 |
BCIFV home
> Newsletter > 1999
Archives > Summer 1999 articles
By David Yawney, MSW
My interest in child abuse, particularly in the family violence
area, inevitably drew me to the issue of children who witness
family violence. Working with a colleague who specialized
in wife abuse issues, we embarked on developing an intervention
tool, Project Child Recovery: Group Intervention for Child
Witnesses of Family Violence (Yawney & Hill, 1993). As
a newer area, there seemed more opportunity to explore unfinished
dimensions regarding this subject. Essentially, there were
few ready-made programs and this allowed for a fresh look
at the field, with the opportunity to look at other intervention
possibilities. In addition, some thinking was changing in
response to research and afforded a reevaluation of ideas.
For example, whereas in prior times there was a stronger adherence
to the intergenerational hypothesis (the continuation of abuse
through the generations), there was a tendency to over-subscribe
to the occurrence of effects. When more and more stories were
coming forward about individuals who overcame turbulent pasts,
the door opened to what Gina O'Connell Higgins (1994, 1) refers
to as the "uncelebrated resilient strengths". Higgins
makes note of our tendencies to focus on the dire and tragic
rather than research psychological success for the "origins
of mental health". Similarly, a number of authors are
raising a challenge for us to consider a possibility such
as resilience and as Higgins (1994, 2) challenges, "it
is time for us to understand why so many emerge from abuse
without becoming abusive". Or, as has become my interest,
is it possible to understand the process of resilience and
take advantage of it in our work in supporting clients to
encourage both their healing from the past and their resilience
today.
Steven and Sybil Wolin (1994) have been significant in challenging
our thinking about adversity and how it is possible to rise
above it. As will be discussed later, they reject "Damage
Model" thinking and are proponents of "the resilient
self". As Higgins (1994, 1) defines it, "resilience
implies that potential subjects are able to negotiate significant
challenges to development yet consistently "snap back"
in order to complete important developmental tasks that confront
them as they grow". For children, the possibilities become
evident as "research shows that children of disturbed
or incompetent parents learn to watch out for themselves and
grow strong in the process" (Wolin & Wolin, 1994,
5).
The challenge here is to not exclusively look at the hurts
which are inevitable, but also to explore the wellspring of
individual strengths. Higgins represents that issue as follows:
Psychologists-in fact, many people-assume that children
require unconditional love, attention, respect, security,
and safety in order to become mentally healthy. By contrast,
we historically see "maladaptive" or "defensive"
behavior as a nearly inevitable outgrowth of compromised
family life, especially when interpersonal stressors are
extreme. That is, we assume that assaults such as parental
alcoholism, gross neglect, systematic shaming and sexual
intrusion will derail development. The following discussion
of effects of abuse creates a sobering picture of the potential
devastation. Yet even trauma researchers, understandably
committed to discouraging the minimization and denial of
abuse, note that people react differently to the same stressors
and that some even respond relatively well. When people
emerge from difficult circumstances and still demonstrate
particular psychological strengths, they challenge the prevailing
wisdom among developmental and clinical psychologists regarding
the ways that personality strength evolve -- or devolve
(Higgins, 1994, 3).
To demonstrate the concept's potential, this paper will first
review the issue of children who witness family violence.
However, rather than focus on effects which would normally
provide a frame of reference for the intervention, the collateral
concept of resilience will be reviewed.
The Forgotten Victims
Children came to significant attention in the early '60s
when the identification of the "battered child syndrome"
and the child abuse movement were validated by the development
of protective legislation. The resulting Child Welfare Acts
enabled intervention on behalf of children for physical, emotional
and sexual abuse, as well as neglect. As women's shelters
began to identify the problems of children who witness violence,
so too, professionals in social service fields began to take
note of the alarming frequency of violence in families. However,
it is only recently that research and intervention have taken
place for children who witness family violence (Jaffe, Wolfe,
& Wilson, 1990, 15). It is only since the mid-1980s that
family violence researchers have pursued and identified the
current and future adjustment problems of children who live
in violent homes.
