3 7 9

//Si

Ao. 15-00

EFFECTS OF FAMILY OF ORIGIN VIOLENCE ON PARTNER VIOLENCE:

A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

THESIS

Presented to the Graduate Council of the

University of North Texas in Partial

Fulfillment of the Requirements

For the Degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

By

Barbara VanHorn, B.A.

Denton, Texas

May, 1998

VanHorn, Barbara, Effects of family of origin violence

on partner violence: A comprehensive review and meta-

analysis . Master of Science (Psychology), May, 1998, 114

pp., 12 tables, 1 figure, references, 128 titles.

Meta-analyses with 144 correlations from 44 studies to

assess the relationship between experienced, father-to-

mother, and mother-to-father violence in the family of

origin and partner violence for males and females in

clinical, community and student samples. The effect size for

all family of origin violence was small. Type of sample was

the most useful moderator. The effect size for clinical

samples approached moderate strength, followed by community

and student samples, respectively. This pattern held for

each type of family of origin violence. There was little

difference in effect size between witnessed and experienced

violence or sustained or expressed partner violence across

gender. However, for males the relationship was strronger

for expressing, rather than sustaining, partner violence.

3 7 9

//Si

Ao. 15-00

EFFECTS OF FAMILY OF ORIGIN VIOLENCE ON PARTNER VIOLENCE:

A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

THESIS

Presented to the Graduate Council of the

University of North Texas in Partial

Fulfillment of the Requirements

For the Degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

By

Barbara VanHorn, B.A.

Denton, Texas

May, 1998

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Chapter

1. INTRODUCTION 1

Terminology Theory-Limitations of the Research Research Results

The National Surveys Studies of Men Studies of Women

Dating Violence Research Male Students Female Students

Conclusions

2. METHOD 37

3. RESULTS OF THE META-ANALYSIS 48

4. DISCUSSION 57

APPENDICES 67

REFERENCES 97

LIST OF TABLES

Table page

1. Samples not Identified by Gender 71

2. 1975 National Survey 72

3. 1985 National Survey 73

4. Male Community Samples 74

5. Male Clinical Samples . 76

6. Female Community Samples 7 9

7. Female Clinical Samples 81

8. Males Student Samples 33

9. Female Student Samples 86

10. Any Family of Origin Violence: Population Effect Size and y? Homogeneity 89

11. Witnessed Family of Origin Violence: Population Effect Size and %2 Homogeneity 91

12. Experienced Family of Origin Violence: Population Effect Size and x2 Homogeneity 93

xv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure P a g e

1. Stem-and-leaf-display for 144 effect sizes in the family of origin variables data set 96

V

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Prior to the early seventies, little notice was taken

of family violence by the social science research community.

Even family researchers failed to perceive the problem

(Straus, 1990). Gelles and Straus (1979) noted that the word

violence did not appear in the title of any article

published in the Journal of Marriage and the Family prior to

1971. Grassroots movements during the 1970s helped raise the

awareness of social and behavioral scientists (Dobash &

Dobash, 1979; Martin, 1976; Pagelow, 1981) and called for

shelter for victims of domestic violence, legislative

change, and research. A national survey (Straus, Gelles, &

Steinmetz, 1980) was conducted in 1975 to establish the

prevalence and incidence of violence within couples. They

reported that 28% of men and women had been victims of

physical aggression at some point in their marriage.

Moreover, 11.6% of the men and 12.2% of the women had been

the target of a partner's physical aggression in the

preceding year.

2

Even before the prevalence of violence evident to the

grassroots movement was confirmed by research, questions

regarding its etiology were raised. Early theorists cited

patriarchal norms of Euro-American societies as instrumental

in supporting and sanctioning the violence (Dobash & Dobash,

1979; Straus, 1976). Gelles (1976) and Owens and Straus

(1975) suggested the cultural norms were transmitted within

families. Thus, exposure to violence in the family of origin

could function as a predictor of partner violence as an

adult.

Research increased exponentially during the past two

decades. Exposure to violence in the family of origin has

been repeatedly implicated in the theory, research, and

treatment literatures with conflicting opinions, results,

and applications. Family of origin violence is most often

examined as one of many possible correlates of partner

violence. Despite this attention, there has been no

comprehensive review and no consensus on the strength of the

relationship. Therefore, a meta-analytic review of the

literature is proposed.

Several issues need to be addressed. Because the terms

used are diverse and have changed across time and

disciplines, terminology must be clarified. At least a dozen

theories have been offered, most of which support the view

of an intergenerational transmission of violence. Finally, a

3

comprehensive review describes relationships found between

effects of witnessed and experienced violence in the family

of origin and expressing and sustaining of violence in

partner relationships.

Terminology

A broad range of terms have been used to describe

various aspects of family violence, some of which appear

similar but may be used in disparate ways. For example,

abuse, assault, aggression, battering, beating, and violence

have been used to describe similar, but not necessarily

interchangable behavior. The early literature used vague,

general terms which included aggression against children,

siblings, spouses, and elders (Gelles & Straus, 1979). When

forms of violence were distinguished, it was usually in

regard to their effects. For example, when the "battered

woman syndrome" (Walker, 1979) was identified, research was

conducted on specific effects of violence by husbands.

Researchers soon recognized that acts of aggression were not

limited to men, nor was physical aggression limited to

spouses. Consequently, terms that were less gender specific

and which could also incorporate violence between cohabiting

or dating partners began to appear. Finally, it became clear

that the word abuse was too broad because it included

psychological abuse, such as threats, and sexual abuse as

well as physical acts.

4

For present purposes, the term violence is most

appropriate for physical acts that may cause physical harm.

According to Gelles and Straus (1979), violence is "an act

carried out with the intention or perceived intention of

physically hurting another person" (p. 554) . Authors have

proposed that legitimacy (Goode, 1971), motivation or

function (Herzberger & Tennen, 1988), and injury (Pagelow,

1992) associated with violence have theoretical importance.

However, none of these distinctions have dominated the

literature and none are directly relevant to clarify the

relationship between violence in the family of origin and in

later relationships.

The changing structure of the family has required

researchers to expand and clarify their definitions of

family members (Kalmuss & Seltzer, 1989) . Early research

limited samples to married couples (Straus et al., 1980),

reinforcing the assumption that spouse abuse was a marital

problem. The importance of not restricting the definition is

evidenced by the U.S. Department of Justice (1994) estimate

that in almost three fourths of reported spouse assaults,

the victim and perpetrator were living in separate

households at the time. Additionally, researchers have found

higher rates of violence in the dating relationships of

college students (Laner, 1985; Marshall & Rose, 1987, 1988;

Sugarman & Hotaling, 1989) than among spouses. It is,

5

therefore, obvious that the terms must be sufficiently broad

to include all these groups. The term partner or

relationship violence includes both males and females who

express and/or sustain acts of violence in their dating,

cohabiting, or marital relationship.

Diverse types of relationships also occur in the family

of origin. Violence may occur within an individual's

generation (e.g., between siblings) and across generations

(e.g., parent to grandparent, grandparent to child). Most of

the research has been on acts by parents or those persons

who were in a position like parents to the child.

Consequently, this review is limited to acts done by a

parental figure to the child or done between parents.

Theory

Theories developed to explain relationship violence

have ranged from intrapsychic to macro-sociological and

cultural, each suggesting the possibility of differing

variables that may predict violence. Intrapsychic theories

cite factors within the perpetrator, such as psychopathology

(Maiuro, Cahn, Vitaliano, Wagner, & Zegree, 1988),

personality (Dutton, 1995) or alcohol abuse (Kaufman-Kantor

& Straus, 1989) or within the victim (e.g., learned

helplessness, Walker, 1979). At the other extreme, feminist

theories have proposed a cultural basis, citing patriarchal

norms accepted by the predominant culture as responsible for

6

violence perpetrated by men against women (Dobash & Dobash,

1979). Regardless of the level of analysis, most theories

implicate violence in the family of origin as a causal

factor. Each theory has problems and they are often accepted

without adequate scientific evidence. Furthermore, few

theories address the range of violent behavior between

intimate partners.

Aspects of Bandura's (1973) social learning theory have

been incorporated in cultural, intrapersonal, and

interpersonal theories of relationship violence. Theorists

postulate that the family is a training ground for violence.

Childhood experiences offer role models and examples for

imitation which may be utilized later in adult life. When

parents are violent with each other or their children, they

provide models of aggression as a coping style and as

punishment. For example, a parent who is frustrated by his

or her child's behavior and hits the child for that

behavior, models coping with frustration through aggression

as well as violence as a method of correcting undesirable

behavior (O'Leary, 1988) .

Violence researchers often note that behavioral norms

are learned in the family. Consequently, exposure to

violence as a child teaches approval of violence (Owens &

Straus, 1975; Ulbrich & Huber, 1981). Specifically, Straus

et al. (1980) suggest that the effects of physical

7

punishment teach a child three lessons: 1) those who love

you most are those who hit you, 2) the moral rightness of

hitting other members of the family, and 3) violence is

permissible when other things do not work.

Specific application of social learning theory would

suggest that behaviors modeled by the same sex parent may be

most influential. Therefore, it is important to

differentiate mother-to-father, father-to-mother and gender

of the child as well as gender of the parent who inflicts

violence on the child. However, research has seldom made

these distinctions.

Feminist and patriarchal theories have drawn on another

aspect of social learning theory that suggests that children

would be more likely to model behavior of those with

perceived social power in the family (Walker, 1979).

Similarly, violence theorists argue the cultural norms of

power are used by men to justify violence in their

relationships (Martin, 1976) .

Several intrapersonal theories have been proposed. For

example, Walker (1979) applied Seligman's (1975) learned

helplessness theory. Seligman hypothesized that when an

individual learns through experience that he or she has no

control over an unpleasant stimulus, that individual loses

the motivation to change the situation. Although Seligman's

theory has only been applied to battered women as a result

8

of their partner's violence, children may also learn they

have no control over their parent's acts. Abramson,

Seligman, and Teasdale's (1978) reformulation of learned

helplessness utilized attributional dimensions. Negative

situations which elicit internal, stable and/or general

attributions are believed to have detrimental effects.

Theorists have suggested that perhaps the experience or

observation of violence in the family of origin contributes

to the perception that a person has no control and is unable

to change the unpleasant situation (i.e., violence) in adult

intimate relationships.

Symbolic interaction theory is concerned with processes

involved in defining the act of violence. Learning to label

behavior as acceptable or not, whether a slap or a severe

beating, is likely to be influenced by what was acceptable

in the family of origin (Gelles, 1974). Exchange and

resource theories, assuming people maximize rewards and

minimize costs, have also been applied. Goode (1971)

hypothesized that violence is used as a resource when all

else is perceived to have failed or when the violence may

bring about desired behavior.

Ney (1992) suggested a transgenerational theory in

which the triangle of perpetrator, victim, and observer

rotates over time with an individual changing roles. Either

from the same or a different position on the triangle,

9

individuals tend to reenact violence in an attempt to

conclude unresolved and energy consuming conflicts.

These and other theories suggest some relationship

between the violence children observe between their parents

or sustain from their parents and their own expression or

sustaining of violence in adult intimate relationships.

However, each theory emphasizes a different factor and

leaves major issues unresolved. It is not clear whether

witnessing parental violence is more or less influential

than personally sustaining violence. The effects of gender

are not resolved. Girls who witness or experience their

mother's violence may be affected differently than boys in

the same situation. Girls and boys are also likely to be

affected differently by their father's acts. Regardless of

the gender of the role model, family of origin violence may

affect females differently than males. Widom (1989) reported

that male children who had sustained violence were more

likely than children who had witnessed parental violence to

exhibit acting out behavior problems, such as conduct

disorders. This may or may not extend into the adult

relationships of those children.

To understand the relationships between family of

origin violence and partner violence as an adult it is

necessary to clarify research. Study populations have varied

from nationally representative samples of more than 6,000

10

people to small samples from specific populations. Reports

from both men and women, married and cohabiting, have been

examined. A large number of studies done with student

populations examined family of origin variables in relation

to dating violence. Some samples have only included persons

identified as victims, usually women {Mitchell & Hodson,

1986; Pagelow, 1981; Ryerson & Fishel, 1993; Snyder &

Fruchtman, 1981; Walker, 1984). Others have only included

perpetrators, usually men (DeMaris & Jackson, 1987;

Schuerger & Reigle, 1988). To date no comprehensive review

has organized the research including all types of samples.

Limitations of the Research

Several points should be made about the state of the

literature. In addition to the specific issues of variations

in gathering and reporting data, the broader issues

resulting from self report data must be considered.

Expressing or sustaining violence is often measured

using modified versions of the Conflict Tactic Scale (CTS;

Straus, 1979). However, in many studies, the data are often

reduced to a discrete classification, the presence or

absence of violence (e.g., Hotaling & Sugarman, 1990).

Sometimes researchers have followed Straus et al.'s (1980)

detailed inquiry into the frequency of acts using the CTS

(mother's acts toward father, father's acts toward mother,

mother's acts toward child and father's acts toward child).

11

Others have used single items. For example, Follingstad,

Rutledge, McNeil1-Harkins and Polek (1992) asked "Did you

ever see adult members in your home use physical force?" (p.

131) and Strube and Barbour (1984) assessed "exposure to

abuse as a child (none vs. witness or victim)" (p. 839).

Time frames also vary widely. Partner violence has been

measured for the preceding year or two years, ever in the

relationship, or ever expressed or sustained by the

participant with a partner which could presumably include

acts across may relationships. Some researchers asked

whether the acts ever happened while the subject was growing

up (Follingstad et al., 1992), others requested reports for

the "worst" year of childhood (Burke, Stets, & Pirog-Good,

1988), and still others asked about when the respondent was

a teenager (Straus, et al, 1980).

The construct for family origin violence has also been

measured several ways. In some studies, separate questions

or sets of questions were asked for witnessing acts between

parents and experiencing acts from the parents. However,

these distinct types of acts are often combined into a

single variable for analysis. This makes it impossible to

tease out differences in effects.

The effects of recall are especially relevant when

asking respondents to report experiences that may have

occurred 20 to 40 years previously, when they were children.

12

Azar (1997) argued that people recall best those events that

are memorable, rather than mundane or unremarkable. Although

every incident may not be remembered, violence that is

witnessed or experienced may be sufficiently traumatic to a

child to be remembered. The more severe acts are probably

remembered better than "mild" acts. For example, Grayson and

Smith (1981) item "Do you remember being excessively beaten

or hit when you were a child?" (p. 192), is more likely to

prompt recall than a more general question of whether or not

the respondent remembers being hit. However, the use of the

word excessive is unnecessarily subjective and may elicit

other response biases. Further, that question would not

elicit affirmative responses from, for example, respondents

who were slapped several times a month although such acts

may have had an effect.

Self-reports of violence may be limited by social

desirability response bias. However, Sugarman and Hotaling's

(1995) meta-analysis found that the overall effect of this

bias was small (mean r = -.16). It was somewhat greater for

reports of expressing (mean r = -.21) rather than sustaining

(mean r = -.12) violence and gender had little impact (Male

mean r = -.19; Female mean r = -.17). Reports of violence

during childhood may be less vulnerable to this bias than

are reports of partner violence because physical punishment

of children is normatively accepted (Straus et al., 1980).

13

Self-reports have also been questioned for their

accuracy and the possibility of over-reporting

retrospectively. Widom and Shepard (1996) compared

retrospective reports of early childhood physical abuse with

official cases documented through court records and found

good discriminant validity. However, they also noted that

there were problems with under-reporting, with almost 40% of

the validated cases failing to report. They too suggest this

problem may be due to the type of questions asked to elicit

the reports. Overall, these results would suggest that

retrospective reports may be conservative in their findings.

Another limitation is that most studies have not

included both expressed and sustained violence. Many studies

continue to focus on women as victims and men as

perpetrators. It is important to remember that the injuries

caused by a 240 pound man punching his 125 pound partner are

likely to be much greater than the reverse (Cantos, Neidig,

& O'Leary, 1994; Koss, 1990), but it is equally important

not to ignore women's use of violence.

The issue of who reports the acts is a problem in this

body of literature. A common occurrence is to ask the

respondent to report his or her own behavior as well as the

partner's behavior. For example, the national surveys by

Straus and his collegues had one informant per household,

randomly choosing a male or female. Research using these

14

data often do not distinguish whether the respondent was

male or female reporting their own or their partner's

behavior. Not infrequently, respondents also report events

in their own and their partner's family of origin (Gondolf,

Fisher, & McFerron, 1990; Pagelow, 1981; Walker, 1984; Tutty

& Rotherty, 1997) . Although it is not unreasonable to accept

an individual's self reports of acts she or he expresses

(i.e., own behavior) and sustains (i.e., partner's

behavior), it is more problematic to accept one's view of

his or her partner's childhood.

It is also important to recognize differences among the

populations sampled. Many studies were done using samples

identified specifically by the presence of violence that are

likely to differ in many ways from samples drawn from more

general populations. Clinical (i.e., identified) samples

have been drawn from women's shelters, batterer's treatment

programs, or mental health clinics. People who have sought

assistance specifically for violence are likely to differ

from people in more representative community samples who

report violence in their relationships. Therefore, studies

using participants from clinical populations should be

considered separately from studies using only community

people.

Unfortunately, statistics are reported inconsistently,

making it difficult to compare results across studies. It is

15

important to understand not only the probability of presence

or absence of an effect, but also the size of the effect,

regardless of the size of the sample (Cohen, 1994; Hunter,

1997). Therefore, zero order correlations are reported when

available. A related problem is the inconsistent use of

statistical tests. Many studies do not test for significant

difference or significant relationships. Other reports may

indicate a significant relationship was found but not give

an indication of its strength or size. Consequently, in this

review the means, percentages, or correlations are included

when available and significance of the findings are reported

when possible.

Despite these problems, family of origin violence

continues to be cited as an important factor to be

considered in treatment and prevention of adult relationship

violence (Brennan, 1985; Fortune, 1993; Gerbi, 1994; Hanks,

1992; Mackey, 1992; North, Thompson, Smith & Kyburz, 1996;

Rounsaville, 1978; Russell, 1988; Rynerson & Fishel, 1993).

Treatments are implemented without regard to the possible

inconsistencies of findings. Therefore, meta-analysis of the

results reported in the literature for each of the family of

origin variables, using data of reported effect size, rather

than relying on a tally of significance, is necessary to

clarify the actual relationship.

16

Research Results

In the majority of studies, family of origin violence

was not the focus of the research. Although a number of

investigators have asked questions regarding violence

experienced or witnessed as a child, many of them reported

relationships for outcome variables other than partner

violence (e.g., coping strategies, self-esteem) that are not

relevant. Only data regarding the relationship of family of

origin violence with either sustained or expressed partner

violence are included here. The national surveys will be

considered separately. Because it is important to understand

gender differences, results from studies with men are

reported separately from results of women. Studies examining

community samples are separated from clinical samples.

Finally, dating violence among students may be distinctly

different. Consequently, male and female student samples are

reported in separate sections. Details of the applicable,

published results of each study are presented in table

format to allow for comparisons. Several researchers

reported results without identifying gender, therefore,

these studies are reported separately in Table 1 and will be

included in the omnibus meta-analysis. However, the samples

represented are too diverse to allow for specific

comparisons within this group of studies.

