[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: cycle of violence, cycle of abuse
<x-html><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META content="MSHTML 5.00.3105.105" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=270385114-11102000>These
arguments against the cycle of violence hypothesis seem to be illogical.
Certainly, there are abused children who do not become abusive. There are
also abusive adults who were never abused as children.
</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=270385114-11102000></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=270385114-11102000>However, there are also people who smoke and never
develop lung cancer. There are also people with lung cancer who never
smoked. These instances do not disprove the theory regarding a link
between lung cancer and smoking.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=270385114-11102000></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=270385114-11102000>Most
theories are probabilistic. They state a relationship between variables,
such as childhood experiences and adult behavior. These theories hardly
ever propose a one to one relationship between variables. They only
propose general tendencies of these variables to correlate with one
another. These relationships can often only be seen when you have a large
sample size and you can see a general pattern of two variables relating to
one another. Anecdotal evidence of someone (or even many people)
who do not fit the general pattern of a theorized relationship does not disprove
a theory. You need to do rigorous testing on the relationship
between variables and look for statistical significance. If you do
extensive testing with large sample sizes and still find no statistical
relationship between the variables, then the theory probably is not a good
one. </SPAN></FONT><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=270385114-11102000>However, you cannot logically attack a probabilistic
theory because a few people do not fit the theory.
</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=270385114-11102000></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=270385114-11102000>Also,
you cannot determine that a theory is not valid because of a mediating variable,
such as protective factors. The protective factor may decrease the impact
of the abusive experience. This statement does not preclude a relationship
between abusive experiences and later violent behavior. The only way a
protective factor could disprove the cycle of violence theory is if the
protective factor is the only true determinant of whether or not someone becomes
violent. If the presence or absence of the protective factor turned out to
be the only variable that affected violent behavior, then the cycle of violence
could be disproven. However, I think this is doubtful, since the very
meaning of "protective factor" is a factor that protects someone from the impact
of negative events. Most of the protective factor literature includes the
idea that protective factors serve no purpose in the absence of negative
events. They only become relevant in the presence of a negative
event, such as childhood abuse. And this part of the protective
factor literature implies that there is a relationship between negative
events (such as childhood abuse) and future negative outcomes (such as
violent behavior), which can be mediated by a protective
factor.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=270385114-11102000></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=270385114-11102000>Julie
Steen</SPAN></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>
</x-html>From ???@??? Thu Oct 19 18:06:44 2000
Status: U
Return-Path: <owner-CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@cornell.edu>
Received: from elist01.mail.cornell.edu (elist01.mail.cornell.edu [132.236.56.28])
by postoffice.mail.cornell.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA13102;
Thu, 19 Oct 2000 18:01:09 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
by elist01.mail.cornell.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA13193;
Thu, 19 Oct 2000 18:01:07 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from elist01.mail.cornell.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by elist01.mail.cornell.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA11626;
Thu, 19 Oct 2000 17:37:15 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from router2.mail.cornell.edu (router2.mail.cornell.edu [132.236.56.16])
by elist01.mail.cornell.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA08636
for <CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@elist01.mail.cornell.edu>; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 16:54:42 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
by router2.mail.cornell.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA23001
for CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@elist01.mail.cornell.edu; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 16:54:42 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from garnet.acns.fsu.edu (gmhub.acns.fsu.edu [146.201.2.30])
by router2.mail.cornell.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA22984
for <CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@cornell.edu>; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 16:54:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from garnet1.acns.fsu.edu (garnet1-fi.acns.fsu.edu [192.168.197.1])
by garnet.acns.fsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA131432
for <CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@cornell.edu>; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 16:54:40 -0400
Received: from J (dial241.acns.fsu.edu [146.201.32.241])
by garnet1.acns.fsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA98836
for <CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@cornell.edu>; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 16:54:38 -0400
X-PH: V4.1@router2.mail.cornell.edu (Cornell Modified)
X-PH: V4.1@elist01.mail.cornell.edu (Cornell Modified)
From: "Julie Steen" <jsteen@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
To: Child Maltreatment Researchers <CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@cornell.edu>
Subject: RE: cycle of abuse
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 16:55:44 -0400
Message-ID: <LOBBLHDGJEPNIJEICNFLGEAOCCAA.jsteen@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
In-reply-to: <BABD715C8EE0D211B7F30000F8033E560915BBCE@email.ouhsc.edu>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
Importance: Normal
Message-Tag: 1212
Reply-To: CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@cornell.edu
Sender: owner-CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@cornell.edu
X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.2.09.cu01/000107/15:22 -- ListProc(tm) by CREN
Mark,
Regarding the rule rather than the exception, I agree that the majority of
abused children do not grow up to become abusers. But even this is not
enough to disprove a theorized link between childhood abuse and later
abusive behavior. For example, (and these are purely hypothetical numbers
for example purpose), the majority of people who smoke may not develop lung
cancer (say that cancer develops in 25% of people who smoke). If the people
who do not smoke develop lung cancer at a significantly lower rate (say 3%),
then this MIGHT point to a link between smoking and lung cancer. There
MIGHT be a similar link between childhood abuse and later aggressive
behavior, IF the rate of aggressive behavior is significantly different in
abused and non-abused samples. However, a majority of abused children need
not become abusive for there to be a link between childhood abuse and later
aggression.