In Canada, only two provincial child protection laws have
made allowance for children who witness family violence. In
the United States, there are no federal or state laws specific
to child witnesses (Peled, 1993, 47). Despite this weakness
in legislation, family violence professionals began to recognize
that children didn't need to be hit, yelled at or sexually
abused to evidence some of the same effects. The "forgotten
victims"-children of domestic violence-had finally received
due attention.
Identifying the Problem of Child Witnesses
Attention to these turbulent families and the plight of the
children raised the need for intervention. Although these
troubled families could seek assistance voluntarily, the weight
of legislation would elevate the recognition of this concern.
The Child Welfare Act (Alberta 1985) provides such recognition
by additionally defining "emotional injury (as) the result
of exposure to domestic violence or severe domestic disharmony".
However, universal acceptance of this plight is still outstanding.
Advocacy to recognize the risk is evident in Klosinski's (1993,
562) review of separation and divorce, and his identification
of "psychological maltreatment...when parents abuse each
other physically in front of their children". Therefore,
child witness refers to children who have repeatedly witnessed
severe acts of emotional and physical abuse directed at their
parent by her/his intimate partner.
Exposure, or being witness, to domestic violence has generated
the common phrase "child witness" or "children
who witness family violence" (Note: the future term of
"child observers" may be adopted to avoid apparent
confusion with "child witnesses" in the courtroom
and legal field). "Exposed witnesses" are not always
a result of passive observation, as there are cases where
a parent may "deliberately arrange for the child(ren)
to witness the violence" (Dobash & Dobash, 1979,
151). Besides "exposed witnesses", concern also
exists for "abused witnesses" by one or both parents,
as the overlap of spouse abuse and child abuse occurring in
the same home is possible. Straus et al (1980) approximated
30-40% and Pagelow (1990) estimated 40 to 60 percent of this
occurring in violent families. Pagelow (1990, 348) refers
to the term "double whammy" to highlight this problem
of "victimized observer-victims". As well, children
can be drawn into the dispute as Jenkins et al (1989) survey
indicated over 70% of the children intervened in the parental
quarrels.
Compounding the problem is that society views violence as
acceptable, "normal", or even honorable. It is not
surprising, under these circumstances, that family violence
researchers are finding that an "appalling array of emerging
statistics testify to the use of violence in society"
(Eaves preface to Roesch et al, 199, vii). Even more appalling
is the frequency with which such violence occurs in many North
American families (Jaffe et al, 1990, 15; Eaves preface to
Roesch et al, 1990, vii). The end result is that by the end
of childhood, only a minority seem to escape traumatic exposure.
Effects of Witnessing Family Violence
on Children
Although they are often the "forgotten" or "unintended"
victims, children suffer from witnessing the abuse of their
parent (see several recent reviews of the literature; Fantuzzo
& Lindquist, 1989; Jaffe, Wolfe, & Wilson, 1990; Rosenberg
& Rossman, 1990; Cooper, 1992; Yawney & Hill, 1993).
Witnesses face "a form of emotional or psychological
abuse" that "not only creates the fear and anxiety
of an overwhelming life event, but also may damage children's
social, emotional, and behavioral development" (Jaffe,
Suderman & Reitzel, 1992, 84).
Although direct abuse or obvious effects came to attention
first, Martin & Rodeheffer's (1976) review of physical
child abuse is a good early example of acknowledging not only
the direct abuse but also taking into account "the home
environment" as taking its toll on children as well.
Their thinking acknowledged that the effects of the abusive
environment where love/nurturance are not readily available,
and being subject to developmental delays, distortions and
arrests.