17

The National Surveys

The first large scale survey was conducted in 1975 by

Straus and Gelles (Straus et al., 1980). Data were collected

via face-to-face interviews with a nationally stratified

random sample of one partner in a married or cohabiting

relationship. These 960 men and 1183 women completed the CTS

(Straus, 1979) assessing violence in the family of origin

and family of procreation. Respondents reported their own

and their partner's acts and their own teenage experience.

More men (35%) and women (26.7%) who had witnessed parental

violence as a teenager had been violent toward their partner

in the preceding year than men (10.7%) and women (8.9%) with

nonviolent parents. The authors stated that witnessed acts

by fathers had more effect than acts by mothers but did not

affect sons more than daughters, nor did the mother's

violence affect daughters more than sons. The same trends

held when the more stringent criteria of including only

severe assaults was applied (Straus et al.). Unfortunately,

they did not report data to support these conclusions.

People who had not experienced parental violence had

the lowest rate of violent marriages (6.3%). As the severity

of the violence experienced increased, so did the likelihood

of violence in the marriage. For example, among men and

women who reported sustaining the most severe violence from

their parents, 20% reported acts of partner violence. Straus

18

et al. (1980) concluded that males and females punished by

fathers rather than mothers were more likely to be violent

in their marriage but did not report the supporting data.

In addition to Straus and his collegues, several

investigators have conducted secondary analysis on data from

the first national survey including family of origin

variables. Table 2 lists these studies. When researchers

combined reports from males and females, witnessed violence

was associated with expressed partner violence (Seltzer &

Kalmuss, 1988). When males were considered separately, a

relationship was found between witnessed parental violence

and expressed partner violence in two studies (Howell &

Pugliesi, 1988; Straus et al., 1980) but not the third

(Cappell & Heiner, 1990). For females, witnessing parental

violence was associated with expressing (Cappell & Heiner;

Straus et al.) but not sustaining (Hotaling & Sugarman,

1990) partner violence. Although the correlation reported by

one study was statistically significant, the variance

accounted for by witnessing parental violence was minimal.

A relationship between experienced parental violence

and partner violence was found by both studies reporting

combined male and female reports (Seltzer & Kalmuss, 1988;

Straus et al., 1980). The one study on experienced parental

violence and females' sustained partner violence did not

find significant differences (Hotaling & Sugarman, 1990).

19

However, two of the six factors they identified as risk

markers were experienced and witnessed violence in the

family of origin, but only two items comprised each factor

and frequency of father hitting mother loaded on

experiencing violence at a level, the authors considered

acceptable for a primary loading (.30). Therefore, the

factors were not as distinct as would be desirable.

In 1985, Straus and Gelles (1990) conducted the

National Family Violence Resurvey via telephone interviews

with 6,002 households. Respondents were married, cohabiting,

divorced or separated within the preceding two years. Single

parents with a child under eighteen living in the home were

included. Whether respondents were in a relationship at the

time of the survey is not clear, Findings for family of

origin variables have been reported from secondary analyses

listed in Table 3.

Two studies (Aldarondo & Sugarman, 1996; Stets, 1990),

examined the effects of witnessed parental violence on

married men's expressed violence, with Stets reporting no

relationship for all married men in the study. In a follow

up study involving a smaller number from the original sample

Aldarondo & Sugarman found a significant relationshipbetween

witnessing and expressing violence. Witnessed parental

violence was associated with married women's expression of

violence. Results were significant for the effects of father

20

to mother violence for married or cohabiting women

sustaining both minor and severe partner violence (Kaufman-

Kantor & Straus, 198 9). Two studies examined effects of

experienced violence (Aldarondo & Sugarman; Stets) finding a

significant relationship for women's, but not men's

expression of partner violence.

It appears that effects of family of origin violence

are inconsistent across the national surveys with differing

effects for men and women. According to the 1975 data, more

men had witnessed parental violence and witnessing and

experiencing father's violence had a greater effect than

mother's on the expression of violence. Across both surveys,

witnessing family of origin violence had somewhat consistent

effect on men's and women's expression of violence and an

inconsistent effect on women sustaining violence. Results

across studies are less clear for experiencing parental

violence. When men's and women's reports are combined,

experiencing violence appears important. However, when

examined separately women's, but not men's, experienced

violence may be important to their expression of violence.

Finally, results are inconclusive for effects of

experiencing on women sustaining violence. However, it is

important to note that all reported effects were small.

21

Studies of Men

In order to determine whether the effects of family of

origin violence reported for men in the national surveys are

consistent with the remainder of the body of literature,

results from researcher's data for men must be assessed.

Although much of the research has focused on men

specifically identified as batterers, some data are

available from community samples, who are more likely to be

similar to men in the national survey samples. These studies

are addressed first. It is important to note that subjects

for the both community and clinical samples were included

for diverse attributes and are not necessarily equally

representative of the population as a whole.

Community samples. Aside from the landmark national

surveys, the few studies that have used community samples

are listed in Table 4. The largest of these was a

longitudinal study supported by a grant to O'Leary in 1982

who studied couples at four points. Malone, Tyree and

O'Leary (1989), reporting zero order correlations, found

that witnessing violence as a child was significantly

related to a man's use of violence toward his partner before

marriage but not 6 or 18 months later. Doumas, Margolin, and

John (1994) studied a community sample of 181 couples also

finding that, for men, witnessed parental violence was

related to expressing violence.. A study of men in treatment

22

for alcohol or drug abuse (Bennett, Tolman, Rogalski &

Srinivararaghavan, 1994) and a study of married males

originally identifed as part of the National Youth Survey in

1976 (Mihalic & Elliott, 1997) found no relationship for

witnessed violence and expressed violence for the men in

their sample. Both Doumas et al. and Mihalic and Elliott,

the only researchers to publish results examining the

relationship of witnessing to the violence men sustain,

reported no signficant relationship.

Malone et al.(198 9) found that the violence men

experience from their parents was related to expressed

violence at premarriage and at 6 months, but not 18 months

of marriage. Three studies, (Bennett et al., 1994; Doumas et

al., 1994; Mihalic & Elliott, 1997) found no relationship

for experienced violence with the violence men expressed or

sustained. A fourth study (Rouse, 1988) consisted of

community men who responded to a questionnaire mailed to

people who paid property taxes. All but 4 men were married

to their current partner. Experiencing parental violence as

a teenager was associated with expressed partner violence.

Rouse's zero order correlations demonstrated a moderate

effect size. Unfortunately, she did not ask about witnessing

parental violence.

Results from these community samples support the

finding of the national surveys that violence witnessed in

23

the family of origin is more likely to be related to men's

expressing violence against their partner. In contrast to

the national surveys, two of the four studies demonstrated

that experienced violence was important to men's expression

of violence. There was no relationship for men sustaining

partner violence, however, only two studies reported data

for this variable.

Clinical samples. Numerous studies have addressed

family of origin violence among batterers. However, outcome

measures have varied (e..g., by typology, completion of

intervention programs, recidivism of violent behavior, or

willingness to respond to research questionnaires). Only

those that assessed family of origin violence in relation to

men's use of violence or sustained violence with their

partners are relevant here. All studies represented in Table

5 as "clinical" included at least one group of men seeking

treatment for partner violence.

Some studies have compared men identified as batterers

to a non-violent control group. Others have merely reported

descriptive statistics. For example, Edleson and Gruzinski

(1987) reported results from three separate studies of

batterers in treatment among whom the percentage who had

experienced childhood violence ranged from 59% to 72.3%.

Hamberger and Hastings (1986) reported that for their sample

of batterers in treatment 26.5% had witnessed and 19% had

24

experienced parental violence. Rynerson and Fishel (1993)

used a sample of 85 men from a mental health center's

batterer program. Many (38.8%) had witnessed father to

mother violence and 29.4% observed mother to father

violence. Almost all (97%) had experienced violence from a

parent. None of the studies examined effects of family of

origin violence on the violence men sustain from their

partner.

One study (Barnett & Hamberger, 1992) combined

variables for witnessing and experiencing family of origin

violence. They compared batterers in treatment, community

men who reported violence, maritally discordant but non-

violent men, and maritally satisfied, non-violent men.

Batterers had witnessed and experienced more parental

violence than maritally discordant or satisfied men.

Ten studies (Barnett, Martinez & Bluestein, 1995;

Beasley & Stoltenberg, 1992; Caesar, 1985, 1988; DeMaris &

Jackson, 1987; Dewhurst, Moore, & Alfano, 1992; Hamberger &

Hastings, 1991; Johnston, 1988; Rosenbaum & O'Leary, 1981;

Schuerger & Reigle, 1988; Stith & Farley, 1993) reported

effects of witnessed violence without distinguishing

father's and mother's acts. All but two (DeMaris & Jackson;

Scheurger & Reigle) included a nonviolent control group, and

three (Dewhurst et al.; Hamberger & Hastings, Stith &

Farley) included comparison groups comprised of sex

25

offenders or alcohol abusing men. A relationship was found

between witnessed and expressed violence in nine of the ten

studies. However, in Schuerger and Reigle's study of

batterers, the reported relationship at the time of follow

up was negative.

Both studies that specifically examined the effects of

father's acts toward mother (Barnett & Fagan & 1993; Murphy,

Meyer & O'Leary, 1993) found a relationship. Barnett & Fagan

also examined effects of witnessed mother's acts and found a

significant difference between groups. It is interesting to

note that when Caesar (1985, 1988) considered father to

mother and mother to father violence separately, there was

no difference between violent and nonviolent groups,

however, when she combined the variables, significance was

found. This may be an artifact of sample size, since effect

sizes were not reported.

Overall, it appears that witnessing parental violence

is related to expressed violence among men. Reported effect

sizes, although greater than those from the national

surveys, varied widely, ranging from .71 to -.19. It is

interesting to note that alcohol use may be a confound. When

violence groups were separated according to alcohol use,

higher levels of witnessed family of origin violence were

found for the alcohol abusing group (Hamberger & Hastings,

1991).

26

Of the ten studies which examined effects of

experienced parental violence only three distinguished which

parent was doing the acts. In the seven remaining studies

(Caesar, 1985, 1988; DeMaris & Jackson, 1987; Hamberger &

Hastings, 1991; Johnston, 1988; Murphy, Meyer & O'Leary,

1993; Rosenbaum & O'Leary, 1981; Schuerger & Reigle, 1988)

expressed violence was associated with partner violence in

all studies except Schuerger & Reigle's follow up data for a

portion of their sample. Of the three studies which

differentiated parental acts (Barnett & Fagan, 1993;

Barnett, Martinez & Bluestein, 1995; Dutton, Starzomski, &

Ryan; 1996) both father's and mother's acts were found to be

important.

It is apparent from these results that, across the

clinical samples, both witnessed and experienced violence

were associated with acts of partner violence. However, it

must be remembered that individuals who sought or were

ordered into treatment may differ a great deal in many

unknown ways from men in the community population who have

expressed violence toward a partner.

Studies of Women

Research with women has reported family of origin

variables less often than studies with samples of men. Very

few researchers used community samples. With the exception

of the community samples, women's acts of violence are

27

rarely reported. Again, when zero-order correlations were

available they are reported in the tables.

Commun11y samp1es. Apart from the national surveys, few

researchers reported findings from community samples of

women (see Table 6). Samples were recruited from a variety

of sources including legal aid offices, marital therapy

clinics, and advertisement in the community. They included

women from divorcing as well as intact couples.

Two of the three studies (Doumas, et al., 1994; Malone,

et al., 1989; Mihalic & Elliott, 1997) that examined effects

of witnessing interparental violence on women's expressed

violence found a relationship. However, that relationship

remained significant at premarriage, 6 and 18 months of

marriage. Although Doumas et al. found no relationship for

expressed violence, witnessing was related to women's

sustained violence. Mihalic and Elliott also found a

relationship between witnessing and minor, but not severe,

sustained violence. Lockhart & White (1989), reporting

effects of father's and mother's acts separately, found that

neither was significantly related to women's expression of

violence. However, witnessed father to mother, but not

mother to father, violence was related to the sustaining

partner violence. In contrast, Sedillo (1997) found that

father to mother violence was related to expressing, but not

sustaining partner violence. Parker and Schumacher (1977)

28

also found father's acts were related to sustaining

violence. In VanHorn, Sedillo & Marshall's (1997) study of

low income women, both father to mother and mother to father

violence were related to expressing and sustaining partner

violence. In this study, the strongest relationship was

found between mother's acts and women's expressed violence.

The seven studies (Cascardi, O'Leary, Lawrence, &

Schee, 1995; Doumas et al., 1994; Grayson & Smith, 1981;

Malone et al., 1989; Mihalic & Elliott, 1997; Sedillo, 1997,

VanHorn, Sedillo & Marshall, 1997) that examined experienced

family of origin violence did not distinguish between

parents' acts. Four of the five studies (Doumas et al.;

Malone et al.; Mihalic & Elliot; VanHorn et. al) that looked

at effects on women's expressed violence found a

relationship and three (Grayson & Smith; Mihalic & Elliott;

VanHorn et al.) of the five studies that examined effects on

sustained violence found significance.

These results suggest that witnessing parental

violence, particularly father's acts, is more consistently

related to women's sustaining rather than expressing

violence. It is possible that the relationship between

mother's acts and expressed violence suggest that women who

witness mother defending herself are more likely to defend

themselves. For these community women, experienced parental

violence is more consistently related to expressing than

29

sustaining violence which is consistent with the results of

the national surveys.

Clinical Ramnl.es. The majority of women's clinical

studies draw their samples from battered women's shelters or

other agencies offering services to women who are victims of

partner violence. None of the studies report women's

expressed violence and only two include a non-violent

control group. Research questions of the studies in Table 7

focus on differences between groups of battered women or

report percentages within the sample. Therefore, it is less

appropriate to draw conclusions from the data.

Only one study (Koslof, 1984) examined effects of

witnessing parental violence on sustained partner violence.

No difference was found between groups, However, the sample

size was extremely small (nine women in each group) and

therefore, the study lacked sufficient power to find

significance.

Percentages of women who report experiencing family of

origin violence were high, varying from 32% to 100%.

However, for the two studies (Koslof, 1984; Lake, 1993)

reporting significance, experienced parental violence was

not significantly correlated with sustaining partner

violence. Downs, Miller, Testa, and Panek (1992) examined

violence experienced from father and mother separately. In

each case they found significant differences between women

30

who had not sustained violence and women who were victims

and/or had alcohol abuse problems. However, as with male

clinical samples, the group that reported both alcohol

problems and sustained violence had the highest means for

sustained violence, suggesting again that alcohol may be a

confound.

Dating Violence Research

There has been a great deal of research looking at

dating violence using college students. This literature

examines effects for a population that is younger, never

married, and dating. Therefore, these studies should be

considered apart from those using married or cohabiting

respondents. Furthermore, researchers in this area more

often report family of origin effects on both sustained and

expressed violence, consequently, there are two sections

(expressed and sustained) for each gender. Studies for male

and female students are reported separately in Table 8 and

Table 9.

Male Students

Expressed Violence. Both witnessed and experienced

family of origin variables were combined by two researchers.

Bernard and Bernard (1983) reported parental violence for

more than twice as many male students who expressed violence

as those who were nonviolent. Ryan (1995) reported effect

31

sizes for expressed violence for two different samples, one

of which was very low, the other moderate.

Seven studies (Alexander, Moore, & Alexander, 1991;

Breslin, Riggs, O'Leary, & Arias, 1990; Marshall & Rose,

1990; O'Keefe, 1997; Sack, Keller, & Howard, 1982; Stets &

Pirog-Good, 1990; Tontodonato & Crew, 1992) examined

witnessed parental violence without distinguishing which

parent did the acts. In only three (O'Keefe; Stets & Pirog-

Good; Tontodonato & Crew) was expressed violence associated

with this variable However, when each parent's acts were

considered separately (Barnes, Greenwood, & Sommer, 1989;

Breslin et al.; Marshall & Rose, 1987), the picture was less

clear. Only one (Barnes et al.) of three studies found

father to mother violence important and mother to father

violence was related to expressed violence in one (Breslin

et al.) of two studies on male students.

Eight studies (Gwartney-Gibbs, Stockard, & Bohmer,

1987; Laner, 1985; Marshall & Rose, 1987, 1990; O'Keefe,

1997; Riggs, O'Leary, & Breslin, 1990; Stets & Pirog-Good,

1990; Tontodonato & Crew, 1992) examined effects of

experienced parental violence on men's expression of

violence with six reporting a significant relationship. For

Laner's sample, experienced violence was important for

nonMormon, but not Mormon, students. The only study to

32

differentiate parents' acts (Alexander et al., 1991) found

that father's, but not mother's, acts were important.

Experiencing parental violence, particularly father's

acts, appears to be more consistently associated with the

male student's expression of violence than witnessing

violence. Inconsistencies may be based on the statistics

used to test significance. Although effect sizes varied

widely, two of those reported for experienced violence (d =

.44 & R = .32) were moderately large.

Sustained Violence. None of the three studies

(Alexander et al., 1991; O'Keefe, 1997: Stets & Pirog-Good,

1990) that examined effects of witnessed parental violence

on sustained violence found significance. Even when father

and mother's acts were considered separately (Marshall &

Rose, 1987) witnessing was not important. Of the six studies

(Gwartney-Gibbs et al., 1987; Laner, 1985; Marshall & Rose,

1987, 1990; O'Keefe, 1997; Stets & Pirog-Good) that examined

experienced parental violence, only three found a

relationship. When considered separately (Alexander et al.,

1991), father's, but not mother's, acts were related to

sustained violence. Thus, for male students, neither

witnessing nor experiencing family of origin violence

emerged as a consistent predictor.

33

Female Students

KyprfisseH vi nl ence. All but two of the researchers who

gathered data from males also reported for female students.

The one study combining variables reported percentages. Of

those students expressing violence, 50% witnessed or

experienced family of origin violence compared to 23% in the

nonviolent group (Bernard & Bernard, 1985). Nine researchers

examined effects of witnessed parental violence on female

students' acts (Alexander et al., 1991; Breslin et al.,

1990; Gwartney-Gibbs et al, 1987; Laner, 1985; Marshall &

Rose, 1990; O'Keefe, 1997; Sack et al. 1982; Stets & Pirog-

Good, 1990; Tontodonato & Crew, 1992), with only two finding

a relationship. When father's and mother's acts were

considered separately (Breslin et al.; Marshall & Rose,

1987) neither was found to be important to expressed

violence.

Experienced parental violence was related to female

students' expressed violence for four of the seven studies

(Follingstad et al., 1992; Laner, 1985; Marshall & Rose,

1990, Riggs et al., 1990; O'Keefe, 1997; Stets & Pirog-Good,

1990; Tontodonato & Crew, 1992). When father's and mother's

acts were reported separately (Alexander et al., 1991;

Marshall & Rose, 1987) neither was important. Again, the

results across studies were inconsistent, with experienced

parental violence emerging as more consistently related to

34

women later expressing violence than was witnessed violence.

Regardless of significance, reported effect size was small.

Sustained Violence. The effects of witnessed parental

violence on the partner violence female students sustain was

reported by eight researchers (Alexander et al., 1991;

Coffey, Leitenberg, Henning, Bennett & Jankowski, 1996;

Follingstad et al., 1992; Gwartney-Gibbs et al., 1987;

Laner, 1985; Marshall & Rose, 1990; O'Keefe, 1997; Stets &

Pirog-Good, 1990) with only four finding a relationship.

