Intimate Partner Violence, Maternal Gatekeeping, and Child Conduct Problems

• Author: ,Bharathi J. Zvara,W. Roger Mills‐Koonce,Martha Cox
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12221
• Published date: 01 December 2016
• Date: 01 December 2016

B J. Z University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

W. R M-K University of North Carolina at Greensboro

M C University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

F L P K C

Intimate Partner Violence, Maternal Gatekeeping,

and Child Conduct Problems

We examined the mediating role of parenting

behavior on the relationship between intimate

partner violence and child conduct problems,

as well as the moderating role of maternal

gatekeeping to these associations. The sample

(N=395) is from a longitudinal study of rural

poverty in the eastern United States exploring

the ways in which child, family, and contextual

factors shape child development over time.Study

ndings indicate that a father’s harsh–intrusive

parenting behavior may be a keymediating path-

way linking intimate partner violence and child

conduct problems. Study ndings further provide

evidence for problematic outcomes for children

when mothers encourage fathers with high lev-

els of harsh–intrusive parenting to interact with

their children.

B

An estimated 15.5 million children in the United

States live in homes characterized as having inti-

mate partner violence (IPV;McDonald, Jouriles,

Ramisetty-Mikler, Caetano, & Green, 2006).

Studying IPV in rural communities may be

CB#7445, 421C Rosenau Hall, University of North

Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599–7445

(zvara@email.unc.edu).

Key Words: Child conduct problems, intimate partner

violence, maternal gatekeeping, paternal caregiving.

particularly important because women living in

rural areas experience IPV at a higher rate and

with greater severity than women living in urban

areas (Peek-Asa et al., 2011). Additionally, the

family stress model (Conger, Conger, & Martin,

2010) posits that economic disadvantage leads

to economic pressure, which induces feelings

of frustration, anger, and emotional distress in

caregivers. These feelings, in turn, contribute

to conict among family members, including

conict between parents. However, in contrast

to empirical and theoretical evidence suggesting

that rural, low-income women may be partic-

ularly vulnerable to IPV, rural areas tend to

have fewer resources and services for helping

victims of IPV (Grossman, Hinkley, Kawal-

ski, & Margrave 2005; Tiefenthaler, Farmer,

& Sambira, 2005).

Research has consistently linked IPV with

problematic child outcomes, including behaviors

associated with conduct problems such as dif-

culties managing emotions and acquiring self-

regulatory skills (Cummings & Davies, 2010;

Jaffee, Moftt, Caspi, & Taylor, 2003; Raver,

2004). Despite robust ndings linking IPV and

children’s behavioral functioning, outcomes for

children from violent homes are varied (Hughes

& Luke, 1998). Because IPV is linked to more

hostile parenting behavior (Gustafsson & Cox,

2012; Huth-Bocks & Hughes, 2008), and per-

haps even more so to fathers’ hostile parenting

(Harold, Elam, Lewis, Rice, & Thapar, 2012),

Family Relations 65 (December 2016): 647–660 647

DOI:10.1111/fare.12221