Another view of the "home environment" is pictured
in Johnson's (1989, 19) review of the literature focusing
on family dysfunction including inadequate families, anti-social
families, discordant/disturbed families, and disrupted families
"that lead to a high incidence of problems in child development
and later psychopathology." These four categories, which
include my focus area of discordant/disturbed families, "have
been found to be associated with higher incidences of psychological
disorders leading to various maladaptive behaviors and to
physical illness."
Although no one model presently accounts for all the potential
and actual effects on children of witnessing family violence,
two theoretical perspectives have been frequently suggested:
the social learning model ("violence begets violence")
and the family disruption hypothesis.
The social learning model purports that children are more
likely to imitate violence in an environment where abuse is
seen as a normative or acceptable behavior, thus learning
that violence is a conflict-resolution strategy (Bandura,
1973). Despite being a useful model, the social learning hypothesis
does not account for all the effects evident in children including
internalizing problems (or emotional disturbance), externalizing
problems (or behavior problems) nor effects in social competence.
A second model, the family disruption hypothesis (Widom, 1989)
accounts for the spin-off effects from family violence including
"decreased parental effectiveness, changes in family
residence, sibling distress, and anticipatory fear of new
episodes of violence" (Jaffe, Suderman, & Reitzel,
1992a, 88).
In fact, a review of the consequences of witnessing family
violence is not an easy endeavor and should avoid a "deterministic"
view that would automatically subscribe effects as givens.
Rosenberg & Rossman (1990, 206) provide the best advice
regarding this by acknowledging that "because child witnesses
tend to be a heterogeneous population, it might be more fruitful
to identify variables that mediate children's psychological
outcome, rather than to assume that all children will be equally
affected by witnessing violence". However, with respect
to Rosenberg & Rossman's advice, the following sections
pay attention to the helpful concept of "variables that
mediate" such as resilience and protective factors.
Children in Danger
We can learn further of the effects of violence by analyzing
children influenced by violence outside the family battleground.
In our global village, we feel right next door to orphaned
children, children in the midst of war and inner city violence.
With community violence increasingly becoming a fact of life,
the risk factors that can affect children (i.e., poverty,
parental substance abuse, an absent parent, and parental incapacity),
and the risk of violence inside the family, should alert us
to what Gabarino terms "children in danger" (Garbarino,
1992; Garbarino, Dabrow, Kostelny, & Pardo, 1992). The
cost to children is evident in the psychological effects of
trauma due to violence. Certainly, this emergent field recognizes
the phenomenon of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) as
a response to childhood trauma. Garbarino's (1992) concern
draws attention to the child in a situation where violence
is not a distinct or one-time event, but rather it is the
"fabric of their lives". This should focus our concern
on the distinction between "acute danger" and "chronic
danger".
Resiliency
When considering children in danger, an additional ray of
hope is under discussion. Garbarino (1992) notes the common-sense
assumption that they will be "destined for developmental
difficulties (but) on the other [hand] we have the fact that
children survive such danger and may even overcome its challenges
in ways that enhance development" (see also Edleson &
Tolman, 1992, 35).
Wolin and Wolin (1993, vii) similarly address the concept
of survivors rising above adversity when they assert that
"[w]hile early hardship can cause enduring pain, often
it is also a breeding ground for uncommon strength and courage."
As others have challenged the intergenerational hypothesis/assumption
(see Kaufman & Zigler, 1989 for an extensive review of
this issue), Wolin and Wolin note that the "transmission
of family troubles from parent to child is by no means the
rule" and offer the following analysis:
Research shows that children of disturbed or incompetent
parents learn to watch out for themselves and grow strong
in the process. Young survivors figure out how to locate
allies outside the family, find pleasure in fantasy games,
or build self-esteem by winning recognition in school. Over
time, the capacity to rise above adversity by developing
skills such as these expands and ripens into lasting strengths
or aspects of the survivor's self that I call resiliencies
(Wolin & Wolin, 1993, 5-6).