Further, Marshall and Rose (1987) found no relationship when

father's and mother's acts were reported separately.

Finally, only four (Coffey et al., Goguen, Stepaniuk & Foy,

1996; Marshall & Rose, 1990; O'Keefe) of eight studies found

a relationship between experienced parental violence and

sustained partner violence. Thus, for female students family

of origin violence is not consistently related to the

violence they sustain in their relationships.

Conclusions

The results of this review suggest that there is some

relationship between family of origin variables and partner

violence. For samples drawn from community populations,

witnessing parental violence is consistently related to

men's expression of partner violence. Witnessing is more

consistently related to women's sustained than expressed

violence. Experienced violence appears to be related to

35

expressed partner violence for both men and women. The

picture that emerges for clinical samples is somewhat

different. Both witnessing and experiencing parental

violence were important for men in treatment for partner

violence. For women identified as victims of partner

violence, their experience of parental violence was more

important than interparental violence.

The relationships found for family of origin violence

lends support to social learning explanations of partner

violence. Since these results are more consistent for men,

it is possible that the reinforcement of patriarchal norms

increases the effects of social learning in the home. In

other words, what boys watch their parents do may have more

effect on their own behavior because such acts are endorsed

by the culture. For women, the results are less clear.

However, the fact that both witnessing and experiencing

violence were somewhat related to women sustaining partner

violence may offer support for the learned helplessness

theory. There is no clear pattern across studies for

father's vs. mother's acts. Although it is possible that

these results negate the modeling theories of social

learning, sufficient studies reporting these variables

separately were lacking.

Studies that examined dating violence found

experienced, rather than witnessed violence emerging as a

36

more consistent predictor. Within this body of research the

results suggest that the violence experienced in the family

of origin was related to males expressing and females

sustaining partner violence.

It is important to note that these conclusions are

based on significance testing rather than effect size.

Statistical significance is impacted by sample size which

varied widely across these studies from 18 to more than

2000. A meta-analysis based on effect size will provide a

more accurate foundation for drawing conclusions.

CHAPTER 2

METHOD

Identification of Studies

Potential studies for the meta-analysis were located

through a computerized literature search of the

Psychological Abstracts database from 1974 to 1997. Key

words representing violence (e.g., domestic violence, spouse

abuse, family violence) were combined with "family of

origin" to direct the initial search. This search yielded

only 44 potential studies. However, data are reported in

many studies which do not necessarily include relevant

information in abstracts or key words. Therefore, an

extensive search was performed using Marshall's personal

database which consists of over 2000 journal articles and

presentations on partner abuse. This search yielded 287

sources. In addition, the reference lists of major research

reviews (e.g., Feldman & Ridley, 1995; Hotaling & Sugarman,

1986; Pagelow, 1992) were manually searched. A total of 317

studies were identified as potentially eligible for a meta-

analysis on the relationship between family of origin

violence and subsequent relationship violence.

37

38

Of the 317 originally identified studies, 40 could be

classified as reviews, 17 opinion articles, 43 focused on

theory, and 214 reported research. Based on initial coding

of potential research studies, estimates are given for the

number of studies excluded for various reasons. First,

researchers looked at groups not included in the meta-

analysis such as children or gay/lesbian couples (n = 23).

Variables other than expressed or sustained violence were

used, including treatment outcome or remaining in

relationship (n = 15), sypmtomology or character traits (n =

30), coping strategies (n = 5), attitudes or attributions (n

= 9), or differing types of violence (n = 3). Many studies

reported family of origin violence differences by

demographic groupings such as gender, ethnicity, economics

or other nonviolence related variables (n = 35). Studies

also combined either family or origin or partner violence

variables with psychological or sexual abuse (n = 13).

Finally, studies measured, but did not report, statistics

for family of origin violence (n = 8) or multiple

publications reported data from the same sample (n = 13).

For multiple publications of data from the same sample,

only results from the initial wave in a longitudinal study

were included. Several researchers reported results from the

national surveys. These studies were included if they

reported results for a different part of the sample. If more

39

than one researcher reported results for the siniilar parts

of the sample, the report than included, the most complete

distinction by gender and violence variables was included.

For example, results were included for men who witnessed

father to mother violence as opposed to a report of parental

violence, not identified by gender. Eliminating these 148

studies left 66 potential studies for the meta-analysis.

Criteria for Inclusion

To be included, studies had to meet four criteria.

First, respondents had to have reported data about himself

or herself. This eliminated studies in which subjects

reported their partner's past experiences. Second, the

report had to include the respondents' acts of expressed

and/or sustained partner violence. Third, experienced and/or

witnessed family of origin violence must be reported.

Fourth, sufficient statistical information had to be

available, either in the published study or through personal

communication with the author.

The last criterion required information on which to

base effect size to indicate the strength of relationships

between two variables. Three statistics commonly used in

meta-analyses are Cohen's d (1977), Glass's (1976) g, or

correlations. Both d and g, computed using t-tests and

standard deviations, reflect the magnitude of differences

between groups. Therefore, they are most appropriate when

40

comparing experimental conditions or categorical groups

(e.g., gender). In contrast correlations (r) describe the

direction and strength of the relationship between two

variables. They are most appropriate when the focus is on

bivariate relationships and when the underlying constructs

are considered to be continuous.

Both violence in the family of origin and the partner

violence are considered continuous in the literature. These

variables are usually measured by such instruments as the

Conflict Tactics Scale (Straus, 1979) and the Severity of

Violence Against Women Scale (Marshall, 1992). Therefore,

correlations are the most appropriate method -to measure

effect size when examining the relationship between two

continuous variables (Rosenthal, 1984). Consequently, effect

size as used here refers to zero-order correlations or

transformations to an estimated r for an individual

analysis.

Studies in which correlations were neither reported nor

provided by the author were included in the meta-analysis if

sufficient information was provided in the form of F or %

statistics. These statistics were used to compute an

estimated r. Because it was important to determine how

accurate these estimates were, raw data from the VanHorn,

Sedillo and Marshall (1997) study were grouped by presence

or absence of each of the family of origin variables and

41

ANOVAs on partner violence were computed. These F statistics

were then used to compute an estimated r for each family of

origin variable with each partner violence variable. The

resulting correlations were then compared to the Pearson

correlations. In every case, the estimated r was

conservative. The original correlations ranged from no

difference between the measures to 2.5 times the estimated

£. For example, the correlation for parent to subject

violence and sustained partner violence was r = .26 and the

transformed estimate was r = .10. Consequently, it was

reasonable to use estimated correlations as effect sizes.

Sixty six studies were found that met the first three

criteria. Only 16 of these studies reported zero-order

correlations. Letters and forms were sent to the other

authors requesting correlations between each family of

origin variable and expressed and/or sustained violence

(Appendix A).

As a result of compiling published data, personal

communication from the authors, and conversion of

appropriate statistics it was possible to include data from

44 studies in the meta-analysis. There were 144 separate

measures because several different correlations were

included in some studies. (Results used in the meta-analysis

are shown in bold type in Table 1 through Table 9.)

42

Although there are relationships among these types of

family of origin violence, it is important to assess the

different effects of each. To avoid combining non-

independent results, multiple correlations from the same

study were only included as effect sizes if they measured

different constructs (e.g., witnessed father to mother

violence and experienced parental violence). For studies

reporting repeated measures over time of the same construct,

only the measurement from the initial wave of a longitudinal

study was included. Because data from the national surveys

were examined by several researchers, the most specific

version of reports (e.g., experienced from father, rather

than experienced parental) was used in the meta-analysis.

Coding

Different factors may affect the strength of

relationships observed in the studies. To determine whether

moderators account for variability in the effects of family

of origin violence, a coding system was employed. The review

of the literature suggested that effects appear to be

dissimilar across the various types of samples. Therefore,

each individual effect size included in the meta-analysis

was coded for type of population from which the sample was

drawn (i.e., clinical, community, and student). Because

efects were also dissimilar for men and women, each effect

size was coded for gender. To determine effects associated

43

with each specific variable, studies were coded to

distinguish type of family of origin violence (witnessed

parental, father to mother, mother to father, parent to

subject, father to subject, and mother to subject).

One decision involved how to address the issue of

expressed and sustained partner violence. Many studies,

particularly with clinical samples, often examined only

expressed or sustained acts. Yet there is a moderately

strong relationship between these two variables (Gray &

Foshee, 1997; Marshall & Rose, 1990; VanHorn, Sedillo &

Marshall, 1997). Therefore, each effect size was coded for

type of partner violence. Separate analysis of expressed or

sustained violence for each gender should be run only if

heterogeneity was found after other moderating variables had

been considered.

Individual effect sizes were further coded for several

study characteristics. Date of publication was coded to

determine whether improved methodology of later studies was

important. Studies were coded based on whether family of

origin violence was the focus of the report. Finally,

individual effect sizes were coded to distinguish reported

correlations from transformed statistics to determine

whether transformation influenced the results.

Finally, the number of participants used in each

correlation in reported results was used to weight effect

44

size. This procedure was important because larger samples

produce more reliable estimates of effects and have less

sampling error (Rosenthal & Rosnow, 1991).

Analysis

The meta-analysis for each of the family of origin

variables was executed in three steps using the 5.3 Revision

of Meta-Analysis Programs (Schwarzer, 1989). First, an

overall population effect size estimate was computed for a

global measure of experienced and/or witnessed family of

origin violence across all studies. Tukey's (1977) stem and

leaf plot of individual effect size estimates was inspected

to examine the distribution of effect sizes and determine

whether outliers were present. When using correlations

Rosenthal and Rosnow,(1991) suggested using the Binomial

Effect Size Display (BESD) to evaluate the practical

significance of an effect size in terms of the change of

rate of an outcome due to variable under consideration.

Binomial refers to the fact that results are cast into

dichotmous outcomes which can be interpreted in this case as

partner violence occurred or did not occur, based on the

reported effect size. BESD was used to evaluate the

practical significance of the effect of global family of

origin violence on partner violence.

Second, homogeneity of the population effect size was

evaluated. This provides strong evidence that differences in

45

the results are negligible across studies. Homogeneity

indicates that the variability is due to sampling error and

that the effect size represents effects of the variables

measured. Heterogeneity suggests that moderators may better

explain the variability in individual effect sizes. Non-

significant (p > .05) %2 tests indicated homogeneity.

Third, if effect size was found to be heterogeneous for

the initial meta-analysis of a type of family of origin

violence, separate meta-analysis were executed based on

likely moderators. Because effects of family of origin

violence appeared dissimilar by type of sample, separate

meta-analyses for each sample type across gender were

executed. Likewise, a meta-analysis of global family of

origin violence for each gender was executed. Xf homogeneity

was not found, then separate meta-analysis for expressed and

sustained violence across gender were executed. If

homogeneity was not found for each gender, separate meta-

analyses were executed for each type of sample within

gender. Next, partner violence was examined within gender.

Finally, if necessary, expressed and sustained violence were

examined within type of sample for each gender.

Differences between population effect sizes are

reported. Traditionally, t tests are used to determine

whether there is a statistically significant difference

between groups. However, due to the large sample sizes

46

included in many of the population effect sizes, sufficient

power exists to find significance when there are negligible

differences in strength of the association. Consequently, no

t tests are reported.

The file drawer problem (Rosenthal, 1984) is often

identified as a shortcoming for meta-analysis, with the

assumption that published articles are more likely to report

significant findings. Consequently, Rosenthal's Fail-safe

was computed. This is a method of estimating the number of

non-significant results that would be required to bring

about a non-significant finding for the overall population

effect size.

After analysis of the effects of global family of

origin violence, separate meta-analysis for each of the

specific types (i.e., any witnessed parental, father to

mother, mother to father, any experienced parental, father

to subject, and mother to subject) were performed.

Homogeneity for each population effect size obtained by

meta-analysis and BESD are reported. If the population

effect size was heterogeneous, further meta-analyses were

performed employing the moderator variables using the order

established by the first meta-analysis of global family of

origin violence. Although we should stop when homogeneity is

reached and variation is explained by a single moderator,

there are several important issues in the literature.

47

Therefore, it was meaningful to continue to examine results

by gender even if homogeniety had been reached.

CHAPTER 3

RESULTS OF THE META-ANALYSIS

Table 10 shows the results of meta-analyses across all

types of family of origin violence. The initial procedure

included 144 correlations from 44 studies. The global (k =

144) weighted population effect size of £. = .14 was

statistically significant, Z. = 27.58, p < .0001. This is a

small relationship. The BESD indicated a change in

likelihood of outcome for absence or presence of partner

violence from 43.1% to 56.8%. This initial analysis did not

meet the test for homogeneity, %2= 354.40, p < .0001.

There was too much variability in the individual

correlations. Therefore, Tukey's (1977) stem and leaf plot

of effect size estimates (Figure 1) was examined. An outlier

was identified that measured the relationship between

witnessed and expressed violence in a clinical sample of

males. Johnston (1988) reported a relationship of .71 which

was much stronger than others have found. (The next

strongest was r = .53.) After removing the outlying

correlation, the meta-analysis was re-executed, but the

effect size and measure of homogeneity were unchanged. The

48

49

lack of change is not surprizing, given the large number of

subjects and effect sizes included in this global analysis.

However, the extreme relationship found by Johnston (1988)

could affect the outcome of other analyses. Therefore this

correlation was dropped from subsequent analyses.

As shown in Table 10, further meta-analyses were

performed for the global family of origin variable to

discern likely moderating factors. The overall population

effect size varied conspicuously by type of sample. The

lowest population effect size was found for students (k =

72, r = .10, p < .0001). In contrast, using clinical samples

resulted in the highest population effect size (k = 29, £

.26, £ < .0001) which also met the test for homogeneity.

Separate analyses were conducted by gender to see

whether homogeneity could be obtained. There was little

difference between the overall population effect size for

males (k = 72, r = .15, p < .0001) and females (k = 64, r =

.13, p < .0001) but neither was homogeneous. For males the

overall population effect size was much greater for

expressed (k = 56, r = .18, p < .0001) than for sustained (Jc

= 16, r = .08, p < .0001) partner violence. The latter was

also homogeneous. In contrast, there was little difference

between expressed (k = 32, r = 12, p < .0001) and sustained

(k = 32, r = .13, p < .0001) violence for females, neither

of which met the test for homogeneity. Therefore, the

50

moderator of type of partner violence (expressed or

sustained) was tested for males, but not for females, in

subsequent meta-analyses of specific family of origin

variables.

When meta-analyses for each type of sample within

gender were executed, the population effect size for males

in clinical (k = 26, r = .27, p < .0001) and community (3< =

10, r = .14, £ < .0001) samples and females in clinical

samples (Js = 3, £ = .23, p < .0001) each met the test for

homogeneity. For these groups, the effect was homogeneous

regardless of whether the family of origin violence was

witnessed or experienced. Because the moderator of type of

sample met tests for homogeneity across and within gender,

it was the first moderator tested for each specific family

of origin variable.

Witnessed Violence

A meta-analysis including all studies reporting any

violence witnessed in the family of origin was executed.

(See Table 11.) The overall population effect size for

witnessed parental violence (k = 76, r = .13, p < .0001)

varied little; from the population effect size across all

types of family of origin violence and was heterogeneous.

Because population effect size was similar to that for

global family of origin violence, an additional BESD was not

necessary. When moderator variables were examined, type of

51

sample seemed most important. Without regard to gender,

population effect sizes for clinical (k = 13, r — .26, e <

.0001), community (k = 23, r = ..15, e < .0001), and student

(k = 38, r = .09, e < .0001) samples each met the test for

homogeneity.

Meta-analysis of witnessed violence for each gender

revealed a slightly higher population effect size for males

(k = 36, £ = .15, E < .0001) than for females (k = 38, £ =

.12, e < .0001), neither of which was homogeneous.

Subsequent analyses distinguishing sample type for males

yielded homogeneity for all three groups. The pattern was

consistent with the measures of overall family of origin

violence, with the strongest relationship found in clinical

samples (k =13, r = .26, e < -0001) and the weakest effect

in student samples (k = 18, r = .10, e < .0001). A

difference was again evident between the overall population

effect size for males expressing (k = 27, r = .17, e <

.0001) and sustaining (k = 8, r = .07, e < -0001) partner

violence. The latter population effect size was homogeneous.

Among females, the population effect size was homogeneous

for student samples (k =20, r = .08, e < .0001) but not for

community samples (k = 18, r = .14, e < .0001) . There were

no individual effect sizes measuring witnessed violence for

females in clinical samples.

52

Meta-analysis of studies that reported father to mother

violence produced an overall population effect size (k - 20,

r = .11, E < -0001) that was only slightly smaller than the

population effect size for any witnessed violence. Moreover,

it was heterogeneous. Only clinical and student studies with

males and community and student studies with females

reported fathers' acts separately. Consequently, meta-

analysis for type of sample across gender was not

appropriate. When each gender was examined separately, the

population effect size for males (lc = 8, r = .12, E < -0001)

was heterogeneous, but analyses by type of sample produced

homogeneity for both clinicial (k = 2, r = .34, e < .0001)

and student (k = 6, £ = .07, p < .0001) samples. Further,

for males the population effect size for sustaining (k = 3,

£ = .07, p < .0001), but not expressing (k = 5, r = .16, E <

.0001) partner violence was homogeneous. For females,

regardless of sample type, the population effect size (k -

12, £ = .11, p < .0001) was homogeneous.

The population effect size for mother to father acts (k

= 15, £ = .14, e < -0001) exhibited only a minimally greater

effect on partner violence than father's acts and was

heterogeneous. Again, differentiation by sample type across

gender was not done because there were no clinical female or

community male samples available. When each gender was

considered separately, the popialation effect size for males'

53

(k = 5, r = .16, p < .0001), but not females' (k = 10, r =

.13, P < .0001) mother to father violence met the test for

homogeneity. When type of sample was examined for females,

population effect sizes for community (k = 6, r = .18, p <

.0001) and student {k = 4, r = .03, p < .0001) samples were

homogeneous.

Experienced Violence

Table 12 shows the results for experienced violence.

The overall population effect size (k = 66, r = .14, p <

.0001) was heterogeneous and similar to that of witnessing.

Type of sample was an important moderator for clinical

samples (k = 17, r = .26, p < .0001) which reached

homogeneity, although that was not found for community or

student samples. Neither the population effect size for

males (k = 35, £ = .16, p < .0001) nor females (k = 26, r =

.14, p < .0001) was homogeneous.

When further partitioned within gender, population

effect sizes for males in clinical (k = 14, r = .26, p <

.0001) and community (k = 5, r = .12, p < .0005), as well as

females in clinical (k = 3, r = .23, p < .0001) and

community (k = 7, r = .19, p < .0001) samples were

homogeneous. Subsequent meta-analyses separating effects on

expressed and sustained partner violence for males did not

produce homogeneous population effect sizes. However, meta-

analyses of male student samples produced a homogeneous

54

population effect size for expressed (k = 9, r = .12, p <

.0001), but not sustained (k = 7, £ = .09, p < .0001)

partner violence.