I agree that the relationships between these many variables are incredibly
complex. And the possibility of many mediating variables is very high. One
of the best research articles I have read on the topic was
Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., & Pettit, G. S. (1990). Mechanisms in the
cycle of violence. Science, 250, 1678-1683.
Looking at aggressive behavior in both abused and non-abused samples, they
included variables of family ecological factors, child health problems,
temperament, the information processing system, and abusive experiences.
The information processing system of the child was found to be one of the
greatest predictors of aggressive behavior.
Another research article that deals with ecological factors and maltreated
children is one by Lynch, M., & Cicchetti, D. (1998). An
ecological-transactional analysis of children and contexts: The
longitudinal interplay among child maltreatment, community violence, and
children’s symptomatology. Development and Psychopathology, 10, 235-257.
Another theoretical point of view (though this deals more with mental health
than with aggressive behavior) is that found in the landmark article of
Zubin and Spring. Zubin, J., & Spring, B. (1977). Vulnerability – A new
view of schizophrenia. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 86(2), 103-126.
Though they are focusing on mental health, some of the concepts of
vulnerability MIGHT be applicable to aggressive behavior in abused children.
Perhaps some children have a natural (perhaps bio-chemical) tendency toward
violence and the abusive experience serves as a trigger to release this
child's natural tendency. Zubin and Spring used an excellent metaphor in
their article. If I correctly recall it, this a summary of one of their
points. A weight can be placed upon a string. This weight is analogous to
a life stress, the string analogous to the person. Sometimes, the string
simply increases it temperature under the strain. Sometimes, the string
stretches and later returns to its normal length. Sometimes, the string
stretches and never returns to its normal length. And sometimes, the string
breaks. And of course, which category the string (or person) falls into
depends upon the size of the weight (the abusive experience) and the
characteristics of the string (the person's information process system,
their bio-chemical make-up, etc.). (Zubin and Spring were only referring to
mental illness and strain. So this idea of childhood abuse and later
violent behavior was not a part of their article and they may not agree with
this application of their conceptualizations.)
My original point, though, was that we need to be careful when we say that a
theory is true or not true. And I completely agree that most theories
develop out of anecdotal experiences we have with clients. But there is a
difference between developing theories and testing theories. I don't think
we should say that a theory is absolutely true or absolutely not true
because of our anecdotal experience. I think testing theories is the role
of research (done well and interpreted correctly). The world is too big and
too complex for us as individuals to disprove theories with our own sensory
experiences. Also, we must consider that clinicians largely observe
clinical samples. And attention to the general population is usually an
important part of research in seeking to test theories.
Julie Steen
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@cornell.edu
[mailto:owner-CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@cornell.edu]On Behalf Of
Mark J. Chaffin
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 9:37 AM
To: Child Maltreatment Researchers
Subject: cycle of abuse
Julie,
I don't think the main weakness of the 'cycle of abuse' theory is based on
the idea that not all abused children grow to become abusers or criminals,
or upon occasional exceptions to the 'cycle' (although the exceptions are
actually the rule, not exceptions--its the vast majority of abused children
who grow up to be prosocial and nonabusive). Risk is, of course, a
probabilistic construct. However, I think the main weakness of the 'cycle
of violence' theory is that its a bit like the cocaine exposed baby theory.
The theory is that cocaine exposure in utereo causes profound behavioral (or
criminal) problems later in life. And you can certainly find data to
support a simple correlational relationship, just as you can with the 'cycle
of abuse' theory. The problem is that cocaine exposed babies usually grow
up with drug addict parents, living in stark poverty and disintegrating
neighborhoods, attend marginalized schools, witness and experience violence,
etc. etc. These are parts of a whole. Research efforts to separate these
influences have suggested that it may be the environmental influences which
have a larger impact than the drug exposure. So, to complete the analogy,
its not just a question of whether abuse history is a probabilistic
predictive (or risk) factor. Its a question of how much abuse history is a
causative factor, and how much its a marker variable for other things.
My impression from the admittedly incomplete prospective data on the
question is that abuse history is important, but when one considers the
larger ecological picture, it may not be as important as other factors in
understanding juvenile violence.
Mark Chaffin, Ph.D.
Center on Child Abuse and Neglect
University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center
P.O. Box 26901; CHO 3406
Oklahoma City, OK 73190
(405) 271-8858; fax 271-2931
mark-chaffin@ouhsc.edu