This expanded perspective is important as it does not deny
the reality of some children, but offers an optimistic analysis
of other possibilities and hope for recovery. It challenges
us to not exclusively see children as "caught in the
Victim's Trap, bound tightly to the very past" they wish
to escape from as is the case with "Damage Model"
thinking.
Rather than succumbing to a negative influence, resiliency
develops out of a challenge to maintain self-esteem or what
Middleton-Moz (1992, xix) refers to as "the healthy adaptation
of children from dysfunctional families" as they show
"personal power, not powerlessness" (11). Sundelin
Wahlsten (1994) has researched the area of resilience and
offers the following profile of "resilient children":
Resilient children have been shown to be more intelligent,
more easy-going in their temperament, more independent and
easier to handle. They often had the possibility of attaching
to people outside the family and seem to be able to nourish
even from limited contacts with positive people (Sundelin
Wahlsten, 1994, 716).
The effect of "positive people" may act as either
a moderator or as a base for transcending. In studying the
children of torture victims, Montgomery et al (1992, 804)
concluded that "family context was of crucial importance
for the child's development of coping strategy, as lack of
support from the parents reduced the child's possibilities
to revise and develop his or her coping ability." Johnson's
(1989, 22) review of trauma notes that, "it appears that
the degree of subsequent maladaptive response is moderated
to some extent by various factors such as family or social
support", as does Wolfe et al (1992) noting "the
overriding importance of adult support systems". The
dilemma for the child witness is that their abused parent
is often unavailable for healing support.
Despite the potential for resilience, there are always costs
associated with a stressful environment, with effects individualized
to specific children as in the following:
...[E]ven when the children show the ability to foster
in stressful environments, this situation always has some
costs. These costs may be in terms of retardation in specific
areas of psychomotor development such as language, concept
formation, body control, self concept, etc. Also children
in risk environments often show aggression, frustration
and disturbed social behavior. Surviving under problematic
conditions appears to have a price (Sundelin Wahlste, 1994,
716).
This theorization offers insight and possibility for a child
confronted with a home conflict that forces a "strategy
for survival". Sundelin Wahlsten points out that although
the strategy may be experiences by the child as "functional",
an external evaluation may assess the action/reaction as either
mainly constructive or destructive.
The idea of a "strategy for survival" provides
rationale for a child developing a combination of strengths
and weaknesses. Rossman & Rosenberg (1992, 700) investigated
the relationship between family stress and child distress,
as well as marital conflict and child functioning, and they
found a "strong connection between control beliefs, coping
responses, and psychological outcome". As the following
example portrays, a child may evidence problem symptoms but
be socially competent:
It was somewhat puzzling that children who appeared more
troubled with regard to self feelings and problem symptoms,
were also judged more competent in the social domain, but
had not received any special social skills training. This
pattern of outcome may be particularly characteristic of
children trying to cope with marital conflict. Several explanations
can be offered: perhaps these children are trying to stay
safe in violent environments by carrying out expected social
activities and behaviors; perhaps they need to carry out
these behaviors to obtain resources from others which the
parents do not provide; or, perhaps their greater social
activity allows them to be away from the marital conflict
at home (Roosman & Rosenberg, 1992, 711).
The vulnerability and at-risk status should not be forgotten
when discussing the resiliency of children. However, one's
intervention will not only want to address identified needs
but also build on the seven aspects of the self that typify
survivors who demonstrate resiliency as outlined by Wolin
& Wolin (1993, 5-6):
- Insight
- Creativity
- Humour
- Relationships
- Morality
- Initiative
The resiliency of children is possible and Topley (1991,
p.5) emphasizes "not to under-estimate the ability of
children to change." Middleton-Moz (1989, 114), while
recognizing that children of trauma are all changed by their
experiences (with some experiences being so overwhelming as
to not benefit from individual strength or protective factors)
supports that "finding ways to enhance resilience makes
good practical sense" as children do "bounce back
rather than breaking".