When violence experienced from father was considered

separately, the overall population effect size {k = 10, r -

.16, p < .0001) was heterogeneous. Again, sufficient studies

were lacking to look at type of sample across gender. Meta-

analyses by gender demonstrated more similarity between

population effect sizes for males (]c = 6, £ = -19, p <

.0001) and females (k = 3, £ = .11/ £ < -002) than for

mothers' acts, but neither met the test for homogeneity. The

variability was greater for population effect sizes for

males' expressed (]c =4, r = .25, p < .0001) than sustained

(k = 2, r = .05, p = .19) partner violence. Again, the

males' population effect size for sustained violence was

homogeneous, but the effect size itself was not

statistically significant. Only three studies reported

fathers' acts separately for females. The population effect

size for the student samples (k = 2, £. = -.01, p = .42) was

considerably lower than the individual effect size for the

clinical sample (r = .29). The population effect size for

students was homogeneous but not statistically significant.

A meta-analysis including all studies that reported

violence experienced from mother separately (k = 9, r = .18,

p < .0001) was heterogeneous. Sufficient studies were

55

lacking to look at differences for sample type across

gender. There were dissimilar population effect sizes for

males (k = 4, x = .23, p < .0001) and females (k = 3, £ =

.12, p < .0005), however, neither was homogeneous. All four

studies that examined effects of: mothers' acts for males

reported only expressed partner violence. Meta-analysis for

males from clinical samples yielded an overall population

effect size (k = 3, r = .28, p < .0001) which was

homogeneous and considerably higher than the single

individual effect size from the student study (r = .07).

Only three studies reported mothers' acts for females. The

population effect size for the female students (k = 2, r =

.05, p = .14) was homogeneous, but not significant. However,

it was considerable lower than the individual effect size

for the single clinical sample (£ = .23).

Study Characteristics

Further analyses were conducted to examine the

possibility of variation due to study characteristics. For

example, studies in which the focus was family of origin

violence (k = 68, r = .13, p < .0001) were compared to those

which tangentially reported these variables (k = 76, r = 14,

p < .0001). There was little practical difference between

the two groups. Furthermore, a Failsafe N = 243, suggests

that more than 243 additional studies would be required to

reduce the global family of origin population effect size

56

below a critical r of .05. This effect size was identified

as critical because population effect sizes of that

magnitude were not found to be statistically significantly

different from zero.

Transformations from other measures to an estimated r

were performed for 46 of the 144 effect sizes. Therefore,

the population effect size of transformed data (k = 46, r -

.17, p < .0001) was compared to that of the non-transformed

relationships (k = 98, £ = .13, p < -0001). However, 24 of

the 46 transformed statistics were from clinical samples

which exhibited consistently higher population effect sizes,

with only 6 of the non-transformed statistics from clinical

populations. This difference likely accounts for the higher

effect size with transformed statistics.

Finally, a meta-analysis was performed to look for

differences in earlier compared to later publications. The

median split for year of publication for the 144 individual

effect sizes was nearest to 1991. Therefore, the population

effect size of all studies published prior to 1991 (k = 69,

£ = .11, p < .0001) was compared to that of studies

published later (k = 75, r = .16, p < .0001).

CHAPTER 4

DISCUSSION

This meta-analytic review examined the relationships

between witnessed and experienced violence in the family of

origin and subsequent partner violence. Overall, only small

population effect sizes for the relationship of family of

origin variables to partner violence were found. The largest

population effect size obtained approached only moderate

strength. Thus, family of origin violence does not appear to

account for a great deal of the variance in partner

violence. Theories positing a strong causal relationship

should be reconsidered. It may be more effective to focus on

understanding moderators that increase the likelihood that

early experiences in the family will be associated with

later partner violence. This focus may be more helpful in

directing future theory as well as prevention and treatment

models.

Conclusions about the overall effects of witnessed or

experienced violence must be tempered by the heterogeneity

of the results. It is likely that moderator variables may

better explain the various effects. Although nearly all

57

58

comparisons of moderator groups would have been

statistically significant, due to the large number of

subjects included, only meaningful differences are noted

here.

Gender as a Moderator

There appeared to be little difference in the effects

of either witnessed or experienced family of origin violence

for males and females until data were further partitioned.

When expressed and sustained partner violence was considered

separately, there was little difference for females. In

contrast, the magnitude of the relationship was consistently

twice as strong for expressed as sustained partner violence

among males. Further, witnessing and experiencing parental

violence are equally likely to affect males expressing,

rather than sustaining, partner violence.

Gender differences remained when parents' acts were

considered separately, but these results are tentative.

Although the sample size for studies that distinguished

parents' acts were reasonably large, there were few effect

sizes in these meta-analyses. An unanticipated finding was

that, for males, witnessing mothers' acts had a somewhat

greater effect on partner violence than witnessing fathers'

acts. This contradicts social learning theory that would

predict the same sex parent would have the greatest

influence. On the other hand, the stronger relationship for

59

community females between mothers' acts and partner violence

would tend to support the same sex theory. However, both

contradict the argument from feminist and patriarchal

theories that children would be likely to model behavior of

fathers, who have perceived social power in the family. It

is possible that, within the family, mothers, rather than

fathers, have the greater perceived social power.

Type of Sample

Before considering the effects of witnessing or

experiencing violence separately, type of population was

clearly a moderator. Regardless of gender, the effect size

for clinical samples was homogeneous and approached moderate

strength. Consistently across analyses, the pattern was for

weaker relationships among community samples for the

smallest effect to be found for student samples.

When witnessing parental violence was considered

separately, the pattern was even more apparent. For males,

all three sample types had homogeneous effect sizes. There

were no reports for females in clinical samples, but the

effect size for community samples was similar to that of

males and the effect for female* students was homogeneous and

small. In each instance, homogeneity was achieved without

regard to whether the partner violence was expressed or

sustained. Similar magnitudes of effect size and homogeneity

were found for experienced parental violence. Thus, type of

60

sample may be the best predictor of the effects of family of

origin violence on partner violence.

There are several possible reasons for the relative

strength of the effects among clinical samples. It must be

remembered that these studies only included persons who had

sought or been referred specifically for treatment for

partner violence. Much research suggests that people try to

make sense of their current experience, especially negative

experiences, in terms of their own self-perceptions and

beliefs. For ejxample, in the search for explanations,

cognitive activity increases when one observes or

experiences a negative or unexpected event (Anderson, Krull

& Weiner, 1996).

Women entering shelters and men entering batterer

treatment programs are likely to engage in ruminative

thinking regarding their current predicament. This could

cause heightened awareness of not only current but also past

experiences because they are focused on violence. Therefore,

any and all physically aggressive acts would be more salient

for them than for samples drawn for a general population of

community people or students. Salient acts are, by nature,

over-emphasized and may be over-reported (Nisbett & Ross,

1980).

Further, lay people are not unlike researchers. If they

thought about violent acts (as they would if they were

61

entering treatment), they would be likely to perceive a

relationship between family of origin and later violence.

When people believe a relationship exists they are much more

likely to notice and recall confirming instances rather than

disconfirming instances (Trolier & Hamilton, 1986) .

Consequently, men and women entering treatment may perceive

such an illusory correlation exists and over-report acts in

the family of origin. For example, women entering shelters

may attempt to make sense of their situation by reporting

more parental violence for their partner than for themselves

(Pagelow, 1981) or for their battering partners than non-

battering partners (Walker, 1983).

It is also possible that persons who enter treatment

are somehow different from the general population. Many

findings from shelter and treatment samples are not

replicated in normal samples (Gondolf, Fisher, & McFerron,

1990). Although the effects of their childhood experiences

may be more salient, it is possible that other factors

account for the relationship between family of origin and

partner violence found in clinical samples.

Reasons for the differences in effect between community

and student samples are less clear. Presumably, both are

drawn from a larger, more comprehensive population. However,

both type of relationship (married versus dating) and age

are usually different for these groups. Childhood

62

experiences likely would be both recent and salient for

students who are may feel more connected to their family of

origin than older adults now living in their own family of

procreation. However, these experiences appear to have less

relationship with violence in dating rather than married

relationships. This difference is less likely to be a

function of partner violence because is rates and means are

at least as high for student as community samples (Gray &

Foshee, 1997, Sack, Keller & Howard, 1982) . Consequently,

there must be other factors which mediate the effect of

childhood experiences. There is some evidence that peer

influence is greater than family influence for student

samples (Gwartney-Gibbs, Stockard, & Bohmer, 1987).

Differences in age or stage of development may also be

factors. Students are not only younger, but most have not

yet begun their own families of procreation. Thus, they may

recall or experience the effects of their family of origin

violence differently than older people or those at a

different stage of life.

Limitations

The greatest limitation of this meta-analysis is the

variability that exists in the methodology of the studies

that were included. These differences existed at three

different stages. First, data collection methods varied from

the use of scales to determine each parent's acts separately

63

to a single question regarding the presence or absence of

witnessed or experienced violence. Second, even when

detailed, specific data were collected using scales, the

results were often collapsed into a dicotomous variable.

Finally, the statistics employed varied with some

researchers mesrely reporting percentages. Unfortunately,

many studies lacked sufficient information to adequately

weight individual effect sizes according to quality of the

methodology or to code all studies so that methodology could

be examined as a possible moderator. Effects and homogeneity

were found despite inconsistent and poor methodology which

suggests that meta-analysis may be robust to methodological

integrity. The somewhat larger effect size for later

studies, revealed that improved methods may have made

effects more likely to be identified. Effect sizes remained

small, however, suggesting that the weak relationship found

between family of origin and partner violence was accurate.

It is unlikely that the obtained population effect

sizes were inflated by the bias of publishing significant

results. A large Fail-safe N and finding little difference

between studies focusing on family of origin violence and

those that tangentially reported these variables suggest

that these results were not subject to publishing bias.

It is important to note that of the 70 meta-analyses

executed, 17 included five or fewer individual effect sizes.

64

Further, only three of the studies employing female clinical

samples reported sufficient statistics to be included in the

meta-analysis, and none of these included reported effects

for witnessing.Clearly, some results should be viewed with

more caution than others.

There were also few studies reporting parents' acts

separately. For example, for males, only 8 studies reported

effects of witnessing father's acts and 5 reported mothers

acts. Even fewer individual effect sizes were available for

effects of experiencing each parents' acts. Therefore, these

results provide less evidence to support a relationship

between individual parents' acts and partner violence.

Consequently, those results should be considered tentative.

Future Research

Despite the limitations, this meta-analytic review has

produced a clearer representation of the differences in the

effects of violence experienced or witnessed in the family

of origin on adult partner violence. The overall weak

relationship suggests that investigators must reconsider the

application of current theories as an explanation for

partner violence. For example, social learning theory may be

applicable, but in a much more complex form than currently

used. Although a relationship exists, it is obvious that

other factors must account for most of the variance in

expression of partner violence.

65

Furthermore, although some theories have implied a

causal relationship, caution should be employed in making

any causal inferences from this meta-analytic investigation

(Knight, Fabes, & Higgins, 1996). This analysis was based on

correlations as measures of effects size. Consequently,

although associations were found, this investigation did not

employ statistics that are explanatory.

It is not possible to discern whether these findings

are the result of variation in methodology rather than a

true measure of effect. Therefore, future investigators

should use scales rather than single items. Future

researchers should also differentiate witnessed and

experienced parental violence and report findings without

collapsing data into dicotomous variables.

Research is needed to clarify the moderate relationship

between witnessed or experienced violence and men's

expression of violence toward their partner. Differences in

effect based on type of sample should also be examined to

better understand how type of relationship, age, or other

undetermined factors may contribute to differential effects.

Given the weak relationship, mental health professionals

should recognize that treatment; models should look to more

factors than merely witnessed or experienced violence, for

both prevention and treatment.

66

Conclusion

Regardless of the widespread impression held by the

research community that the relationship between family of

origin and partner violence is well documented, this is not

the case. Although 214 relevant studies were found, only 66

reported statistics that directly assessed that

relationship. Further, of the 66 studies that met the first

three criteria, only 44 included sufficient statistics to be

included in this meta-analysis. Most important, however,

this meta-analytic review which included over 40,000

subjects from the 44 studies, contradicts the impression

held by the research community. There is only a weak

relationship between the violence men and women witnessed or

experienced in their family of origin and the violence in

their adult partner relationships.

APPENDIX A

LETTER

68

3 University of North Texas Colle^e of Arts and Sciences Department of Psychology

June 15/ 1997

Ola W. Barnett, Ph.D. Social Science Division Pepperdine University Malibu, CA

Dear Dr. Barnett:

I am working on a program of research with Dr. Linda L. Marshall. My area of interest is the effects of f a m^ 1^ violence on partner violence. I am in the process of completing comprehensive literature review and plan to do ® 'h* would like very much to include data from your 1992 article, Assessment of Maritally Violent Ment on the California Psychological Inventory". In order to include your data in tms, I will need zero order correlations for the relationship or family of origin violence variables with sustained and/or expressed partner violence. These correlations were not published in your article.

To this end, I would appreciate you taking the time to complete the enclosed form, reporting the relevant statistics. To make the meta-analysis as complete as possible, please report witnessed violence separately from experienced family of origin violence, if possible. I would also appreciate information on sample size included in each correlation.

I enclosed a self-addressed, stamped envelope for your convenience. If you have any questions regarding the:infomation requested you can reach me by phone at (940) 484-8649 or e " ^ X

(vanhorn0jove.acs.unt.edu) or Linda Marshall at (817) 565-4145 o marshall0terrill.unt.edu). I appreciate your taking the required time to gather the statistics I am requesting. I intend to r u n

the meta-analysis before the end of October. We hope that a meta-analysis involving these variables will clarify the effects of family of origin violence. t

Thank you very much for your assistance in this researcn

effort.

Sincerely,

Barbara VanHorn

P.O. Box 13587 • Denton. Texas 76203-6587 (817)565-2671 » FAX (817)565-4682 • TDD (800)735 2989

69

V a v a

a w 55 M H CO D tO

Q M 55 M H — co c D — to

to w •J

u o z w *9 O

cc w z h s Cm

V a

a w h u t-4 fcu Z

CO w 1-3 § w

i W u 2 w o

a; w z

v a

a w H u M ta z

OJ ON 0%

u 0) cn M 0) <0 32

(1) G f0 OQ

CO w iJ § M

I »-•

M a; o fcu o >4 a

"D a)

—» •H *0 0) •H •H u *W 0) •H a U (0 <u c a 3 w e 4J 4J 3 M •H u o

a) <D w <D <v x: x: •n *n

•H JJ 4J TJ iJ X) w o <0 rH 3 3 ' S 1*4 •H to to

(0 x: JU 0 o u o o c 4J u JJ -p a> to u M u m M fO 0) ai a> <D a x: XI T3 x: XI

4-> JLi 0) 4-> 4J c fO o C fO o a> t* E £u 32 0) <TJ 3 4J W a) 3 OQ CO

CO W

3

> M 13 H-4 OS o [*4 o >* •J

•o a>

•H u a> a to c 3 M M

<D <U x; x: -H u W> o <d s W -U> o o c J-J 4J a) u u M m 0) a) a x: x:

4J £ m O QJ iu s 0) 3 4J 0) CQ

•a a)

u a) a w c: 3

X3 u (0 <0

T3 a> c

to a to

4-> u 0) •r-i JQ 3 <0

M 0) x: 4J (0 [*4

U 0) T-i ja 3 (0 o JJ M <U je 4J O s

APPENDIX B

TABLES

0* 9 SDD M *< 01 H-03

K O rt m

f t

0) M

0

CD h "«*

K hrj

O r t £T CD hi

r t O

H> $> r t

CD H

CO r t C Q, H-0) 00

H-»

8*

ft

H-»

0 H £

a a>

a

H-£

1 r t a> i

a

i

m o

H P 2 f t P »

& o

8 r #

s <*

IN

H3 M ft

H co a tf* Zf

£h

lr* H-" 0 a iO £3-H* 05 ft

n o £ t* H

tft

(J1 o

w 3 X K

*0 ft 0 & H ® M" 03 ® tfl £ f» a pt (D a

m m

H K ® m. w (ft oi to # <i> a a

T* f t o H ft

Pu

o o o o U) M

a 5? 9 8

f t ft

M F* H

' J~* a f t f t

H **J Mb H m

H

f"

•6 J» f t Hv

8 f t tn

01

f t *0 H Ift H -k j 0 ~

p I

\0 (XI

5

i 0 m to o 6

I f ! I

H ,

CI*

O (JT

n ,

H

*4

i** m

a o 0 sr * a> 2 H

H n> 0

-̂N» Hi m M KO "*>

CO <T\ 03 <x> w H <1

0 jfc* 0 i*r o 2 •a

til IS ^ rt o H* £ {J* iQ-a* o sr f& D t* M ft m

to in cr%

5

£ to fl)

a.

Ca M £ . X m *xs f t H $ ® M - CQ £ m <D fl> Gkf CL

o H

hi © •d Q hi rt d> a

£ o f t

o in

a o >§

0» m

CO

o

3 3$ G P-rt rt

&•

53 f& H h Cft f t Eft EJ 0 a m m f& a

m m hji KA

tJ *tJ-h H 0 fl> w m w m a> (P a. a

U) (Jl o o oP oP

A

r r i*

f . "

p

^ M H

H m H'

H n a

! s m m

4

6P

m

N H 02 ct

II It Pi rt

o U) p, * * m H *a: rt

H* o

!3-. Id

!3- o. Id

to Cn

CO P) B

!0 f~4 CD 0)

P O

H a a> p r t H-H) H-a>. a

cr s<-

o fD y a. CD h>

Kl P> t r

<D

7 1

72

0 > 3H 3 CO

rH d C o

"H 4~>

CM <d S3

0) rH t o ,jQ r > aj (Ti EH rH

p i

u -•ri -P tO *H .p cd 4J CO

- »

M O

•M

& -p

*d m

IH o

> i £ H H

00 O

CO O &

•Hi £ <8 M fo o

>1 73

-P CO

73 4) to w <t> M & K m

1

<n

d)

0

4J

Ik

rH t^ O CD

4) o & 2J & s O —

yi W c a

tH O o

<r>

vo

ei to o 0

a> ffl r j rH 73 • a> i g

»H §£ S <u ftS S o) o S &* lw

to > i <U rH a <i> -H -p -H

H m

• tfl cm nj

73 73 © <D i

a -H -H W

ftS 4J 44 w tQ to P4

w CO CO m

73 <D

73 0 t j d) 15 # to <9

•H w •iU M # a 0) c: -p & -H « ss •w

A0

0 #

*rf 0

•3 H £

t8

W

-r-i »rl CO CO

cn 0 <3V cn 0 CO <3V

!> » *4 «ri O '* r * CsJ tH « * *

H 11 It 11 11 tt 11

C k N N Ml Mi

M& m

H

** ID

« w

<#>

o t>

IA o 00 rH

I> CTi o CO

XO 0D CM

O CM

M o X I 4J 3 cd

CP

X I 4J

•H

fl

O rH - P <tS D H d

73 73 0) 0) W to to to # d) M M .o, a X X C£J |x?

