causesofCPA
Terms
undefined, object
copy deck
- Frodi and Lamb 1980
- abusive parents are more physiologically reactive, show more annoyance and irritation to the sound of a baby crying
- Freidrich and Wheeler 1982
- so many potential causes for CA that to look at one factor at a time risks losing it
- Bagley et al 1985
- took a community sample of 18-27 year olds, and found a sig link between experiencing abuse as a child and sex attraction to children with 2/3 of cases ebing predicted if account for mental health, social stressors, attach to abuser and emo abuse along with it - lots of potential explenations such as lack of emp dev, id with abuser, maladapt sex arousal patterns or sex addictive behaviour
- Widom 1989
- review showed that between 7-70% of those who experience FOV go on to abuse - majority dont in most studies
- Newberger and White 1989
- example of cognitive theory that the way person perceives and thinks about the child and abuse leads to way they act
- Schwartz and smith 1990
- evidence for learning theory
- simon et al 1991
- harsh parenting legitimizes the use of strict physical punishment
- Crittenden and ainsworth 1989
- lack of rewarding and consistent relationship with mother leads to low s-e, lack of capacity to trust, anxiety, cant relate, insecure which carries on to later relations such as with child
- Crittenden 1985
- as suppor for attach abusive parents seems to be less open and responsive to childrens problems, to see world from an adverseirial point of view, which they must control
- Wahler and Dumas 1986
- interaction between parent and child is inconsistent and unpredictable, with random pattern of reward and punsihment so that aggression become reward itself because of its predictability
- Family dysfunction theory
- Ben-tovim and Furniss - suggest that CSA keeps dysfunctional families apart - provide an inadequate father with emotional attachment, child cant get away and colluding mum - but mum in CSA fams usually more dep, no control, what about infant abuse and out of family abuse
- Family is a power system
- Goode et al 1971 - amily is a power system like wider society where compliance and conformatiy is desired enforced - socialized to see violece as legitimate and poorer families have less resources to deal with probs in any other way
- Garbanno et al 1970
- is no cult justification for violence then wont happen - but hard to test such soc-ecological theos because poorer communities unde more surveillance from authorites
- Alvy 1975
- violence is maltreat is a norm behaviour departing from appropriate levels
- interactionist theory
- Duble and Straus 1980 - violence a product of interaction not attitudes - in fam where one parent disagrees with violence still done because influenced by other
- stressors and supports
- Belsky 1980 - balance of stressors and supports- no neccesary or sufficient explenation for abuse
- Storr 1982
- malt fams have less peer networks - could be soc support acts as stress buffer or purposely isolate selves
- Tiernan and Carin 1983
- step parent families have more acult interaction and less supervision
- Zigler and Hall 1989
- countries which have banned corpora punishment have mower levels of CPA
- Straus and Gelles 1990
- violence a scoially sanctioned way of maintaining control - corp punishment sets scene for unwanted violence - not pathological but on same spectrum as normal
- Wolfner and Gelles 1993
- families with less time in residence, less money, lower edu, unemployed, more kids and younger and more isolated and younger parents - more likely to abuse suggest a social economic - diathesis stress model of abuse
- Corby 1993
- sex and exploitation tolerated and encouraged by media, faminism looks at socialization and power imbalance
- belsky 1993
- many diferent explenations for abuse invoked - is the transactional processes at various levels - including cult, hist, situ, personal etc
- Andrews 1994
- found little evidence for father or step - but male more likely to do both - in step parent family and with maternal disorder is more likely probably because of increased vulnarability
- Dobash et al 1992
- CTS fails to take into account the meaning, intentions and consequences of so called violent acts
- McGee et al 1993
- no pure forms of abuse, 90% report multiple types
- Andrews et al 1995
- mums and daughters showed no deiference in levels of abuse experienced
- Cawson et al 2000
- ethical issues in child still in fam, if dont provide adequate post interview support and also respondents less likely to class as abuse what researcher would - CSA more common in girls and almost entirely male, but known but not family - little support for step-father thing - 1/3 of reported is repeated and in home - 18-24 almost 200 repondents
- Belsky 1994
- the evidence for psychobiological explanations is not specific to that evidence
- Wilson and Daly 1987
- step fathers abuse becasue of conflict of needs but most studies dont even look at if its the step father doing it plus what about sa