Towards Protective and Compensatory
Factors
In our important work of assisting children, we not only
want to respond to the problem, which is often seen as reducing
risk factors, we also strive to strengthen protective factors
contributing to the children's health and well-being. The
lesson to be learned from resilient children is that they
have been able to take advantage of protective factors in
their environments to develop a resilience or strength. It
is these protective factors, in what Kaufman & Zigler
(1989, 138) term as "compensatory factors", that
make them less vulnerable when confronted with difficult situations.
The focus here is that as we work with children who witness
family violence, we assist them in becoming resistant or less
vulnerable to further confrontation with family turmoil. Therefore,
an important goal is assisting in the further development
of competencies in their characters.
Benard's (1987, 75) protective factor research noted Garmezy's
(1974) description of desirable characteristics or competencies
found in the resilient child including:
- Effectiveness in task, play and relationships
- A positive outlook with health expectations
- Self-esteem, competent feeling, and internal locus of
control
- Self-discipline
- Problem-solving and critical thinking skills
- Humour
In researching stress-protective factors in childhood, Reid
and Dubow (1990) found that "children exposed to increasingly
more early risk factors were more likely to have later adjustment
problems; conversely, children with higher levels of early
protective factors were less likely to have later adjustment
problems". Middleton-Moz (1989, 13), who acknowledges
that all children experience traumatic events, focuses our
concern on the dangers of unresolved trauma and even though
we cannot fully protect children from traumatic events, we
can "protect (children) from the damaging effects of
unresolved trauma on the child's developing self-esteem".
Thereby, in our interventions, we strive to orient children
towards successful or constructive coping strategies that
act as protective factors as they face future danger or stress,
and in doing this, lay the grounds for considerable optimism.
Intervention Programming
In considering the intervention needs of children who witness
family violence, the group curriculum Project Child Recovery
(Yawney & Hill, 1993) attempted to honor the important
trauma literature to date but also take advantage of a shift
in perception to include resilience thinking. Addressing the
potential effects still remains an important goal; but there
is an attempt to move beyond an exclusive assumption of negativity.
As evident in Higgins' work (1994, 68), one adopts an "assumption
lense" that emphasizes mental health and mental growth
throughout the life span, and also orients toward understanding
the resilient client on the basis of his or her highest level
of functioning.
Another important aspect to the development of intervention
curriculum was a differential approach to group programming.
In work with a group, or on an individual basis, there can
be a tendency to employ standard interventions which address
objectives relating to a general problem area. However, attention
needs to be given to tailoring a program to group participants,
their developmental nuances and their identified needs. Cognitive
and maturational levels are realities that cannot be ignored
when proposing an effective intervention with children. The
work of Ragg (1991) is a good example of using the principle
of differential group programming to match techniques, content
focus and goal focus. Ragg's (1991) work encourages programming
built with developmental consideration being a primary factor,
thereby allowing developing strengths in the client to lead
the program. It proposes that a "child's goals"
and "leader's behavior" should be seen as changing
variables as both developmental stages and objectives are
met. In a companion article, Ragg has extended his thinking
regarding group work focusing on the preschool child witness
in the areas of clinical, safety and prevention programming
(Ragg & Webb, 1992, 10-16).
The Road to Non-Violence: Resiliency,
"Living Intentionally" and Self-Esteem
The research and clinical data on children who witness violence
is in a state of evolution. As the concepts utilized in Project
Child Recovery were developed, several ideas provided potential
leadership for further program development. At the time of
writing, the concepts of resiliency, "living intentionally"
and self-esteem appeared to provide valuable insight and potential.
The trauma and abuse literature has made us aware of the various
effects of family violence and the potential for "human
time-bombs" being carriers of future violence. However,
the resilience literature portrays a hopeful picture of "bouncing
back" from negative experience.
Beth Balshaw studied men who grew up with turbulent situations
in their childhood, but chose non-violence in their adult
life. Such a retrospective study of choosing non-violence
highlights the proactive stance of "living intentionally".