73 fl} -01 4-» t0 "ri m &

73 73 m a) to to to w # © u M Qi Qt $*5 *<

m m

73

to to 0* a

73 73 0 0 CO CQ to to ® ® M M a , o<

W W

*d 4) O a 4) a* •H ^ M W m

•a 4J -P -P PU 4J •H O -H G * 0 & % S6 fij

<Y> 00 O a> V0 H tH o> tH

W w (S> <D

CO TH to rH <y fd fd

H S rH flS <u cd X hi CM

V o to C D

a) cr> r-t tH r—j *s"'* <u 0 H

•P * U % S

0 *»** tft 0CI M 00 a CO CO td -H cri HI m M <D

0 H -p 4J m w CO CO

O U

rH nj CJ O «

to CO M -H <D CO Pu >1

rH >1 (d fit fl

fd X3 t CD <d

73 4^ "tH 0) > & O M 0) ft XI

4J CO D

-rH • H •p to 7^

-H <1> - P 7J as ^5

•P rH CO D

a rH "H <d a T5 0 H

-rH Q -M

TS 7^ •H < * %

i w

«H 0 7^ 4-i d O 4J

a W

73

CD 1> M 0 m

r H

a a

- H - p

0 0 fd 5 ?

CD r-H t n

0 0 05 CTs

£ h t H

tH O W

0 1 • «

u •+>

W -H -P (d 4J to

00 tH <NI rH

n ii *

mi ^ *V«

M G

0) d

M rti

04

O

£ l

M 0) •&

<y

> i t r

t o

7$ 13 0 fl) 93 m s i to <y < r M M ft ft X tA m w

m CM

cm

OJ m

00 tH

11

0) *D 4-i CO -P

fd <y dp D H O

r l Gn

0) £ O

o -H a a «j <u

P H t s 81 o

, -H 0 -H fa 13 M >

1$

I •8 «* *> w

I ! i

Tf 0 £ *r"t €) «s w -P a) o) > 3 <U cn w

t S I 0

IS V 0 & w 0 «

C5 10 -H w -H (U M i a <D H 4J ft 43 M "H 2 i

O a s W

m o CM

0) H

to !

^ tH

D m -P a i fa fd

if} tH m (fl O O £l £» * #

4J -H ^ O j ^ O H O H H M O O O O

CM * * #

*X$ TS xt *& a) <d 0 a) w m m to m m m m 0 0 a) a> u u u M ft ft ft ft X M ft. M mm w m

"6 0 m TO <y 0 4J •H

TJ 0 O 13 & 0 0) W

«H W U 0 0 d ft - P X *H m &

T3

rH o> vo o

a\ rH rH

O tr» cr>

to 4J 4) P m

(d d (d i <tl

4-> CD

cd

£ H

CD * d P H u a

t s H

£ H

"d

0 ) •Hi

P 4~J £/)

M CD

X I 4~> O S

O 4-1

U CD

- P (ti

MH

a ) -p

o

74

CD I—I & FO

EH

QL

O •H -P CO

-H -P (U 4J cn

M o

0 O M 3 O

. cn

>1 T3 3 -P CO

CO CO G G

OV OI o o

II II

Ml Ml

TJ id U a) a 0 10 0} G to (0 -P a a) U M M m a a Cu X X

W W

TJ 0)

4-1 TJ O o A) G

to a) >1 G CO >H

r--| -H a> M •H CJt G A) S -H a rd M •H x UA O S3: w

CO IO

4J O •H TJ T> <#

A (U S rH O EH

G TD

£ •§> FLJ M RJ

^ H 01 -P ^ AS -P <0 > ^ (D H rl «s* a id G en G Gn-H O* <D O M rH GQ PS CO W

O to CO CO • A C C

TJ 0} 10 TO a) G 4J

£

00

TJ a) O G <D

•H

a! &

W

§• O 0

A •H rH

M

I

O Q

LO LD LO O (0 CO O O CO

• G G * • G CO CO G G

CO CO G G

rH o o •s* <M CN rH rH o CD rH rH -p

* • • rH • • to . 0 II II II 1! II II II -p

Ml Ml Ml Ml Ml Ml M -Pi

t r 00 CD <X> <SO M CM R- • <£>

m * cn CNJ •

rH * \ rH G \ \ rH \ aj o o R- o cu CTI <N • <y\ S rH

'

(U a)

TJ TJ TJ TJ TJ (d CO (d CO "O X5 <D 0) a) 0) 0) •H co x : •H CO x: a) 0 (0 G (0 G to M x: -p M x: -P CO G (0 •H CO •H to M -P G M -P G CO 0 -H 0 a) td a) (0 <D m G O <d G o <D M U M M M M 4J M 4J M i 0 B n 0 e M O 0 •p O 0 P< (0 a to P» 0) fi a) g a G > CO G > X 3 X X M OD M 00 X •H 0 3 •H 0 w CO w CO W & <X> <—1 a KO RH w 6 to W fi CO

CO 0 A G

-H •P G O O

XI M EH

T» A) to to A)

5

£

TJ 0) 0 G 0)

•H

a! &

W

TJ 0 CO CO 0 G -P

to a) >>

\ o 2

M O> M

CO A)

H &

O a

o

CM

-P T3 4J rd 0 *H Z >.

-H X5 x; 0 SH S -P > M x: O a M fU U o M o P E Q u 4H 01

4J -P o

•H 0) O\ rH 0) 00 i—1

cr> M CTi w cn rH £ rH w ' >t o G 0) M -H XJ G fd i—1 O O O (l) O0 hi rH x: <Y\

iS •» •H *—i S o 2

75

o i

a • H 4J CO

- H P 03 - P C/3

S I

u o

T3 TJ <D d)

(D CO C C CO <D - H CD P CU jq n 03 M M M M O CD P O CD 03 a C > CO C >

O i X - H 0 3 *H CD W g « CO g CO

M-l O

> 1 c i—i - H • H Cn £ m u

U4 o

CD o u 3 o co

> 1 T5 3 4J CO

to O to CO CO

• c c c

• p CO <D p

-Pi

<D 00

d) (M

T3 CD a c CD

*r4 u CD a x

w

o <Ti CM

P " 0 P 03 <D • H S

- H xa X <D M .03 6 p > U X I O 3 u fO O M 0 3 6 O U m >-• CO

O "0 - H (D r~i P <—I C W - H

P ^ £

o o o

• H — rH r -fd

JC c t i •H «—I s —

CTk O O

O CO

Ml

* 0 a) 0) w a) M &

w

TJ a) a a 0)

•H M a)

w

os

CO - H CO ! > i • H m c (U i f d 4 J CD E 0

x ; 4 J

c - H

T S CD

T J D

i—I a a

• H

CD M CD £

T J H 0

A

CO 0

• H T 5 3

- P 0Q

CD - P O

s

76

CO Q)

i—1 Q » E m

CO

<—i ro a

- H c

• H LO i—1

O CD

i—1 CD X3 •—1 no 03

EH S

0 1

o -H 4-> CO

-H 4J

m

ui

S I

u o

M CD £ -P

rci 0u

MH T* O " 0>

w > i G CO

i—1 -H 0} -H tj* a £ •'-* -P 03 U •r j t i O *

vo G|

<d o u 0 0

CO PQ

> i TS 3 4J CD

o o o o

i n

O rH o o

GO CO

<T> II V0

PmI VD

CM O CTi

CN CM rH \ W ID (Ti O

|| O O rH

i n

\ &

H CO 00 ^ kO <T\ 00 ^

CM CM tH rH \ W

rH CM rH 00 ^ O (Ts CO

2 1 r o n h H r o oo r—f r-H

V 0 CO to CD u * w

q cn S 2

cn Oi cn

a (d

r * fa

-P -P 0) a u id

n

TJ a) (0 (0 Q) M &

m

u a

X! •p

2 \ M a)

frS w fa

co cm o i r j

GO

CM

fal

TJ 0)

d) M

8" w

T3 a) CO w <D a

TJ a) o a a

•rl u a)

m >

t—1 r -ID O ;—1 o O o o o

** cn r * c*1 i n <j\ rH i n

*> O rH VD i n r -

a II II II II II

§ i N fal M M

•p t i a* •H a x ^ i d H

i n CN CM 00 r f <3 TJi

CO 2

TJ *3 T5 a) a) a) W 0) w co w w <D a) a M M M

fr 0 - B* w w w

fa 2

T5 • d a> a)

T3 a a a) G c 0) a) a) to *H •ri 0) M M a 0 0 4J P« & •H X X £ w w

vo vo *3

m > S

cm r -

CM rH

CO rH

li II

S I S I

*G <d

u & W

T* a) CO (0 0)

5

i s

cn i n co

PQ

uT) LO O O

2 s x : cn

<N

II

T3 T3 (D CD (Q CO (0 CO 0) CD M M 04 a 5T X w u

T3 CU

TJ O a) c w 0) •H 0) M c 0 "p a •H X 3 : CJ

V0 GO CM r-4

m

& M 0 n

N • 9 d) ^ a) a m «p

•H rH •P cn 0 M rH 4J i n td — CO 00 S ch

a ui rH -H

+) a j >i 4J 4J a j ^ M

CM (U CO H CM (d CTi a a CO Oi cn Oi M 3 cd cn a) TH nj h a) rH <d w pq m CQ ~ a

CO (D 3 C

G o o

X) fO EH

77

a

-p co

-H 4J rd -p CO

SI

u o

0 a

D O CO

LD O CO

G

CM LO O r—I

IT) O

«N (S

CQ

lD O

r -

CM

II

o o\0 LO

-o 13 T3 u 0 0 0} 0 co CO V) C en CO CO •P 0 0 0) M U M rd a a , &* Pu X X

W W W

•P 0 c T?

/ 0 4-1 T3 o T» 0 0 C '• a)

CO 0 (0 >i C CO -H 0)

i—I *H 0 U 0) •H tJ> C 0 CJ £ *H •P a 4J rd U •H x rl t4 O 3: w *

00 d LO H CM

a a

a> <w co o

CM CM

ffl >

CM r -O rH o o

CM

II CM

•PI co

<£> .. . CT\ U) VQ • 0 N CM V-i ^ \ 0 • oo 0 r-f CO H 0 0

T> <D CO 0} a) M &

w

M 0)

M

a)

W Cm o in <3 ^

PO

a 0 nJ a %• tw d UJ

•rl a u> 0 0) to a)

M M 0 0 0 N

0 U b a «J

4J c» CO

(0 0) •H ^ M — a —

>i M r - 0 CM 0 VD T3 M oo cn 4J Ok

5̂ 2 cn ^ o\ 4-J 4-> Q) H <D r-4 ^ rH CO Q — P — Q ^

CM i—t O O O O

r-0

^ ro 01 S

o\° o\° o\° • • 0 0 o\o

O CO • Ch LO CM CO • w \ r -o\o o\o o\° \

r - lo o\° . . . LO

r-1 O r—i • Lf) CM H CTi

T3 <l> W 0) (9 M fr

W

TJ a) a a

to a) n a)

•H M a)

4J a •h * !k u

00 O vo 00 cn MD CM VD

9 03 >

0)

a •H -p

01

s

r - r - r - T—1 w o o rH o 0 o o o o 0

TH

a •H -P c o

CM O 0

r-t r - 00 CM CM 0

rH CO 00 1

2

0 rH

II XI

11 II II 11 II II fd 11 II

N H

Ml M Ml Ml N x'—

*0 a) 0) w <d M &

w

Tl <D w 0) a)

B

£ in o *-4

•a 0

0 W m a> 0 " > a)

M 0 a rl _ . . g co g

fr,fl

-a a) o c a>

•rl M 0) fr

W

>

« 5s

35 w

00 00 a*

a o 4J (0 a

.C 0

i—I CTt *—I

CM CM

dP o\o dP II II II

H H LO CM CM S I S I S I

T3 a>

a> M

w

•a

a) 5

is

Tt 0)

d) M fr

w

15 <D o a a) •H

a! *

W

^ ^ ^ CM CM CM

nSS

& fl) a)

0

ui

M a >i

1

£ CO fk o\ U OS a -

78

pi

s i

u Q

CI

<D O U 2 O CO

m o o * i

O CTk md m

^ on

II II C* M

TJ TJ (I) (1) CO 0] (0 (0 <D d) M M Oi Q. X X W «

O O O C\| CN CM

«§§

flj fl)

o uj

LO LT) LT) o O O CO

- . - c

oo ^ h r -r-i tH * O

• • I

II II It 11

Ml Ml M| M|

V TS TJ T3 (D <|) (L) CD W W to CO (0 CO CO CO <D 0 CD CD M M M M ( i i a a * * x x W W W M

TJ TJ TJ <D <u a)

4-4 t j a TJ 0 T3 o O CD C <u a a) G

w a) oi a) co CD >i C CO -r| CO H CO -H i—I -H 0) M <D M CD U •H Cn C <D G 0 G 0 & -H 4J a •P &4-> a 03 M •H X •rj X H x t i o £ H £ W £ w

0 in 01

o <̂ r

m

00 00 <7*

•HI <D

5 O

O — m-4 a

OQ P

CO C

CTk O

II

Ml

> IS

P £ 0 g

-P fd CD P

TJ 0) CO W a) M fl-pa

TJ a) w 0} a) c +j

CNI Cft m on

< PQ

m o\ cr>

>i a) H M

fa

£ M <4

>̂i iH 0) T3 a) 00 P 4J

CO o> •rH -P 0 rH a 4J co tf CO CO

PQ

T3 CD

•H

CO •H P (0 0)

4-1 O

•H 6 m tl4

P CD

T3 G D

TS CD

T3 3

rH O G

•H

CD P CD £

0 •Q

G 1—1 • -H m CD G

p CO -H -P -H 3 O p XI CO G rd fd CD

6 •H P rH X5 CD 11 0 G P JG -P CD w o cn -P 2 a -P «—i • fd •V < U X! •p CD

G p x: II <d o 4->

TJ o > P s

O p • s o G o -p CO CD -p G *H 6 CD TS p p g CO CD P >i a) x: m rH p 4J CD rH +j fd P as MH p -P G

•H •H il G P -H fd G 2

6 CD P 6 CD II • V P II p CD Q CD -P 2 < JG P +J rd •V • »k O XI G CO g

0 M II g CD II

P CQ >< CD •

P -P CO v -H P •V •H CD G <d p CO O 3 JQ 0 P g x: i—1 D S- Cn 4J fd O o G fd G co o -H M-l fd

CO i P -p 3 II fd CD G X* -P T5 CD fd CD G rH g D O i—i

-H o G CD . > JG -H x: CD 1 o p P G o •H O O 1—1 P G ss G fd o -H

7 9

CD i—I XI ra

EH

Ql

U •H P co -H -P <T3 p CO

SI

u o

u Q) a P M H3 a•

t-n o >I G rH -H •H CP g *H 03 U iu O

a> o M 3 O CO

-a a) G •H fu p co 3 CO

TS a) Q G 0

•H

0 a x C4

r -cr\

«H t>1 m a

03 x: g p

LO CTI Ch

>< a) m a) oj x: cu o ^ 00

o <-»

ld in co o o co G * • G

in en vo in O rH HI O

U II il II

Ml Mi Ml Ml

TJ <D W 0) 0) M &

» 3 H CO W W

TJ <D 0} <0 a) 5

is

TJ a) a a <D *H M 0 &

W

(0 a) H §• O o

c £

£ UJ

c *H H O tn M

•H 0 T3 o 5-1 G 03

>1 03 D <d "O o U ai 3 CO 2 Ok P 03 03 O T—1 CQ A Q W

TJ 0 P 5H O a <D M

P — 0 oo G CT>

m U tn T3 O 0) rH m 0 rH

CO tl O CO 0\P 3 3 11 r - X> GOP JQ G m a3 — co rd ^

T3 0 G *H 03 P CO 3 cn

T3 0 o G 0 •H M 0 a X w

r -CM 00

>1 p •H G 3

0 0

rH 00 cn rH

x: P •H 6 Ul

t 3

G O CO >1 03 M O

CM LO M LO LO LO CO O (0 CO o o o o O o G

*

G G

GO rH <N TH <?* O CM o GO CO CM CM in

• . CM H rH rH rH iH rH VO H • • * • * •

II II 1! II II II il II II II

ixil N pcil (zil

S S I

TJ 13 0) Q)

a) a)

5 5

£ is

in in

a a id o o H

•H M M a) s i

c\ 00 Oi

a) •P •H

4J M a) X3

o o

co 0 3 G •rH

P G O a

M{ Ml Ml Ml Ml Ml

XI m EH

(9 0 t»

TJ TJ TJ TJ TJ (d CQ (d CO a) <0 a) 0) a) •H CO XI *H CO x; CO G W a CO M x: P M x: -p 0) •H 0) •H (0 M P G M P G 0) flJ 0) (d a) (d G 0 rd G O M 9*

4J (0

M P<

4J W

M P«

flog a) g

3 o 0) g

6

W 0 5? a 5< M oo M 00 m to w CO w Ot̂ Q rH &KO rH

TJ a)

a>

5

£

TJ a) a a ai •H M a) fr

w

ro cn m

0) d) H

8-0 a

«d a)

o

a) a) M

ai ~ c c* o CD H cr» s =

80

Q l

a -H - p co

rd - p GO

-p CO a ) • p

H I

tJ* r - ( O cn 0 C\J VD CM a) LO 0 r H 0 0 0 0 0 0

M . . • • • • • •

S I MH CM H CM *—i 0 0 *—1 \ cn \ *—1

M C LO 0 r - r - <T\ 0 0

0 rc co l o O r H cn 0 0 co a> • * • • • • • •

o\o 2 r H r H T-H

- a T3 - a TS TJ u CD CD 0 0 a) CD CO G CO C a C CO CD *H a) CO CD •rH a> •H -P CD U U (T3 M SH CD M M 03 M M ai M 5H O CD -P 0 CD U O CD 4J O Q) 4J (tJ a C > co a > a a > CO C > <n Ot X -H CD 3 •H CD X -H CD D •H CD

w g CO cn g CO W g CO CO g CO CO

h h

o

>* a i—I -H -H tJ> g *H m JH Cx< O

CI

>1 T3 D - P CO

LO o

LO o

LO LO o o

<y\ CO CM r - 0 r H r H r H r H

LO LO LO O r H *—1 r H cn O O O O

0 O O O rH r H CO \—1 r H O O O O

T5 CD CO CO to CD <D £ -P \ •H O 3 : 2

T5 0) U C CD -H U CD £X X £xj

TJ + j as CD <D -H Z > 1 O • h x i x ; cd

U M 03 g - P > 3 SH X I O 3 M O fd M O SH O cn g O O 4H >h

W

o cn

Ml

T J 0) (0 to (1) a +>

•H *

O tn

tJ* G

•H a M o >

•H T J

M <0

00 CTl CO If) rH CTk CM O *H O H O

II tl II II II i! Ml Ml Ml Ml Ml Ml

Tl TJ TJ Tf TJ (1) (D a) <D (!) CO CJ w C 0) 0) •H W H W <u <d a a) dJ M +> M 4J M 9* CO & w & w X 3 X W w w w W

6 I TJ 0)

TJ T3 0 a) 0 a (0 w a) (0 (0 •H 0) <D M a CJ a)

4-> a« •H •H X * * w

CO o\

I ? •rl

O 0

0 -K at

P Oi

0 Cfi CO rH ta

0 M H 0) r - rH

r - •H M o\ TJ <d rH 0 04 w CO

vo vo i n r * o vo H rH CM H CM CM

II II II: II II

Ml Ml Ml Ml Ml Ml

TJ TJ TJ TJ TJ TJ a) a) a) 0) 0 0} w a w a W G W rl w •H CO H a) «j a) 0 a) M 4J M M 4J a « & CO 04 to X 3 X p X P w w w CO M W

W (1) a 4J

§1

LO CO 00

0) 3 0

* a 0 G

H 'H

T J a> 0) to <D

£

u c a)

•rl

&

w

rH •rl TJ 01 03

a M o EC g

>

c H

1 3 CD

T3 3 H O G

CD

P 0 £

-o

0 .Q

C H

CO

CD

H T5 3

P

W

M CD

P O

JC P

3 m

CD

jC P

x : p

a s O

O

0 1—I

- p 03

C

M O

CD CO

J C U p CD

0 a

6 > 1

II

tl4 n S Q)

X 5

• V • H p > CD 0

x : M p a

0

E CO

0

0 p P

CO p • -rH <D CO P

X I * H r d

p CO P

f d > 1 CO

r H Cd r H

11 C 03

03 C

s 1 O CX4 f0 - H

P P

CD * H • 6 T 5

<D T3 P CD <

O x :

2 4J

81

CO CD i—1 0 e f0 cn 1—1 m o

-H c

•rH i—1 o

r -a) <D <—i

i—i m Xi e 03 a>

EH 1*4

Qi

O •rH -P CO -H -P rd -p cn

5H o

a> a 4J u rd a.

