Responses and Discussions related to Children's Exposure to Violence.

 Barbara L. Bonner, Ph.D., University of Oklahoma 

Dr. Bonner’s perspective of children exposed to violence stems from her experience working with children after the Oklahoma City bombing, victims of terrorism and natural disasters, and adolescent sex offenders who had prolonged exposure to domestic violence. She stated that in 1962, a seminal article emerged on child maltreatment, and yet in 2002 we still do not have a standard set of definitions. Definitions, however, “drive the field” and enable researchers to conceptualize the problem, as well as incidence, prevalence, and prevention strategies. Meanwhile, researchers have jumped ahead with treatment interventions without the benefit of adequate definitions. It is also important to accurately understand the complexity of the child’s experience, the child’s perceptions and attributions, and those factors that foster resilience. In terms of children exposed to domestic violence, researchers need to employ standard definitions in order to know what it means to be exposed and how children define the perpetrator. For instance, what does “father figure” mean? It could be the biological father or a man who has lived in the home for 3 years. Echoing previous speakers, Dr. Bonner agreed that it is necessary to focus on a small number of variables and to work from a conceptual model. There is also a need to develop treatment protocols that can be replicated and to assess the efficacy and impact of different interventions. Child protective service agencies should also be included as a key component of intervention research studies. 

Lourdes Oriana Linares, Ph.D., New York University.

Dr. Linares emphasized that researchers must be precise in identifying and defining independent variables but at the same time, must think broadly because of the overlap in categories of violence. She encouraged the cross-fertilization of ideas among researchers, particularly with respect to child maltreatment research informing community violence studies. There is also a need to better define “community” and the perpetrator for community studies. In one study in Boston, residents defined community differently from the researchers, and some did not know what the neighborhood boundaries were. In community violence, it is difficult to define the perpetrator. The majority of perpetrators of community violence are not always strangers so a broad range of witnesses and social networks must be examined. In summary, standard measurements are critical for community violence studies, especially since many investigators tend to develop their own scales. 

Discussion 

There was a great deal of discussion on the issue of whether all children show harm from physical or sexual abuse. Dr. Holden noted that the issue of harm refers to a legal issue, but we must be careful not to make blanket statements about the harmful effects of domestic violence on children, particularly if it occurs outside the home or if the child is not aware of it. Many participants felt that the focus should be on the act of violence rather than the consequences since research shows these acts overwhelmingly affect children. Others contended that it was important to focus on effects. For instance, Dr. Fantuzzo pointed out that having a resilient child subjected to violence does not nullify the act and the impact of the act on the child. Others noted that there are also delayed effects that are not immediately observable. For instance, sexual abuse as a child might affect adult sexual life. The effects of domestic abuse may also be indirect, for example, affecting a parent’s ability to positively care for the child. Dr. Trickett emphasized that having a specific focus is important. In other words, one should not be focused on whether exposure to violence affects children, but rather, what types of violence affect what kind of children in what manner? 

Better definitions will allow the field to examine these subtle effects. There was also significant discussion on the question of whether exposure to violence is a form of child maltreatment. Some contended that not all child maltreatment rises to the level of needing protection, while others suggested that we must consider the child’s subjective assessment, particularly over the long term. One participant noted that we must also consider how parents explain the abuse to children and how it subsequently affects them. Other questions were raised about the utility of current measures. One participant pointed out that most studies are done with children who receive services after a violent act, yet the majority of parents and children experiencing violence do not receive services. Thus, we have only a very narrow basic understanding of child witnesses to violence, and this understanding does not adequately capture what is actually happening. Referring back to his presentation on measurement, Dr. Leavitt noted that while there are many problems with current instruments and their ability to measure the variables of interest, we should not be paralyzed by this fact. Regardless of the form of violence we are studying, it needs to be looked at in context so that researchers can identify the “sentinel act” that makes the difference.