Living intentionally is the core variable that seems to account
for non-violent behavior. The three stages of living intentionally
are becoming aware of self and environment; resolving to be
nonviolent, to live positively, and to contribute to the health
of the whole; and acting on the resolutions by separating
from the pasts, making new connections, implementing decisions,
and contributing to the world. Intrapersonal variables (i.e.,
communication skills, coping skills, creativity, and personal
characteristics); interpersonal variables (i.e., outside intervention,
relationship factors, and spirituality); and environmental
variables appear to influence how effectively individuals
are able to negotiate the process themes (Balshaw, 1993, 193).
Self-esteem and social competence are another important area
which is emphasized in Project Child Recovery. Neighbors,
Forehand & McVicar (1993) in studying young adolescents
experiencing high interparental conflict have proposed a "stress
buffering model" whereby resilient adolescents, versus
non-resilient adolescents, have better relationships with
their mothers (the study's custodial parent) as well as higher
levels of self-esteem.
Although the resiliency factor has an apparent positive impact,
Neighbors et al (1993, 470) noted the precaution that "adolescents
who are behaviorally competent may nevertheless have significant
internalizing problems" and therefore this aspect should
not be overlooked. The inside picture draws attention to that
important personal quality of self-esteem defined as "appreciating
my own worth and importance, and having the character to be
accountable for myself and to act responsibly toward others"
(California Task Force to Promote Self-Esteem, 1990, 18).
A fuller appreciation of one's own worth allows one to grow
in confidence, in their sense of adequacy, and in their capability
to live responsibly and effectively (19).
Although our efforts have focussed on the actual child witness
of family violence, this thinking concurs with recent research
pointing to the support system available to the children.
Wyman et al (1992) studied children exposed to major life
stress and were able to classify 74% of 10 to 12 year old
children as "stress resilient" or "stress affected"
based on four variables, finding that "caregiver-child
relationships play a key role in moderating children's developmental
outcomes under conditions of high stress". Seifer et
al (1992, 901) "support the idea that the individual
and family factors can ameliorate the impact of multiple risk
factors in children between 4 and 13 years of age" -
as a relation was found between protective factors and change
in cognitive and social-emotional competence.
Conclusion
The opportunity that presently exists is one of utilizing
this paper's focal concept of resilience as a new building
partner with trauma thinking of the 80s. This provides a hopeful
air to our work, but more importantly, for the client there
is a sense that there are possibilities to triumph over their
own situation.
The important role of support from another, and the inherent
relationship, provides an invaluable key to assisting the
process of resilience. Alice Miller, in her important writings
about mistreated children, speaks to the pivotal role of support:
It is essential that at least once in their life they come
in contact with a person who knows without any doubt that
the environment, not the helpless, battered child is at
fault...here lies the great opportunity for [many] to support
the child and to believe her or him (Miller, 1984, 283-284).
The voices of those affected may be the strongest testament
to the possibility of resilience as portrayed in the recent
works of Wolin & Wolin (1993) and Higgins (1994). John
Seita (1994, 18) in his article "Resilience from the
other side of the desk" further confirms this point,
"[l]ooking back I remain convinced that relationships
were and are the cornerstone of my personal resiliency and
undergird all other factors". Those who have walked the
path of resilience such as Sylvia Rockwell make reference
to "growing up resilient", progressing from "childhood
resiliency" and speak "as a former resilient child
[who] brought strengths to my adult role as a mother".
Her words provide a focus to our work:
As a former resilient child, as a parent committed to teaching
the lessons of resilience to her own children, and as a
teacher of students with severe emotional disturbance, I
know too well the devastating effects of what Seligman (1991)
refers to as learned helplessness...But we can teach many
of the skills of resilience. Our children's lives depend
on our belief in ourselves and in them, as demonstrated
through our words and action (Rockwell, 1994, 13).
Our beliefs and convictions can be powerful healing tools.