MH o >1 G i—I -H •H Cn g •' rd M ki O

CI

CD O >H P O CO

>i TJ 3 4J cn

0 • TJ g •H O O •H g G O O SC G

CO (Ti

0 c £ o u CQ

o o

r* o in oo

in oo

II II

M N

•<& CM CO CO C\J VjD *—I

O O O tH

in o r- cm oo cri oo h

co co G G

co co

0 0 & jC CO CO

* H * H

Cxj ttj

CO g

in o

II

Ml

O O o t—1 o\o o\o o\o o\o o\o o\o T—1 r- on o\o o in oo o\o

o\o o\o II II II II , . * o\o • • • • • o

rH rH r- oo CM CM oo LO HOOO r- <X> M

M

2 S rH r- oo CM 00 kO 00 CM rH

X) TJ TJ T3 TJ T3 •d TJ TJ TJ TJ TJ TJ -a 0 a> 0 0 0 0 (D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 G c G G G G a G G G G G G G

-H •H •rH •H -H •H •H •H •rH •H •rH •rH -rH -H m n} tX3 aj m rd (0 rd m rd rd rd rd rd -P -P •P -p -P -P •P -p -p -P •p -P -P -P CO W CO co co CO (0 CO CO CO CO CO CO CO P 3 3 P P 3 P 3 0 p p p p cn 0} cn cn cn cn CO cn cn cn cn cn cn cn

M S fa 0 "0 TJ V TJ V TJ TJ Cx4 S TJ

0 ai 0 0 <D 0 0 0 T3 O a TJ 0 TJ o a TJ o TJ o TJ TJ a 0 G a 0 G 0 G a 0 G 0 G 0 0 G CO 0 o CO 0 CO 0 0 CO 0 CO 0 CO CO 0 CO *H •H CO *H CO •rH •H CO •H CO •rH CO CO -H 0 u M 0 M 0 u U 0 U 0 u 0 0 M G 0 <D Pm G 0 G 0 (I) G 0 G 0 G G 0 -P a P< -P a -P a P* "p a -p a 4J jj a •H x ST - •H X -H X w •H XI •H XJ •H -H X S: w W S IS U 3: w m S w IS w 3: S M

LO o CM o o cn n rH o LO

C\3 oo in VO 00 cn cn 00 <sQ 00 VD

a! 5 •H

I

ui

a a

u 0 -P I—I 0 & cn

I>1 •p •H c P

o o

TJ 0) a o CQ •H M

a*

5-1 <D •p rH 0 x; C/3

5h 0) •p I—I 0 x: cn

o u CD

CD -p

M CD g 4-1 U -P rd m O-i CQ

G O •—1 CO 0 TJ x:

CM O rH CO CTi nc 00 •H cn 00 CTi fr4 rH a\ cn US rH

r-H <J\ —' o\ 1—1

44 rH rH G a) 4H w 0 — o O — a O -G ^ i—i CO 00 nJ i—1 <D a oo 0 U cn 04 CO 44 P fT\ Cn 0 cn o cd -H i—1 J>1 rH

p? s — 04 cr: —

CO CD p c

-H -p g o o

X! (d Eh

82

Ql

O •H

CO •H 4J

-P CO

SI o\°

u ID 0 o\o • o\o o\o o\o o\o

1> O ^ CTi 1—1 o\o on r- ^ CM "sT

TJ T3 TS "0 TS T3 U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 g G a g G G G •H *H •H -H •H -H 4J 03 fT3 fO rti n3 as U -P -P -P -P -P -P rfl cn CO CO CO CO CO Cu 0 13 3 D 3

co CO CO CO CO CO

2 UA [14 s T3 -o k* S 0) 0 0 0

<4-1 o o XJ T3 u u O G •g 0 0 G G

0 0 CO CO 0 0 >i c •H •H CO CO «r-4 *H rH "H M U 0 0 U U -H CP CD 0 G G 0 0 j~i -H a, a -p -P a a 05 M X X •H *H X X k* o w w 3: !S W W

en <N in CI rH o CN

1—1

"C U 0

<D 0 0 M U -p -P 0 U rH 4J 0 0 a) -P o sz £3 CO CO • CQ

g fis

"•s >i -p •p jG u o 0 .

3 JC 4-3 00 o <J\ PC r—i <-#

M H, u >1 0 rH >1 r- 0 T3 T3 co -P CTi D >1^ -p CTi T—i -P C t—1 2 tH rfl co CO EH —' S

CO •H CO !>i H m c 03 1 03 -P (D e

CD x: -p

c *H

TS CD T5 2 i—I O C •H

0 U CD £

0 A

c -H

CO CD -H T5 3 -P C/3

CD -P O IS

83

CO <D r-H Q e m CJQ +j c CD T3 D

00 4J CO

<d i—i CD XI rH no EH S

01

o •P CO •H -P (T3 4J co

SI

o

H-4 o >1 G rH -H 6 --rd M kj o

CI

CJ> tji t/1 to -H -H to CO G G co co c G

cn i-i VO O CM *H O O O • H H O • • I . . . |

II II II II II II M| Ml Ml Ml Ml Ml

Tl Q) CO CO (I) 5 is

CM in

fc

<D a c © •rl a) & w

T) a) o fj a) •H a! * w

ta

fl) ̂ M rH 0 Cft 0 cn s i

M M a) a T) CJ G >i rt nj

73 X X a <D 0) -P H H CO

o CM

II Ml

-a a) 0) (0 ai 5 is

CM O CM

<4

T3 0 0 S c <D at 0) oo M o* 0 rH

(0 M a) a) a g m 3 flj o PQ CO

-P G (D

-P <—1 4H G mh O 0 CD O -H

i—1 > dP O o\° G on -H CM O r- > 00 G

T5 T3 T3 Tl TJ Tl T3 U 0 (1) 0) 0) (1) a) 0 0 Q) co G (0 G CO a (0 CO G CO H CO H (0 •H CO CO -P a) (d <D rd a> (d a) d> M M 4J M -P M 4J M U rd & <0 0* W a w a a &4 X EJ X 3 X 0 * X

H CO W CO W CO w w

M O TJ

(D T5 O CD G CO <D (0 *H 0 ^ G CL) -m a •H X 3E U

r- ro o o co • * G

rH ID a>

tn ^ II II

<N fN

cn i 2 T3 TJ X) a) ai a> CO CO co CO CO CO ci ai cd q q g 4J 4J 4J •H H -H £ £ £

r- CD CM CO rH rH II II

w cs

T3 0) O G 0) •H a! & w

0* CO CO -H CO G G CO G

£> 03 Eh

t3 Tl T3 V Tl Tl TS TJ "O a) a) a) a ai <D CD CD CD W CO CO to G co G CO G (0 <0 CO CO H CO *H CO -H d) d) 0) d) (4 d> fd a; m M M M M -P u 4-> M -P 04 04 0-4 a to a co a <n 5? x x X 0 x a x a w w w W CO w cn w co

TJ (D O G <y

M <d a pa

00 in 00 rH CM VD CM 00

1—1 rH

s, ^ - T? 00 >1 M GO u (d CTk cd rH a) a •W 0 -P T5 o CO M cd "" *<-«»

G CO co r-M 43 CD CD 3̂ CTk m •H O •rl rH LO & cn 0 — CO CTi | a\

rH >t M rH T5 G — (D 0) ''

M •H G g rd H CO •P 5 u G co at M O <D M a) H rt a G (D M M 3: fd PQ m < O

T3 a) o G a> -H n CD a x w

V£> o

84

a

s i

u o

u CD C -P U ftJ 04

VD O O O O C\! H O O H O

i n o n cm c o ^ O rH rH CM O CM

II II 11 II II II

U M M M M M

T3 TJ 0) 0) CO G (0 rl (U rd M -U

S 3

TS <u a w G CO H 0) a* M 4J a « x a

TJ T) a) <» « a 01 H a) «j M 4-»

& 3 w CO w . CO W CO

TJ a) o a OJ

•r|

a! & w

4H

S 1

T* TJ O a) 0}

CO CO > i C W CO

i—1 -H 0) <1) •H CP a q g -H 4J 4J n3 M >H -H k-4 O *

^ r* h cm r o cm on rH

CO

O rH O CO

o ^ cn co ct> co • O O O rH O

I

II ii II II II II

u M M M M M

*d a) 0} CO a> M

a*

TJ <1> C

•H nJ 4J

& 3

T3 0) (0 (0 <D

B

S

TJ <0 (0 CO <D a

•M

£

"d a) o a a}

M a) & w

O LD CO O O C • *

H CT* U3 O CM O rH rH

II II II II

Ml Ml Ml Ml

B" 3 w CO w CO w CO

ftto X 3 X 3

W CO H W

TJ 0)

0) a -M

3c

T5 0 a a a)

a> &

w

•H

jh o 4J

ID O _ O

no

CO ^ 0

3 G

-P c

T3I

CO

o T3I

CO o\ co a

•H rH U CO <D

a • O > i <—i (1) O +-> rH X) A •

. II O rd m 0 C H

U H II Ml MH rd ^

t J T3 T5 "0 0) <» a) <U (0 CO (0 to CO CO CO CO <U (1) (1) <D M M M M a & Pu Q. X X X X

W W w W

M M 0 TJ o *d TJ

a) a) a) T) 0 - o 0 a TJ (D c d) a c a) CO 0) CO 0) a) CO CO 'H CO H •H CO 0) M <D M M (D a a a a) <1) c -P 04 -P CL, p< 4J •H X H X X •H | 5 W ^ W w IS

CT» <n i n 0 i n CM i n 00 CM 0 CM <Ti rH CM CO CM rH rH

r* 0 a> T3 CD M M o\ o\ m m rH rH

a) a)

t* 0 a :

CO CO fH <-a 0 0 r - H P£J pcj o\ cd M P£J pcj

o\ a) (D C8 rH i n rH

*«-«» cn rH rH H o\ 0 0) rH rH a rH RJ 0} tN w *» — .

t>i X a) CO 0 OJ V CO (0 0) a tn cr» M 00 0 M M K td tP <n O cn 4J , 3 S •H rH n3 i—1 CO s s O pci P£j w CO —

85

QJ

O

-P

co

21

u o

o

>1 c rH -H •H CP g -rH 03 M

1X4 O

O CO CO CO • c c c

in cn cm ** r-f O O O

II it II II

Ml Ml Ml Ml

TJ 0) w 0} (1)

5 *H 15

T) (!) 0 a a) •r|

a! &

w

LD o

TH O rH H

II II

Ml Ml

XI Tl t3 *d V *d M ai a) a a) <D a) a> 0) a w a W CO c <0 •H 0) H W CO -p 0) td <D flJ 0 0) u M -P M -P M M as a CO a. w P* ft a, X 3 X X

w CQ w. w W w

<D

a

& w

in r -CI CO

CO m

o oT ON

ON ON rH H

w

T> !* 0 a) 0 M O u

tn td 0 M 0 •H -P 04 (d a it* 0

V >. 0} 0 13 -p -p 3 0 a 4J •P 0 c/3 CO Eh

CO CD H

•P cn

M CD O

XJ x : •p -p rd

m fd

ll CD x ;

Cxj 4->

•v x ; M -p 0 -H

x : £ -p o c e o

-rH ii -P

fd 2 o

•H c

U 3 CD §

XJ S -P o O o e

1—1 o fd •P c

o CO

(D M X! CD -P a fd hA >1

• JQ 11 01

•H 13 2 CO CD Cu 73

1—j •H rd > a O

a) fd M x : i a •p fd rd -P CO

<+H CD o e •H

o •p -P c CO

-H *H u -P <D TS fd

x : <D •P •P T5 CO O P e •—I I—1

O fd ii a C

-H o Zu "H

•d -P H -H

• 0 T5 CD A TS -P < O c ss -H *

C O e M O S

C O 6

0 e 1 c o 52

86

CO a )

i—i

0 ,

6 m

c n

• P c a )

T 5 D

- p

w CTk

CP a ) i—i

»—i 03 J Q S ca CD

E h Cl4

Ql

S I

u Q

t-w O

>1 C rH -H *H c n & *H (T3

O

C|

T5 <1) U U O Qu 0 M

CM i n ^ o o o o CN o o o • o o . . * I

II II II II II II

Mi Ml Ml Ml Ml Ml

"D D)

(0 0) G

•P

£

00 CM CM

Cm

TJ 0) 0 a D) •H M 0) &

W

TJ 0) 0 A

•H M (1)

W

•» TH 0) CTK M CTK O RH 0 ^ A T

M - <D M TJ O A TJ (D G X

>I (D A) T3 X 3 AI 4; P H CO <* U0

- p

a Q

-i—> i—i c o <D - H

rH > O C

-H O > G

oV> o\o O 0 0 LO cm

T* TJ TF TJ TJ TJ TJ TJ M a) 0) a) a) <D a) 0 0 0) (0 G w a co a CO CO A CO •HI (0 H (0 H CO CO -P 0) <TJ (!) (d a) <d 0 0 M M 4 J M -P M -P U U A3 CO O i co a co c u A DM W 3 X 0 X 3 >C X

W CO m c o W CO w u

CM

LO O

o\

i n

II

CN X

CO G

\ CO a

T* <D

0) M

W

u O "0

0 T> TJ O TJ 0 0 £ 0) CO CO 0 CO CO CO -H 0} 0 0 M a) C Ua G 0 q 4J S P A -P •H \ •H X •H 3 : S 3 : W Cw

r o 0 e n 0 0

CM

O CM O O

CM 1 0 • i n

M * H i n

II II

N (N

• d T3 a> a) G a

•H H (d at

• P - P (0 0)

c o co

TJ - ® TJ 0 a) a (0 0) (0 H AI M G a) + j pu H X

£ pa

r** O\

O CO • g

R-o

V0

TJ TJ 0 ) C D a g

•rl *H (d m •P - P CO CO 3 3

co cn

T5 0

TJ O 01 G 01 0 CO -rH a) m G A) -P a •H X I k w

o rH CM

CO M 0 0 3 . G

•H -P C O O

0 0 HI 0

• 1—I JQ

II td EH

Ml - —

TJ 0 A

•rl (d - p

0)

CO

TJ <D O G 0)

•r l M A> &

W

o o

> 1 0 0 >I A) O OO U ** H CTi (D

0 D) 0

rH (D 0 CFI OI UJ

>—- Hi • d us A) "«•

T3 O M rH M u a) - P •P -03 n 4 J KO p CO •rl G CO —> A A) CTk OTI G G M t n 0 0) G o\ r l CD 0 CN cr> -P A rH - ^ gu

m •H •rl 0) 1' TJ M 0) rH A) M (D (D •P

Hi •H •P A CO M CO 1

n A w - ^ CO CRT H 0. u •H M >i G z G H ^ G — cd H -H <D -RL 0 •rl H CM 0 ^0 G CO M M-L G H 0 Cft p O»

0 < «W G G H % Cft & cr> 0 M 0 a FD O O rH O rH PQ P3 0 a : b A ~ O —

87

Ql

o -H -P CO

-H -P rd -P en

SI

to o

5-1 CD £ -P to fO Oj

co to G C

. CM

W cri

« II

Tl Tl o a> co a (0 rl <D aJ to -P & §

W CO

CP c o c o c o c o c o - h c o c o c c c d c w d d

CO X! m -p co CO o to o

T3 TJ T3 TJ Q) <D

CO C CO -H d) (13 to P a CO X 3

a . co X 3

-a T5

a co X 3

Qu co x ^

w c n u w u c n u w

T3 T3 <D <D

<4-4 TJ TJ O T3 0 O 0 CD C 0 C

(0 CO <D CO (1) >1 C 10 CO CO

r—1 *H <D a) to Q> to •H CT a c <D £ 0 £ -H P a P a ftJ to •H -H x •H X [n O is w IS w

CM (M o rH

CI 00 00 CTi CI tH i—1

M T ) H CM CO ^

CM ^ r-4 CM CO CM

on cm \o in n o vo o o o o • o •

I

tl II II

M U M

I

II II I!

to to to

T3 T3 13 TJ T3 T3 d) (0

a 0 d) 0) a> d) (0 a w a CO c

0} •H 0) rl (0 •rl a) aJ d) (tf a to 4J to 4i to -M

CO a* o) a W 5? a K 3 X 0

w CO M w m CO

TJ a> 0) (0 <u

5

£

T5 0) 0)

*15

TJ a) o c

<D •H

a5 &

w

CD o\

to TH <D d "W

* J 0 (0 0 w £ CQ 0

rt d ta LO 0 00 ta i (T\ >i U rH H d) to — ' rH C (fl - Rj

>1 P ^ r - to 43 TJ to o oo (U 0) 3 aJ o cn a to P M h m S CQ a co ^ h3 S

CO O H O rH o

• • o

KD H ro ^ o

o o o o o o o o

H CO H h o o o o

o CM

h CO CM O H H CM CM

CO 0) 3 G

-H •P C

O

o

II II II II II II

to to to to to to

T> xf a) <d co a w H

2 3

& 3

T) d) 0) to (0 to

& 3

TJ a) c

•H aJ 4J

T) (D o> a) 0)

5

is

in rH CO

o o> a t

o

(d

CQ to

T3 (I) (0 w 0)

£

i s

13 d) a a ai •rl to <d

w

it II II tl

to) tol tol tol

TJ 0) (0 co d) to

Tl (1) a

•H rt 4J

W C O W W M C O W 01 W CO

T3 — ® TJ 0 a) a 0) CD W H 0 to c a)

3 * !s w

m in

r -o> o>

0) <w a> $

88

Ql

-P CO •H -P 03 -P

CO

M O

o >1 c

i—I -H •H t n 6 -H 03 M DM O

Cft rH

tl Ml

T5 (U a c a>

•H

a!

a -w

o GO CM

i*

Cn U C O -H -P TJ O 03 O (13 O

CO •H CO !>i

M O P '—I o m 03 C

£n cd

- a 0) CO CO 0) e p •H 3 :

<j\ i—I

M O flj ov CM a) at <L> CO rH rH CTi ^ "W» i—1 t—1 o 0 a s*s -H T3 !>i CO H M T3 d> CO 03 & <D o 3: -P H M 03 o CO Pi PQ CO tc

