cycle of abuse

["Mark J. Chaffin" <Mark-Chaffin@xxxxxxxxx>]

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