We can play an important role in supporting resilience and
the road to non-violence. Our efforts in assuring a support
system can be instrumental in providing an opportunity for
hope...and for healing.
Reprinted and condensed from Russell, M., Hightower, J.,
& Gutman, G. (Eds.) (1996)."Resiliency: A Strategy
for Survival of Childhood Trauma". In Stopping the Violence:
Changing Families, Changing Futures. Vancouver, BC: BC Institute
Against Family Violence.
References
Balshaw, H . B. (1993). Living Intentionally: A study
of Nonviolent Men Who Witnessed Spousal Abuse in Childhood.
Calgary, AB : Unpublished doctoral thesis . Article featured
in Focus, 7(3), 3.
Bandura,A.. (1973). Aggression: A Social Learning Analysis.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-hall.
Benard,B. (1987).Protective factor research: What we can
learn from resilient children. Prevention Forum, 7(3),
75-86.
California Task Force to Promote Self-Esteem, and Personal
and Social Responsibility. (January, 1990). Toward A state
of Esteem and Appendixes to Toward A State of Esteem.
Sacramento, CA: California State Department of Education .
Cooper, M. (December, 1992). Current and Future Effects
on Children Witnessing Parental Violence: An Overview and
Annotated Bibliography . (Series on Interpersonal Violence:
Report#1). Vancouver ,BC:B.C. Institute on Family Violence.
Edleson, J, & Tolman, R. (1992). Intervention for
Men Who Batter: An Ecological Approach. Newbury Park,CA:
Sage Publications .
Everson, T. (1994). Resiliency and skill- building: A spiritual
perspective. Journal of Behavioural and Emotional Problems,
3(2), 25-29.
Fantuzzo, J. & Lindquist, C. (1989). "The effects
of observing conjugal violence on children: A review and analysis
of research methodology." Journal of Family Violence,
4(1), 77-94.
Garbarino, J. (1992). "Children in danger : Coping with
the consequences of community violence." Protecting
Children, 9(1), 3-5 & 18.
Garbarino, J., Dubrow, N.,Kostelny, K., & Pardo, C. (1992).
Children in Danger: Coping With the Consequences of Community
Violence. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Higgins, G. O'Connell. (1994). Resilient Adults: Overcoming
a Cruel Past. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Jaffe, P., Sudermann, M., & Reitzel, D. (1992). "Working
with children and adolescents to end the cycle of violence:
A social learning approach to intervention and prevention
programs." In R. Peters, R. McMahon, & V. Quinsey
(Eds.) Aggression and violence throughout the life span.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Jaffe, P., Wolfe, D., & Wilson, S. (1990). Children
of Battered Women. Newbury Park,CA: Sage Publications.
Jenkins, J., Smith, M., & Graham, P. (1989). "Coping
with parental quarrels." Journal of the American Academy
of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 28, 182-189.
Johnson, K. (1989). Trauma in the Lives of Children :
Crisis and Stress Management Techniques for Counsellors and
Other Professionals. Claremont, CA: Hunter House, Inc.
Kaufman, J. & Zigler, E. (1989). "The intergenerational
transmission of child abuse." In D. Cicchetti & V.
Carlson (Eds.) Child Maltreatment: Theory and Research
on the Causes and Consequences of Child Abuse and Neglect.
New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Klosinski,G. (1993). "Psychological maltreatment in
the context of separation and divorce." Child Abuse
and Neglect, 17(4), 557-563.
Martin, H. & Rodeheffer, M. (1976). "The psychological
impact of abuse on children." Journal of Pediatric
Psychology , 1, 12-15.
Middelton-Moz, J. (1992). Will to Survive: Affirming the
Positive Power of the Human Spirit. Deerfield Beach, FL:
Health Communications, Inc.
Miller, A. (1984). For your own good: Hidden cruelty in
child-rearing and the roots of violence . Toronto: Collins
Publishers.
Montgomery, E., Krogh, Y., Jacobsen, A., & Lukman, B.
