
.53
.00
.23
-.21
-.09
-.19
-.23
-.15
-.16
-.13
-.16
Factors
2
.56
.43
.49
.09
.45
.58
.52
.03
.12
.01
.04
-.03
.11
.22
3
Means, Standard Deviations, and Factor Loadings of the Mother Items on the Perceptions of Past Parenting Scale (PPPS) Using All Completed
Appendix M
26. My parents tend to be overly worried that something might happen
to me
Rejection Scale
5. My parents make me feel like I am not good enough
9. My parents think I am not as good as my brother or sister or other
children
11. My parents like my brother or sister more than they like me
17. My parents try to understand me and what I want (reverse scored)
21. My parents and I are interested in the same things (reverse scored)
31. No matter how well I do at something, my parents tell me that I
could have done better
33. My parents listen to and try to understand me (reverse scored)
239
.75
.69
.71
.71
.72
.71
.73
.71
.75
.70
2.08
1.46
1.44
1.46
1.55
1.93
1.78
1.88
1.63
1.53
-.12
-.86
-.19
-.28
-.78
-.69
-.06
-.13
-.37
.25
.53
.00
.82
.77
.24
.05
.61
.34
.63
-.04
.35
.14
-.07
-.08
-.04
.06
.37
.64
.12
.64
Warmth Scale
with me
me I did a good job
in my life
do things
independent
ITEM
2
.12
.30
.16
.30
.16
.24
.18
.14
-.09
.10
-.07
1
.71
.65
.72
.65
.77
.76
.77
.64
-.01
.69
-.00
Father
Factors
240
.54
.40
.22
.23
-.20
-.17
-.11
-.20
-.12
-.04
.00
3
-.00
-.02
.28
.28
.16
.21
.22
.20
.21
.24
.23
1
-.23
-.23
.44
.52
.80
.76
.76
.78
.65
.62
.65
2
Mother
Factors
.53
.27
.33
.19
-.13
-.03
-.11
-.17
-.01
.02
- .03
3
Factor Loadings of all Items on the Perceptions of Past Parenting Scale (PPPS) Using Questionnaires Completed by Public School Participants
Appendix N
.65
they are afraid that something will happen to me .07
-.22
.33
Rejection Scale
good enough
-.48
-.42
they like me
-.38
-.79
-.59
-.19
-.06
-.14
me (reverse scored)
-.79
.59
.49
.52
.46
.42
.41
.16
.08
.58
.67
.56
.28
.04
-.17
-.00
.02
-.12
-.10
-.20
-.17
.11
-.04
-.11
-.27
241
.19
.11
-.21
-.05
-.07
-.03
-.00
-.18
-.14
-.07
-.11
-.03
-.00
.02
.34
-.78
-.28
-.65
-.27
-.23
-.77
-.43
-.46
-.51
.27
-.50
.14
.45
.24
.44
.12
.46
.56
.09
.39
.35
.37
.42
.35
.48
.22
Warmth Scale
with me
me I did a good job
in my life
do things
independent
ITEM
Center (JDC) Participants
2
.20
.31
.19
.20
.19
.21
.23
.08
-.05
.10
.11
1
.74
.68
.80
.85
.83
.84
.80
.73
.27
.71
.18
Father
Factors
242
.52
.49
.08
.11
-.18
-.06
-.11
-.14
-.05
.02
-.02
3
-.06
-.17
.05
.07
.21
.19
.18
.23
.13
.15
.08
1
2
.20
-.01
.52
.72
.78
.77
.81
.75
.77
.65
.75
Mother
Factors
.53
.41
.31
.01
-.11
-.12
-.03
-.07
-.14
.05
.02
3
Factor Loadings of all Items on the Perceptions of Past Parenting Scale (PPPS) Using Questionnaires Completed by the Juvenile Detention
Appendix O
.81
they are afraid that something will happen to me
.64
.28
.70
Rejection Scale
good enough
-.53
-.05
they like me
-.26
-.84
-.74
.30
.49
.43
me (reverse scored)
-.88
.30
.60
.34
.21
.62
.45
.10
.13
.46
.47
.39
.10
.03
-.06
.17
-.17
-.12
-.28
-.21
-.20
.05
-.10
-.14
-.23
243
.17
.17
-.23
.06
-.09
-.08
-.13
-.17
-.24
-.13
-.14
.19
-.11
.11
.11
-.82
.00
-.64
.06
.26
-.80
-.49
-.33
-.42
.61
.04
.45
.65
.17
.50
-.00
.57
.58
.18
.43
.51
.54
.22
.60
.28
.33
Appendix P
Traumatic Events Questionnaire
Below are some questions about how some kids feel or about things that some kids have
had happen to them. Please read each question, then mark how often it happens to YOU
by circling the correct answer. Circle 1 if it never happens to you. Circle 2 if it happens
rarely. Circle 3 if it happens sometimes. Circle 4 if it happens often. Please answer
ALL of the questions.
1. I didn’t have enough to eat.
Never True
1
Rarely True
2
Sometimes True
3
Often True
4
2. I have been called mean names by people in my family.
Never True
1
Rarely True
2
Sometimes True
3
Often True
4
3. I have been scared of being hurt by someone in my family.
Never True
1
Rarely True
2
Sometimes True
3
Often True
4
4. I have felt like there was no one to take care of me and protect me.
Never True
1
Rarely True
2
Sometimes True
3
Often True
4
5. I was punished with a belt, board, or other object.
Never True
1
Rarely True
2
Sometimes True
3
Often True
4
6. Someone tried to make me do or watch sexual things.
Never True
1
Rarely True
2
Sometimes True
3
Often True
4
7. Someone in my family hit me so hard that it left marks or bruises.
Never True
1
Rarely True
2
Sometimes True
3
244
Often True
4
8. Someone tried to make me touch them or they tried to touch me in a sexual way.
Never True
1
Rarely True
2
Sometimes True
3
Often True
4
Sometimes True
3
Often True
4