CO CO to CO C G C C

h in in r-o o o o

II il II II

Ml Ml Ml M|

*0 <l)

0) a -P

00

*d a) a a a) •H M (1)

8 -W

o CT> H

TJ O O

Ul 0

to fcl -P O

LO CO o c •

as o O rH

II

Ml Ml

"d TJ TJ Tl Tl T3 TJ Tl u a> a) a) a) a) 0 a) a) o 01 CO to g to a to to c to CO to -H to -H (0 0) -p a) a> 0) 03 0 03 a) tu M M u M 4J M P M M 03 P* a Pi to 0| CO fr ^ 04 5? 5? a « 3̂ X X w w w w W CO w w

w

o o i n

0) -P co at

UJ

o -P CM rt ct> a o

TJ ^ o •P * c a) o M E-i U

CO CD H

T5 3 P cn

M 0)

, G P rx5

4H

U4

M CD x: P o

II s

M CD JC P o 6 o p

u CD

j c p rc3

MH

S

M CD

JC P ra

*w

o •p

<D , G P o S

CX4 S

CD P O

52

CO •H CO > .

i—I A3 G CTJ I rti P CD e CD

X P

G *H

T3 0

- a

rH O g

•H

o A g

•rH

CO u CD

T5 G CD

MH MH O

CD i—I -rH G CD >

3

G O 6 u o

s

g

o e M 0 £ 1 G O G

89

a) i—I X5 m Eh

t>i -P •H CD

. £ CI) ts> O 6 o

*0 £ 03

CD N -H cn

4J u 0)

w

c o •H •P as i—i 3 Q, o cu

CD o £ <D I—I o •H

•H

f0 Pu

Ql

SI

CD M O 0 G G 0) -P rH U O rd -H Du >

co 0)

r—r XI 03 -H M rd > G •H Cn •H

• M O

4-1 O

>i 1—1 i—1 ro -H X e o rd 1—[ Cx4 o

in o

o o

CM O O

O O O

O o o

o o o

o o o

o CD <X> 00 CTi r- CO 00 00 IT) o CM CTi

rl r- CO CTi LO ID *—1 KD 00 O (J\ CO 1—1 %—1 *—1 CM

in CTi

o

!>1 g <

<dD CM

CTi CM

<J\ oo

CO

VD CO

r-CM o

CM r-

o CM

CNJ r-

LO

r-

oo

! T3 -D 0 0 CO G

>1 >i >i >i CO -H G G G G 0 rd < < < < U -P

a, CO X P w CO

(0 w CD a> i—I CO H 03 CD rd 6 rH n CD m 0) U, g CO CO 1X4 CD 0 0

[tl I—1 (—1 Uf 03 03

01 6 £ (0 CD 0 0 dJ i—1 co tl-4 CX4 H rd CD

1 2 •—i

rd CO 0

S CO rH CO CO rH 4J CD 0} 0 0

-H -P i—1 S 1—t i—1 0 G G 03 0 03 03 *r| P a) 2 2 2 c § T3 •H c p i—( <—i i—i rH H O 4-> ! 1 (—i )—1 i—1 O U CO < < <C <

H CO CM o in as \o in t—1 o r- CM O *o O o o rH

LO CM ro o r- GO LO CM rH

U) VO r> CO CO LO rH CM CO

rH

CM oo o

00 CO KO o VO r- \o CM rH CO LO rH

r- CO VD %o in o O CTi o 00 CO 00 CM ro CO rH o ro a\ 00 in

*- **

00 ro CM o ro CM CM 1—1 rH

! ! T3 Tt 0 CD CO a

>i CO •H G 0 03 < U 4->

a (0

w CO

co 0 i—i 03 s

(0 0) <D CJ rH CO rH JS 0 J 2 i—1 s rO

2 CO rH -P 0

•H •P rH 0 6 G 03 •H P 0 2 a T3 •H S P •—i rH o -P i—i a o CO <

0) 0)

H

3

CO 0 P c -H -P G o o

XI 03 &H

ro CM

CO

CO V£> VD

S

co 0) i—i ro e 0) [14

to (V H

m

a En

flj 0 •H CJ *H rH u

90

v

Q l

(D G CD Cn O e O

I D CM O o O \—! O o O O O o

VD !—1 t—l 00 KD O

LD VO oo O O

*^r LO vo r - o CO o

6 (tJ En

° l j l LO o CM on HI rH rH rH *—i

LO CM CM CM 00 CO CO

2 1 KO CO rH VD 2 1 LO r - LO

<—1 CM 00 m (13 «w •*

-P o CM o CM O T—J rH rH rH EH

* o T3 a) CD CP

n o CO G CD G >1 > 1 CO *H

G cd a G CD Cfl

4J r-t < < iH 4J 5-1 O a CO rd *H X 3 cu > w 00

CO 0

rH

X3 <T3 CO • H a> U rH CO

m m cd > S rH CU rfl

G • lu £ CO CO - H 0 a) cd CJt [l4 rH i—I •H -M fO CO M -H • -P £ g O G G CD CD

3 <D fxj Exj <4-4 i T3 O fE; £3 i—1 '—1

0 4-> >—1 1—1 > i a w rt!

i—I

- H CO

•—i (TJ G m i <TS - P CD

B a> x: P

T 5 CD T> 3

V

Q l

CO • H

M

CD N

- H cn 4->

o CD

M-4 m

w

- p

0)

6 CO

- H

I D o

A

Q l

• V o G TJ G O >i 0) -H •H P G P •H

CO m CD (G (D i—i G 4J is] 3 CD CO •rH a tr> 3 03 o 0 CO PL4 6

P o M O "0 JG O 0 <D m 4J u "0 <4H M 0 G CD 0 UH fO a

rH CD p "0 fO u CO CD 3 CD CO T3 JC p CO -rH o CD > m UH

-H 0 •H a T3 X G P TJ W -H o H

<4H 0 II <4H pQ

O CD CO O G

U G -H CD r0

O JQ O CO \ e •H •H us MH

G -H CD W G M

II Cn 3 • •H Cn

CD cn •H P Cl4 O • . .

*—1 CM r o

91

0) i—| JQ

n3 Eh

>t -P

CD C CD D' O e o

•• as

n

"0 C rd

CD N *H CO

U CD 4-4 M-l bP

4J 03 i—| 3 Q,

O CU

CD O c CD <—I o -H

c •H

M O

o

s 03 pL4

"O (D CO U) CD £ -P •H 3:

v >, 01

P •H CD c CD tT> O g( O ^ 33

M

CD H O <D C C CD P r-H ^ o fTJ -H a. >

CD CO a CD c i—1 CD X) rH rO o -H -H U > ro > >—i;

03 a P •H C Cn CD *H U M H3 O

4H 73 O CD

co >1 CO i—1 (D •H C & P (U -H Dt, 3:

o o o

o CT\ as

no oo r-

CM

>i C <

CM CM CM

m

tn

£

w 0)

•a

2 & t*

to 0)

rd o •H C •r| H U

r-o

CM

CM on

GO (31 o

vo •̂r

oo

rH 00 CM CM CM VO o o CM CTk rH O Ok o o CM r- rH O

rH CM 00 00 00 00 LO <£> 00 VO CM CO

00 "sP in rH CM VO r- rH CM LO

VO CM

cn

m rH VO

in rH

00 CM

O* O

CD cn

o*

!

(0 &|

0} 0 H

I

£ •H a 3

o u

<d

i <4

0) a)

-M a a) T3 a -u CO

<£> 00

O

CM

00 00

ID 00 00

! c < !>i C <

CO a) i—i rd 2

CO (D i—I f0 S CD Ext

VO CM

00

ro TH

o

IT)

CM in

00

m r-

I I ! "0 <D CO CO CD U a X u

TJ d) a *H (d 4J 0)

co

CO CD I—I 03 s

ca ai H

o •H a •H rH U

<D H

£ * •H a 3

o a

-M £ rS P +J CO

CO CD i—I 03 S

cn 0)

CO

oo CD

CTi oo CM 3 CM o o C o CM o -H

• • • P C O o

<D 00 CM CM i—| 00 00 <Xi XI

• • • <TJ (S\ oo CM EH CM CM

00 o

r- 00 00 o o CM rH CM CM

o\ <S\ VO r-a\ VO cn 00 rH 00 r-

LO rH r- VO kD

>1 >f c

>1

s s

0 o c CD i—1 o -H > U CD X! -P

co O CD s <—1 0} m 0 o S H p CD rt Cxj u

d) CD >1 PM x: •p p •H 4J 0J c c CX4 D a)

CO g Tl T3 Q) s a) '—1 o 4J CO A3 o CO CO e CD CD c tM p

•H s:

92

V 1—1 rH rH

01 o to CM O

01 1 o ID CM

o * • O •

-H <y c a; cn o s O .. vc x

Ml

*1 0 0 CM vo in

SI o on r* oo CM i n to VJD 1—1 IT) CM CM 0 0 ra H -P rH

<D U O Q) C C Q)

4J rH M O fd *H cu >

CO cu i—i J3 ftj -H M 03 >

Cn •H U o u-i o

-H e nj Cl4

CM 0 0

Ot CM o o

o rH co vo O M3 o o r -

.54

.34

.42

.78

.39

m m

O O 6

8 6

8 4

8

23

26

o vo on CNJ

o VO rH 3

6.

r -

27

.

10.

H

CN r* on o r -o

>i c < I ! T3 <D CO cn a) u a x w

c

0} a)

at a •H a •H r-4 U

0} ai

+) c a> tj 5 CO

CO <D i—I rtf S

I> i n io

TJ 0) a •H (d 4J (0 p CO

I

03 a)

(0 & a) b

>i <

a> a c a) •—i o -H > U 0) x -P 03 Ua

M <D X -P O

T3 0 CO CO dJ c •p

-H 3:

VD 00

CM LO in o KD rH t—1 T—i

r* r~ on KP <N rH o r- 00 KO CM o 00 rH rH

** CM in 00

CM

! >i c •a:

w 0) H I

H c

CO dJ <—i fd e CD

>1 £

(1)

«!

I &

•r| e a

o u

0) rH ft d) En •U a Tj 3 4J CO

TS CD C H CO •P CO P CO 5H o

TJ C 03 TS CD CO CO CD M a K W

en

o

o o o

CO o . -H •

CO >i V i—1 f0 Ql c Ql 03 CO 1 -H as •

- P s. - P

CD M CD 6 6 CD CD CO x: N -rH - P -rH

CO £ LO

*H - P o 0 •

73 CD CD 4H A T5 3 w Ql i—1 U c C 0 -H •PH - P

- P •H CO CO CD (D »—1 C N D CD *H a Cn CO o 0 e 4J O O TU x: <D CD 4-H 4-> M

M o CD O 4-1

a i—1 CD -p flj M CO 3 CD TS jC • P

O > (0 CD -H

T5 £ •o

O H 0

<U A O CD

U c M C •H

CD F0 XI O CO e •H -H a MH c •H CD c M II CN 3 -*1

-H Cr> -*1 CO -H PD

• • •

I—i CNJ 00

93

-P

<D G CD D i O e o

rc

CN

X3 G m

CD N •H CO

O CD

W

*0

D i O

04

» •

CD U C (U i—1 o -H > c

•H 0 •H M O

0 > rH

. e 03 PM T3 CD O

CNJ C i—1 CD

•H a) M i—i CD £) Q, «5 X EH w

>» -P -H (D G Q) CJi

i r

o a:

Q) U O OJ G £ <U 4J r-H u o <T3 -H ^ >

CO 0 —I J3 ru

H M (13 >

G H tn -H u

O

hh o

O CN CN o to i—I o o o

I—I o o

o o o

o o

CTfc lO rH rH r -oo H KD o cr\

ch <X> IT) rH 00 KD CM CN VD CO KO

i—i

<s£> vo

>1 c <

VD CM

00 CM 00

LO 00 CM

rH 00 "3* if) CM CO o CN r - LO rH o <JS rH 00 O

•* r - CM <J\ VD (Ti rH

(Ti

I

>1 c >1 c <

>1 c <

>1 G

CO 0 H (If

01 <D H

<tf a •H G •H H a

CO <D

CO 03 a> s rH cu 03

[x4 e CD Cn

CO CD

>—1 CO ra 0) s 1—1

03 >1 2 CO 4-> aj •H 4-J •—i G G no

a) S £ T3 s D "—I o 4J i—I

o CO <

V) a> i—i 03 a <D Cxj

r H 00 rH 00 r H CN rH <X> <J\ rH O rH m CN rH

O O O o r H O

O O rH LO CM 0 0 cn r * r - i—1

r H cn cy> o\ KD CM KD CM CM LO : rH r H rH

* * *

*0 CM CM H

rH 00 CTi CM rH rH O H o

O kj* O CM

!

un

m oo oo

KO CM

CM 00 *31

! G

r - 1—1 (N o rH ID 00 LO kO o\

• V rH rH rH

T3 T3 TJ TJ a) d) a) <P CO G (0 G CO •H CO -H CD (T3 0 03 n 4J M +-> a CO P< CO x P 3

C£J cn CO

co CD

<—I (T3 S

3

rt a

•H G

•rl H U

& •H G g o a

CO CD <—I m S

4J G 0) T3 3 4-) 00

CO 0 i—1 (13 S

CO 0 i—i cd S

CO 0)

JJ G

'O 5 CO

CO a)

rH nj S

G a)

T3 3 4-> co

w a> G

X! 03

94

v > , 0 4

-P •H CD G CD

o e o «. ac ^

Ml

23

<D U O d) G G CD -P <—I u o 03 -H CU >

o\ o r -o i vo o iH O O

o rH

co CM

CO

co VD vo

! !

CO 0

r-4 JQ 03 CO

•H w a) 0 H

(T3 rH flj > flj 3

i a) G 0) fa -H EM

fa D> >1

*H . H M fll •H O O G

•H <4-1 CO G O <D •H ft

rH rH 0 I>i 03 a o

rH e o

•H a; g tl4 03 Cu

rH 00 CM i n i—1 to 1—I CO a\ CM rH O O C\ o o rH io CM O O rH CM o o o o o O m

TH CO r - cn i n c* *—1 i n CO i—I TH 00 cn <vO o o CO 00

CM rH m LO i n rH o KD o rH CO on rH rH CN] rH

CT\ i n CM

!>i G

>1 G

U CD

JC P 03 1X4

& 0 M

CO (D 0) 0

<—1 G m a) £ <—1 CD o Exj •H CO

> a) -P •—i G T3 0J CD CD S T3 O D G "—i P Q) i—I CO -H <

M CP a X w

* i n o

CN

*0 -a ai (!) CQ a w •H

G 0) (d < M -M

9* w X 3 w CO

0) 0) H H

I I H H

3 3

r - CM a\ CM <30 nj« r -o "NT *—t rH O o VO r - 00 o r - m r -

*»

CM LO 1—1 rH

CM

ID i n

£>i G

CO 0>

I—I 03 fi CD £u

LO r -Ul

!

co CM

s>i G <

co on

i n

LO co

rn

00 o r -

TJ CD co co CD U a x M

!

M a) x: p 0 s

a o U

0) MH (!) 0)

h a) a) (U o rH 0 G <g <I) CD s fa rH

o HI 4J -H to (d G > CD 0 a) rH H

x) -a 03 G p a> S H -P a rH CQ G rH CJ

<D rH •H < M CD Q X W

co CU I—I m S CD Cu

* * * *

CD eg m CN rH o

CM

KO r» KO i n i n m r - *j<

> i G f=C !

(0 a)

H f t

-P C 0)

TJ

3 CO

TJ 0)

fU P CO 3

en

M O \ TS C 03

" 0 CU CO CO CD M a X

pa

CO

u o \

w

CO ftf

-P a CU a X <1)

%k rH O O O

CO O •rH •

CO !>t V

i—I a

a a

cd i M

^ — «

- p P CU CO CU e -H g

CD CU CO x : N •rH -P •H

CO a LO

•H -P o a •

- a CU CD MH A

T5 mh D M Of

i—1 O a c o > i

•rH -H P P • -H

CO m l o CU a) rH O C N 3 O CU

•H a . o Cn CO o • 0

0-i 6 -P V o O T3 X CD cu a

MH P * M m SH * O CD O * MH

a i—i CU P aJ U CM CO 3 O CU

TJ JU o P •H o • > *0 V CM

•rH CU •H T3 a C 5H -K "0

- H O -K rH ^H 0

rQ o cu m

o o c M c • *H 0) (XS

Xi O A CO S •H -H p MH a c -H -)< Q)

c U II •• D

^ 1 -H TJ Cn

^ 1 cn CU -H P

• • O •

rH CM C 00

APPENDIX C

FIGURE

95

96

-.9 I - . 8 I -.7 1 -.6 I -.5 1 -.4 I -.3 I -.2 1 -.1 I -.0 I 0122333 + . 0 I 011122333334444555555555555666777888888999999999 + . 1 I 0000000011112222233344456666677777888899999 + . 2 I 00000001112222344555667778899 + . 3 I 0012222378999 +.4 I 16 +.5 I 13 + .6 I + .7 I 1 + .8 I + .91

Fiqure—l_j_ Stem-and-leaf-display for 144 effect sizes in the

family of origin variables data set. The values in the left

column represent the first digit of the effect size (r), and

the values within the graph represent the second digit of

the effect size.

REFERENCES

References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included

in the meta-analysis.

Abramson, L. Y., Seligman, M. E. P., & Teasdale, J. D.

(1978). Learned helplessness in humans: Critique and

reformulation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 87. 49-74.

Aldarondo, E. & Sugarman, D. B. (1996). Risk marker

analysis of the cessation and persistence of wife assault.

Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 64. 1010-

1019 .

^Alexander, P. C., Moore, S., & Alexander E. R. (1991).

What is transmitted in the intergenerational transmission of

violence? Journal of Marriage and the Family. 53. 657-667.

Anderson, C. R., Krull, D. S., Weiner, B. (1996).

Explanations: Processes and Consequences. In E. T. Higgins &

A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.) Social Psychology Handbook of Basic

Principles (pp. 271-296). NY: The Guilford Press.

Azar, B. (1997, January). Poor recall mars research and

treatment. APA Monitor- p. i, 29.

Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning

analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

*Barnes, G. E., Greenwood, L., & Sommer, R. (1989).

Courtship violence in a Canadian sample of male college

97

98

students. Paper presented at the NCFR 51st Annual

Conference, New Orleans.

*Barnett, 0. W. & Fagan, R. W. (1993). Alcohol use in

male spouse abusers and their female partners. Journal nf

Family Violence. 8. 1-25.

*Barnett, 0. W. & Hamberger, L. (1992). The assessment

of martitally violent men on the California Psychological

Inventory Violence and Victims. 7. 15-28.

*Barnett, 0. W. , Martinez, T. E., & Bluestein, B. W.

(1995). Jealousy and romantic attachment in maritally

violent and nonviolent men. Journal of Interpersnnal

Violence. 10. 473-486.

Barnett, 0. W. , Showalter, S. M. , & Reynolds, T. P.

(1997, June) . Relationships between internersona 1. V I Q I C T P P

and interpersonal—control. Paper presented at the 5 th

International Family Violence Research Conference, Durham,

NH.

Beasley, R., & Stoltenberg, C. D. (1992) Personality

characteristics of male spouse abusers. Professional

Psychology:—Research and. Practice. 23. 310-317.