(1992). "Children of torture victims: Reactions and coping."
Child Abuse and Neglect , 16(6), 797-805.
Moore, J. (1975). "Yo-yo children: Victims of matrimonial
violence." Child Welfare , 54(8), 557-566.
Neighbors, M., Forehand, R., & McVicar, D. (1993). "Resilient
adolescents and interparental conflict." American
Journal of Orthopsychiatry , 63(3), 462-471.
Pagelow, M. (1990). "Effects of domestic violence on
children and their consequences for custody and visitation
agreements." Mediation Quarterly , 7(4), 347-363.
Peled, E. (1993). "Children who witness women battering
: Concerns and dilemmas in the construction of a social problem".
Children and Youth Services Review , 15(1), 43-52.
Ragg, D.M. (1991). "Differential group programming for
children exposed to spouse abuse." Journal of Child
and Youth Care , 5(1), 59-75.
Ragg, D. M . & Webb, C. (1992) . "Group treatment
for the preschool child witness of spouse abuse." Journal
of Child and Youth Care, 7(1), 1-19.
Reid, G. & Dubow, E. (1990). Stress- Protective Factors
in Childhood. Paper presented at the Annual Convention
of the Canadian Psychological Association , May 31, 1990,
Ottawa, ON.
Rockwell, S. (1994). "Parenting resilient children."
Journal of Behavioural and Emotional Problems , 3(2),
11-13.
Roesch, R., Dutton, D., & Sacco, V. (Eds.) (1990). Family
Violence: Perspectives on Treatment, Research, and Policy
. Burnaby, BC:BC Institute on Family Violence.
Rosenberg, M. & Rossman, B.B.R. (1990). The child witness
to marital violence. In R. Ammerman & M. Hensen (Eds.)
Treatment of Family Violence: A Sourcebook . New York,
NY: Wiley.
Rossman,B.B.R. & Rosenberg, M.(1992). "Family stress
and functioning in children: the moderating effects on children's
beliefs about their control over parental conflict."
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 33(4),
699-715.
Seifer, R., Sameroff, A., Baldwin, A. (1992) . "Child
and family factors that ameliorate risk between 4 and 13 years
of age." Journal of American Academy of Child and
Adolescent Psychiatry , 31(5), 893-903.
Seita, J. (1994) Resiliency from the other side of the desk.
Journal of Behavioural and Emotional Problems , 3(2),
15-18.
Straus, M., Gelles, R., & Steinmetz, S. (1980). Behind
Closed Doors: Violence in the American Family . Garden
City, NY: Anchor Press/Doubleday.
Sundelin Wahlsten, V. (1994). "Developmental and survival:
A study of children at risk living in adverse psychological
milieu." Child Abuse and Neglect . 18(9), 715-723.
Topley, M.(1991). How to Develop a Group Activity Program
for Children in Transition Homes and Shelters: A Self- Study
Manual .
Widom, C. (1989). "Does Violence beget violence? A critical
examination of the literature." Psychological Bulletin,
106(1), 3-28.
Wolfe, D. & Jaffe, P. (1992). "Child abuse and family
violence as determinants of child psychopathology." Canadian
Journal of Behavioural Science , 23(3), 282-299.
Wolin, S. & Wolin, S.(1993). The Resilient Self: How
survivors of Troubled Families Rise Above Adversity. New
York, NY: Villard Books (Random House).
Wyman, P.,Cowen, E., Work, W., Raoof, A.,Gribble, P., Parker,
G. & Wannon, M. (1992). "Interviews with children
who experiences major life stress: Family and child attributes
that predict resilient outcomes". Journal of American
Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 31(5), 904-910.
Yawney, D. & Hill. (1993). Project Child Recovery:
A group curriculum for children who witness family violence.
(Information regarding this 200 page manual-D. Yawney, 197
Lafayette Blvd. W., Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada, T1K 3Y8).
|
|