9. I felt that someone in my family hated me.
Never True
1
Rarely True
2
10. My parents were too drunk or high to take care of the family.
Never True
1
Rarely True
2
Sometimes True
3
Often True
4
11. I had sex with someone a lot older than me (more than five years older).
Never True
1
Rarely True
2
Sometimes True
3
Often True
4
12. Someone in my family said things that were hurtful or insulting to me.
Never True
1
Rarely True
2
Sometimes True
3
Often True
4
13. I was hit or beaten badly enough that it was noticed by someone like a babysitter, teacher,
or doctor.
Never True
1
Rarely True
2
Sometimes True
3
Often True
4
14. Someone made threats that they would hurt me or tell lies about me if I did not do sexual
things with them.
Never True
1
Rarely True
2
Sometimes True
3
Often True
4
15. Someone in my family hit or beat me badly enough that I had to see a doctor.
Never True
1
Rarely True
2
Sometimes True
3
Often True
4
16. I was not taken to the doctor when I was sick or needed a checkup.
Never True
1
Rarely True
2
Sometimes True
3
245
Often True
4
Appendix Q
YPI
Version 3.0
Instructions
This sheet consists of a number of statements that deal with what you think and feel
about different things. Read each statement carefully and decide how well the particular
statement applies to you. You can choose between four different alternatives on each
statement.
Answer each statement as you most often feel and think, not only how you feel
right now.
Example:
I like reading books.
Does not
Does not
apply at all
apply well
"
"
Applies
fairly well
Applies
very well
"
"
• Put a mark in the box that corresponds to how you feel.
• Do not think too long on each statement.
REMEMBER:
• Answer ALL statements.
• Do not put a mark between the alternatives.
• Only one answer per statement.
IMPORTANT!!! There are no answers that are ”Right” or ”Wrong”. You cannot
score worse or better than anyone else. We are interested in what you think and feel, not
in what is ”Right” or ”Wrong”.
1. I usually feel calm when other people are scared.
Does not
apply at all
Does not
apply well
Applies
fairly well
Applies
very well
"
"
"
"
2. I have the ability not to feel guilt and regret about things that I think other people
would feel guilty about.
Does not
apply at all
Does not
apply well
Applies
fairly well
Applies
very well
"
"
"
"
246
3. I think that crying is a sign of weakness, even if no one sees you.
Does not
apply at all
Does not
apply well
Applies
fairly well
Applies
very well
"
"
"
"
4. When other people have problems, it is often their own fault, therefore, one should not
help them.
Does not
apply at all
Does not
apply well
Applies
fairly well
Applies
very well
"
"
"
"
5. I seldom regret things I do, even if other people feel that they are wrong.
Does not
apply at all
Does not
apply well
Applies
fairly well
Applies
very well
"
"
"
"
6. It’s important to me not to hurt other people’s feelings.
Does not
apply at all
Does not
apply well
Applies
fairly well
Applies
very well
"
"
"
"
7. To be nervous and worried is a sign of weakness.
Does not
apply at all
Does not
apply well
Applies
fairly well
Applies
very well
"
"
"
"
8. When someone finds out about something that I’ve done wrong, I feel more angry than
guilty.
Does not
apply at all
Does not
apply well
Applies
fairly well
Applies
very well
"
"
"
"
9. I often become sad or moved by watching sad things on TV or film.
Does not
apply at all
Does not
apply well
Applies
fairly well
Applies
very well
"
"
"
"
10. What scares others usually doesn’t scare me.
Does not
Does not
Applies
apply at all
apply well
fairly well
"
"
"
247
Applies
very well
"
11. I don’t understand how people can be touched enough to cry by looking at things on
TV or movie.
Does not
apply at all
Does not
apply well
Applies
fairly well
Applies
very well
"
"
"
"
12. To feel guilty and remorseful about things you have done that have hurt other people
is a sign of weakness.
Does not
apply at all
Does not
apply well
Applies
fairly well
Applies
very well
"
"
"
"
13. I don’t let my feelings affect me as much as other people’s feelings seem to affect
them.
Does not
apply at all
Does not
apply well
Applies
fairly well
Applies
very well
"
"
"
"
14. To feel guilt and regret when you have done something wrong is a waste of time.
Does not
apply at all
Does not
apply well
Applies
fairly well
Applies
very well
"
"
"
"
15. I usually become sad when I see other people crying or being sad.
Does not
apply at all
Does not
apply well
Applies
fairly well
Applies
very well
"
"
"
"
248
Appendix R
Symptoms of Trauma Questionnaire