Bennett, L. W., Tolman, R. M., Rogalski, C. J., &

Srinivasaraghavan, J. (1994) . Domestic abuse by male alcohol

and drug addicts. Violence and. Victims. 9. 359-368.

Bernard, M. L., & Bernard J. L. (1983). Violent

intimacy: The family as a model for love relationships.

Family Relat-.-i one-, ^ 283-286.

99

Brennan, A. F. (1985). Political and psychosocial

issues in psychotherapy for spouse abusers: Implications for

treatment. Psychotherapy, 22, 643-654.

*Breslin, F. C., Riggs, D. S., O'Leary, K. D., & Arias,

I. (1990). Family precursors: Expected and actual

consequences of dating aggression. Journal—of—Interpersonal

Violence. 5, 247-258.

Browne, A. (1986). Asssault and homicide at home: When

battered women kill. In M. J. Saks & L. Saxes (Eds.),

Advances in applied social psychology (vol. 3, pp. 57-79).

Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Burke, P. J., Stets, J.E., & Pirog-Good, M.A. (1988).

Gender identity, self-esteem, and physical and sexual abuse

in dating relationships. Social Psychology Quarterly,—5JL_

272-285.

*Caesar, P. L. (1985). The wife beater: Personality and

psychosocial characteristics. Presented at American

Psychological Association National Convention, Los Angeles.

Caesar, P. L. (1988). Exposure to violence in the

families-of-origin among wife-abusers and maritally

nonviolent men. Violence and Victims, 3. 49-63.

Cantos, Al L., Neidig, P. H., & O'Leary, K. D. (1994).

Injuries of women and men in a treatment program for

domestic violence. Journal of Family Violence, 9. 113-125.

100

*Cappell, C. & Heiner, R. B. (1990). The

intergenerational transmission of family aggression. Journal

of Family Violence. 5, 135-152.

Cascardi, M. , O'Leary, K. D., Lawrence, E. E. & Schlee,

K. A. (1995) . Characteristics of women physically abused by

their spouse and who seek treatment regarding marital

conflict. Journal of Consul ting and Clincial Psychology, 63,

616-23.

*Coffey, P., Leitenberg, H., Henning, K. Bennett, R.

T., & Jankowski, M. K. (1996). Dating violence: The

association between methods of coping and women's

psychological adjustment. Violence & Victims,—IL. 227-238.

Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the

behav:oral sciences. New York: Academic Press.

Cohen, J. (1994). The earth is round (p<.05). American

Psychologist. 49. 997-1003.

*DeMaris, A., & Jackson, J. K. (1987, October).

Batterers' reports of recidivism after counseling. The

Journal of Contemporary Social Work. 458-465.

*Dewhurst, A. M., Moore, R. J., & Alfano, D. P. (1992).

Aggression against women by men: Sexual and spousal assault.

Journal of Offender Rehabilitation. 18, 39-47.

Dobash, R. E., & Dobash, R. P. (1979). Violence against

wives: A case against patriarchy. New York: Free Press.

*Doumas, D., Margolin, G., and John, R. S. (1994). The

Intergenerational Transmission of Aggression Across Three

Generations. Journal of Family Violence. 9, 157-175.

101

*Downs, W. , Miller, B., Testa, M., & Panek, D. (1992).

Long-term effects of parent-to-child violence for women.

Journal of Interpersonal Violence,—7_<_ 365-382.

Dutton, D. G. (1995) . Intimate abusiveness. Clinical

Psychology: Science and Practice,—2j_ 207-224.

*Dutton, D. G., Starzomski, A., & Ryan, L. (1996).

Antecedents of abusive personality and abusive behavior in

wife assaulters. Journal of Family Violence,—11> 113-132.

Edleson, J. L., & Grusznski, R. J. (1987). Treatxng

men who batter: Four years of outcome data from the domestic

abuse project. Journal of Social Service Research,—12, 3-22.

Feldman, C. M., & Ridley, C. A. (1995). The etiology

and treatment of domestic violence between adult partners.

Pl ini rial Psvcholnav: Science and Practice, 2, 317-348.

*Folligstad, D. R., Rutledge, L. L., McNeill-Harkins,

K., & Polek, D. S. (1992). Factors related to physical

violence in dating relationships. In E. C. Viano (Ed.),

Intimate violence: Interdisciplinary perspectives (pp.

121-135). New York: Hemisphere.

Fortune, M. M. (1993). The nature of abuse. Pastoral

Psychology. 41. 275-288.

Gelles, R. J. (1974) . The violent home. Beverly Hills,

CA: Sage.

Gelles, R. J. (1976). Abused wives: Why do they stay?

Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38, 659-668.

Gelles, R. J., & Straus, M. A. (1979). Determinants of

violence in the family: Toward a theoretical integration. In

102

W. R. Burr, R. Hill, F. Ivan, & I. Reiss (Eds.) Contemporary

theories about the family: Research.—based—theories, (Vo1. 1,

pp. 59-81). New York: The Free Press.

Gerbi, L. (1994) . Spousal violence: Understanding and

intervention techniques. Journal of Family Psychotherapy,—5_

(4̂ . 19-30.

Glass, G. V. (1976). Primary, secondary and mata-

analysis of research. Educational Researcher,—19, 3-8.

*Goguen, C. A., Stepaniuk, H. A., Foy, D. W. (1996,

September). The relationship between dating violence and

other traumas among female adolescent—offenders. Paper

presented at the American Psychological Association Women's

Health confernece, Washington, DC.

Gondolf, E. W., Fisher, E., & McFerron, J. R. (1990).

The helpseeking behavior of battererd women: An analysis of

6,000 shelter interviews. In E. G. Viano (Ed.), The

victimology handbook: Research treatment and public policy,

(pp. 113-127). New York: Garland Publishing.

Goode, W. J. (1971) Force and violence in the family.

Journal of Marriage and the Family. 33, 624-636.

Grayson, J. & Smith, G. (1981). Marital violence and

helpseeking patterns in a micropolitan community.

Victimology: An International Journal, 6 , 188-197.

Gray, H. M., & Foshee, V. (1997). Adolescent dating

violence: Differences between one-sided and mutually violent

profiles. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 12. 126-141.

103

*Gwartney-Gibbs, P. A., Stockard, J., & Bohmer, S.

(1987). Learning courtship aggression: The influence of

parents, peers, and personal experiences. Family Relations,

36. 276-282.

Hamberger, L. K., & Hastings, J. E. (1986). Personality

correlates of men who abuse their partners: A cross-

validation study. Journal of Family Violence,—l_i_ 323-341.

*Hamberger, L. K., & Hastings, J. E. (1991).

Personality correlates of men who batter and nonviolent men:

Some continuities and discontinuities. Journal—of—Family

Violence. 6. 131-147.

Hanks, S. E. (1992). Translating theory into practice:

A conceptual framework for clinical assessment, differential

diagnosis, and multi-modal treatment of maritally violent

individuals, couples and families. In E.C. Viano (Ed.),

Intimate violence: Interdisciplinary Perspectives, (pp.

157-176). New York: Hemisphere.

Herzberger, S. D. & Tennen, H. (1988). Applying the

label of physical abuse. In G. T. Hotaling, D. Finkelhor, J.

Fitzpatrick, M. A. Straus (Eds.), Research and policy

perspectives. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Hotaling, G. T., & Sugarman, D. B. (1986). An analysis

of risk markers in husband to wife violence: The current

state of knowledge. Violence and Victims. 1. 101-123.

Hotaling, G, T., & Sugarman, D. B. (1990). A risk

marker analysis of assaulted wives. Journal of Family

Violence. 5. 1-13.

104

*Howell, M. J., & Pugliesi, K. L. (1988). Husbands who

harm: Predicting spousal violence by men. Journal of Family

Violence. 3. 15-27.

Hunter, J. E. (1997). Needed: A ban on the significance

test. Psychological Science, JL. 3-7.

*Johnston, M. E. (1988). Correlates of early violence

experience among men who are abusive toward female mates.

In G. T. Hotaling, A. Finkelhor, J. T. Kirkpatrick, & M. A.

Straus (Eds.), Family abuse and its consequences, (pp 192-

202). Beverly Hills: Sage.

*Kalmuss, D., & Seltzer, J. A. (1989). A framework for

studying family socialization over the life cycle: The case

of family violence. Journal of Family Issues,—10i 339-358.

Kaufman-Kantor, G., & Straus, M. A. (1989). Substance

abuse as a precipitant of wife abuse victimizations.

American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse.—15(2) , 173-189.

Knight, G. P., Fabes, R. A., & Higgins, D. A. (1996).

Concerns about drawing causal inferences from meta-analyses:

An example in the study of gender differences in aggression.

Psychological Bulletin. 119. 410-421.

Koslof, K. E. (1984) . The battered woman: A

developmental perspective. Smith College Studies—in Social

Work. 54(31. 181-203.

Koss, M. P. (1990). The women's mental health research

agenda: Violence against women. American Psychologist.—45,

374-380.

105

*Lake, E. S. (1993). An exploration of the violent

victim experiences of female offenders. Violence—and

Victims. 8, 41-51.

Laner, M. R. (1985) . Unpleasant, aggressive, and

abusive activities in courtship: A comparison of Mormon and

non-Mormon college students. Deviant Behavior,—6_<_ 145-168.

*Lockhart, L., & White, B. W. (1989). Understanding

marital violence in the black community. Journal of

Interpersonal Violence. 4. 421-436.

Mackey, T. F. (1992) . A psychological model for

analysis of outcome related to trauma. In C. M. Sampselle

(Ed.), Violence against women: Nursing research,—education,

and practice issues (pp. 45-68). New York: Hemisphere.

Maiuro, R. D., Cahn, T. S., Vitaliano, P. P., Wagner,

B. C., & Zegree, J. B. (1988). Anger, hostility, and

depression in domestically violent versus generally

assaultive men and nonviolent control subjects. Journal—of

Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 56, 17-23.

Malone, J., Tyree, A., & O'Leary, K. D. (1989).

Generalization and containment: Different effects of past

aggression for wives and husbands. Journal of Marriage—and

the Family. 51. 687-697.

Marshall, L. L. (1992) . Development of the severity of

violence against women scale. Journal of Family Violence,—l_j_

103-121.

•Marshall, L. L., & Rose. P. (1987). Gender, stress and

violence in the adult relationships of a sample of college

106

students . Journal of Social and. Personal Relationships,—4 ,

299-316.

Marshall, L. L., & Rose, P. (1988). Family of origin

violence and courtship abuse. Journal of Counseling and

Development. 66. 414-418.

•Marshall, L. L., & Rose, P. (1990). Premarital

violence: The impact of family of origin violence, stress,

and reciprocity. Violence and Victims. 5_i_ 51-64.

Martin, D. (1976) . Battered wives. New York: Pocket

Books.

Mihalic, S. W. & Elliott, D. (1997). A social learning

theory model of marital violence. Journal of Family

Violence. 12. 21-47.

Mitchell, R. E. & Hodson, C. A. (1986). Coping and

social support among battered women: An ecological

perspective. In S. E. Hobfoll, (Ed.), Stress,—social

support and women (pp. 154-169) Washington: Hemisphere.

*Murphy, C. M., Meyer, S., & 0' Leary, D. (1993).

Family of origin violence and MCMI-II psychopathology among

partner assaultive men. Violence and Victims. JL. 165-176.

Ney, P. G. (1992). Transgenerational triangles of

abuse: A model of family violence. In E. C. Viano (Ed.),

Intimate violence: Interdisciplinary perspectives (pp.

15-25). New York: Hemisphere.

107

Nisbett, R. E. & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference:

Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

North, C. S., Thompson, S.J., Smith, E. M., & Kyburz,

L. M. (1996). Violence in the lives of homeless mothers in a

substance abuse treatment program: A descriptive study.

Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 11, 234-249.

*0'Keefe, M. (1997). Predictors of dating violence

among high school students. Journal of Interpergonal

Violence. 12. 546-568.

O'Keefe, N. K., Brockopp, K., & Chew, E. (1986). Teen

dating violence. Social Work. 31. 465-468.

O'Leary, K. D. (1988). Physical aggression between

spouses: A social learning theory perspective. In V. B. Van

Hasselt, R. L. Morrison, A. S. Bellack, & M. Hersen (Eds.),

Handbook of family violence (pp.31-55). New York: Plenum.

Owens, D. J., & Straus M. A. (1975). The social

structure of violence in childhood and approval of violence

as an adult. Aggressive Behavior. 1. 193-211.

Pagelow, M. D. (1981). Factors affecting women's

decisions to leave violent relationships. Journal of Family

Issues. 2. 391-414.

Pagelow, M. D. (1992). Adult victims of domestic

violence. Journal of Interpersonal violence. 7. 87-120.

*Parker, B., & Schumacher, D. N. (1977). The battered

wife syndrome and violence in the nuclear family of origin:

108

A controlled pilot study, amprican Journal of Public Health,

67. 760-761.

* Post, R. D., Willett, A. B., Franks, R. D., House, R.

M., & Back, S. M. (1981). Childhood exposure to violence

among victims and perpetrators of spouse battering.

Victimology, 6. 156-166.

*Riggs, D. S., O'Leary, K. D., & Breslin, F. C. (1990).

Multiple correlates of physical aggression in dating

rniiplps. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,—5_i_ 61-73.

*Rosenbaum, A., & O'Leary, K. D. (1981). Marital

violence: characteristics of abusive couples. Journal of

Consulting and Clinical Psychology,—49x- 63-71.

Rosenthal, R. (1984). Msl-.a-ana]yH c procedures for

social research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Rosenthal, R. & Rosnow, R. L. (1991). Essentials of

behavioral research: Methods and data analysis. New York:

McGraw-Hill.

Rounsaville, B. J. (1978). Theories in marital

violence: Evidence from a study of battered women.

Victimology: An International Journal, 2L_ 11-31.

*Rouse, L. P. (1988) . Conflict tactics used by men in

marital disputes. In G. T. Hotaling, A. Finkelhor, J. T.

Kirkpatrick, & M. A. Straus (Eds.), Family abuse and its

consecruences (PP- 176-191). Beverly Hills: Sage.

109

Russell, M. (1988). Wife assault theory, research, and

treatment: A literature review. Journal of Family Violence,

193-208.

*Ryan, K. M. (1995) . Do courtship-violent men have

characteristics associated with a "Battering Personality"?

Journal of Family Violence. 10. 99-120.

Rynerson, B. C., & Fishel, A.H. (1993). Domestic

violence prevention training: Participant characteristics

and treatment outcomes. Journal of Family Violence,—8j_

253-266.

Sack, A. R., Keller, J. F., & Howard, R. D. (1982).

Conflict tactics in dating situations. International—Journal

of Sociology of the Family. 12. 89-100.

*Schuerger, J. M., & Reigle, N. (1988). Personality and

biographic data that characterize men who abuse their wives.

Journal of Clinical Psychology. 44, 75-81.

Schwarzer, R. (1989). Meta-analvsis programs. Berlin:

User supported software.

*Sedillo, D. M. (1997). Effects of family of origin

violence on severely psychologically abused women.

Unpublished master's thesis, University of North Texas,

Denton, Texas.

Seligman, M. (1975). Helplessness: On depression.

development and death. San Francisco: Freeman.

*Seltzer, J. A. & Kalmuss, D. (1988) Socialization and

stress explanations for spouse abuse. Social Forces.—67,,

473-491.

110

Snyder, D. K. & Fruchtman, L. A. (1981). Differential

Patterns of Wife Abuse: A data-based typology. Journal—of.

Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 49. 878-885.

Stets, J. E. (1990). Verbal and physical aggression in

marriage. Journal of Marriage and the Family,—52, 501-514.

*Stets, J. E., & Pirog-Good, M. A. (1990).

Interpersonal control and courtship aggression. Journal of

Social and Personal Relationships. 371-394.

*Stith, S. M., & Farley, S. C. (1993). A predictive

model of male spousal violence. Journal of Family Violence,

iL_ 183-201.

Straus, M. A. (1976). Sexual inequality, cultural

norms, and wife-beating. Victimology: An International

Journal. 1. 54-70.

Straus, M. A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict

and violence: The Conflict Tactics (CT) Scales. Journal of

Marriage and the family. 41. 75-88.

Straus, M. A. (1990). Social stress and marital

violence in a national sample of American families. In M. A.

Straus & R. J. Gelles (Eds.), Physical violence in American

families: Risk factors and adaptations to violence in 8,145

families (pp. 181-201). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction

Publishers.

Straus, M. A., & Gelles, R. J.(1990). Physical

violence in American families: Risk factors and adaptations

to violence in 8.145 families. New Brunswick, NJ:

Transaction Publishers.

Ill

Straus, M. A., Gelles, R. J., & Steinmetz, S. K.

(1980). Behind closed doors: Violence in the American

family. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Strube, M. J., & Barbour, L. S. (1984). Factors related

to the decision to leave an abusive relationship. Journal—of

Marriage and the Family. 46. & 837-844.

Sugarman, D. B., & Hotaling, G. T. (1989). Violent men

in intimate relationships: An analysis of risk markers.

Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 19. 1034-1048.

Sugarman, D. B., & Hotaling, G. T. (1995, July).

Intimate violence and social desirability: A meta-analytic

review. Paper presented at the meeting of the Fourth

International Family Violence Research Conference, Durham,

NH.

Telch, C. F. & Lindquist, C. U. (1984). Violent versus

nonviolent couples: A comparison of patterns. Psychotherapy,

21. 242-248.

*Theodore, R. M. (1992). The relationship between locus

of control and level of violence in married couples. In E.

C. Viano (Ed.), Intimate violence: Interdisciplinary

perspectives (pp. 37-48) . New York: Hemisphere.

*Tontodonato, P., & Crew, B. (1992). Dating violence,

social learning theory, and gender: A multivariate analysis.

Violence and Victims. 7. 3-14.

112

Tukey, J. W. (1977) . Exploratory data analysis.

Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Trolier, T. K., & Hamilton, D. L. (1986). Variables

influencing judgments of correlational relations. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology. 50, 879-888.

Tutty, L. M. & Rothery, M. A. (1997, June). Women who

seek shelter form wife assault: Risk assessment—and service

needs. Paper presented at the 5th International Family

Violence Research conference. Durham, NH.

Ulbrich, P., & Huber, J. (1981). Observing parental

violence: Distribution and effects. Journal of Marriage and

the Family. 43. 623-631.

U.S. Department of Justice (1994). Violence against

women: A national crime victimization survey report.

Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

*VanHorn, B., Sedillo, D. M. & Marshall, L. L. (1997,

May). Childhood violence: Effects on women sustaining

partner violence among three ethnic groups. Paper presented

at the ninth annual meeting of the American Psychological

Society, Washington, DC.

Walker, L. E. (1979). The battered woman. New York:

Harper and Row.

Walker, L. E. (1983) . Victimology and the psychological

perspectives of battered women. Victimology: An

International Journal. 8. 82-104.

113

Walker, L. E. (1984) . b a t t e l woman syndrome. New

York: Springer.

Widom, C. S. (1989). Does violence beget violence? A

critical examination of the literature, psychological

Bulletin. 106. 3-28.

Widom, C. S. & Shepard, R. L. (1996). Accuracy of adult

recollections of childhood victimization: Part 1. Childhood

physical abuse. Psvcholocrical Assessment?—£L,_ 412—421.