Below is a list of problems people sometimes have after very bad things happen to them.
Please read each question, then mark how often it happens to YOU in the past month by
circling the correct answer. Circle 1 if it never happens to you. Circle 2 if it happens
rarely. Circle 3 if it happens sometimes. Circle 4 if it happens often. Please answer
ALL of the questions.
1. I watch out for danger or things that I am afraid of.
Never True
1
Rarely True
2
Sometimes True
3
Often True
4
2. I get very upset, afraid, or sad when something reminds me of a bad thing that happened
to me.
Never True
1
Rarely True
2
Sometimes True
3
Often True
4
3. Thoughts, pictures, or sounds of a bad thing that happened to me come into my mind
when I don’t want them to and they upset me.
Never True
1
Rarely True
2
Sometimes True
3
Often True
4
Sometimes True
3
Often True
4
4. I feel grouchy, angry, or mad.
Never True
1
Rarely True
2
5. I have dreams about a bad thing that happened to me or other bad dreams.
Never True
1
Rarely True
2
Sometimes True
3
Often True
4
6. I feel like I am back when the bad thing happened and living through it again.
Never True
1
Rarely True
2
Sometimes True
3
Often True
4
7. I feel like being by myself and not being with my friends.
Never True
1
Rarely True
2
Sometimes True
3
249
Often True
4
8. I feel alone inside and not close to other people.
Never True
1
Rarely True
2
Sometimes True
3
Often True
4
9. I try not to talk about, think about, or have feelings about a bad thing that happened to
me.
Never True
1
Rarely True
2
Sometimes True
3
Often True
4
Sometimes True
3
Often True
4
Sometimes True
3
Often True
4
10. I have trouble feeling happy or loved.
Never True
1
Rarely True
2
11. I have trouble feeling sad or angry.
Never True
1
Rarely True
2
12. I feel jumpy and easily startled, like when I hear a loud noise or when something
surprises me.
Never True
1
Rarely True
2
Sometimes True
3
Often True
4
13. I have trouble getting to sleep or I wake up a lot during the night.
Never True
1
Rarely True
2
Sometimes True
3
Often True
4
14. I think that part of a bad thing that happened to me is my fault.
Never True
1
Rarely True
2
Sometimes True
3
Often True
4
15. I have trouble remembering parts of a bad thing that happened to me.
Never True
Rarely True
Sometimes True
Often True
1
2
3
4
16. I have trouble concentrating or paying attention.
Never True
1
Rarely True
2
Sometimes True
3
Often True
4
17. I try to stay away from people, places, or things that make me remember a bad thing that
happened.
Never True
1
Rarely True
2
Sometimes True
3
250
Often True
4
18. When something reminds me of a bad thing that happened, I have strong feelings in my
body, like my heart beating fast, my head aches, or my stomach aches.
Never True
1
Rarely True
2
Sometimes True
3
Often True
4
Sometimes True
3
Often True
4
19. I think that I will not live a long life.
Never True
1
Rarely True
2
20. I am afraid that a bad thing that happened to me will happen again.
Never True
1
Rarely True
2
Sometimes True
3
251
Often True
4
Appendix S
About Me
Please circle either True or False for each statement as it applies to you.
1. I am always respectful to older people.
True False
2. Sometimes I do not feel like doing what my teachers want me to do.
True False
3. Sometimes I have felt like throwing things or breaking them.
True False
4. I never talk back to my parent or guardian.
True False
5. When I make a mistake, I always admit that I am wrong.
True False
6. I sometimes feel like making fun of other people.
True False
7. I always wash my hands before every meal.
True False
8. Sometimes I wish I could just hang out instead of going to school.
True False
9. I have never been tempted to break a rule or law.
True False
10. Sometimes I dislike helping my parent/guardian even
though I know they need my help around the house.
True False
11. Sometimes I say things just to impress my friends.
True False
12. I never shout when I feel angry.
True False
252

Understanding the transgenerational cycle of parenting : the role of

Transcription

Similar documents

Parenting Through Crisis - Marjorie E. Korff PACT Program

Love and Work: what really works in family intervention, being

December Newsletter - The Parenting Center

Parenting with Attitude

press rel 2

Understanding Parenting Capacity Assessment

Virtual City Casino Spam Slot Machine Coins Icons

It`s called Mother`s Day, not Parent`s Day

Take Back Your Kids: How to Teach and Get Respect

August Newsletter 2015 - The Center for the Prevention of Child Abuse