Automatic Encoding of Ambiguous Child Behavior in High and Low Risk for Child Physical Abuse Parents

Transcription

1 J Fam Viol (2010) 25:73 80 DOI /s ORIGINAL ARTICLE Automatic Encoding of Ambiguous Child Behavior in High and Low Risk for Child Physical Abuse Parents Julie L. Crouch & Joel S. Milner & John J. Skowronski & Magdalena M. Farc & Lauren M. Irwin & Angela Neese Published online: 11 August 2009 # Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2009 Abstract Recent theory and research suggest that physically abusive parenting behavior might be understood as originating from: 1) greater accessibility of hostile/negative schema, and/or 2) lower accessibility of benign/positive schema. This study examined whether parents at high and low risk for child physical abuse (CPA) differed in the extent to which they spontaneously encoded ambiguous caregiving contexts in negative versus positive terms. Twenty-five high and forty-one low risk for CPA parents were asked to memorize a set of sentences that described ambiguous caregiving situations. After a brief delay, participants were asked to recall the sentences. During recall, cues were given (e.g., negative and positive words) to facilitate recall. According to the cued-recall paradigm, to the extent that recall was facilitated by negative/positive cues, it was inferred that negative/positive meaning was activated when the ambiguous sentences were encoded. Although all parents tended to recall more information in response to negative relative to positive cues, the influence of cue type on recall was greater for high CPA risk parents. That is, high, compared to low, CPA risk parents obtained significantly higher recall difference scores (M=4.6 versus M=2.3); with higher recall difference scores indicating This research was supported, in part, by Grant #CA from the Children s Bureau, Administration of Children and Family Services, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Correspondence regarding this article should be addressed to Julie L. Crouch, Center for the Study of Family Violence and Sexual Assault, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL J. L. Crouch (*) : J. S. Milner : J. J. Skowronski : M. M. Farc : L. M. Irwin : A. Neese Center for the Study of Family Violence and Sexual Assault, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb IL, USA jcrouch@niu.edu greater recall in response to negative relative to positive cues. Present findings are consistent with the proposition that high and low CPA risk parents differ in how they spontaneously encode information in ambiguous caregiving contexts. Keywords Child physical abuse. Information processing. Encoding Introduction Social information processing (SIP) models propose that individuals develop mental networks (i.e., cognitive schema) based on their experiences (e.g., histories of attachment, maltreatment, trauma) and that these representations exert an influence on how social information is perceived, processed, and interpreted. The SIP models of child physical abuse (CPA; e.g., Azar et al. 2008; Milner 1993, 2003) suggest that the cognitive schema of abusive parents create patterns of information processing that favor attention to aggressive or negative stimuli and increase the likelihood of interpreting behavior as aggressive or hostile. Such processing patterns are believed to increase the likelihood of subsequent parental aggression (Crouch and Milner 2005; Todorov and Bargh 2002). For example, the mental networks of parents at risk for CPA may be especially likely to contain readily accessible hostility constructs (Farc et al. 2008), which may influence interpretations, attributions, and behaviors automatically (i.e., without intention or awareness). Such implicit (i.e., unconscious) processes are obviously a challenge to study. Fortunately, social cognitive researchers have developed several methods for assessing implicit information processes and some of these innovative methodologies have been

2 74 J Fam Viol (2010) 25:73 80 employed in attempts to better understand the information processes associated with aggression. For example, Zelli and colleagues (Zelli et al. 1995, 1996) used the cued-recall task to examine implicit encoding biases in aggressive and nonaggressive individuals. In these studies, participants memorized sentences that each described an ambiguous social interaction. After a brief delay, participants were asked to recall the sentences and were given cues to aid their recall. The cues were either hostility-related or nonhostile words that were semantically related to the sentence content. The cued-recall paradigm assumes that recall cues whose meanings are activated at the time of sentence encoding will be especially likely to facilitate recall. Thus, if recall is facilitated by hostile cues, it is inferred that hostile meaning was activated as the ambiguous information was encoded. Zelli et al. (1995) found that aggressive, compared to nonaggressive, individuals differed in their spontaneous encoding patterns in two ways: 1) aggressive individuals showed a greater tendency to encode ambiguous information in hostile terms (mean recall to hostile cues: nonaggressive, M=1.63, SD=1.73; aggressive, M=2.31, SD=2.14); and 2) aggressive individuals showed a relative lack of encoding in semantically-related nonhostile terms (mean recall to semantic cues: nonaggressive, M=3.71, SD=3.0; aggressive, M=2.09, SD=2.20). Noteworthy is the fact that the largest difference between aggressive and nonaggressive individuals in the Zelli et al. study was found in the amount of information recalled to nonhostile semantic cues. More specifically, nonaggressive, compared to aggressive, participants recalled significantly more information to the nonhostile, semantically related cues. Results obtained by Zelli et al. (1995) suggest that when spontaneously processing ambiguous social stimuli, aggressive and nonaggressive individuals differ most in the amount of information they encode in nonhostile (i.e., semantic or positive) terms. Initial encoding of social information as benign or positive may increase the likelihood of producing benign or positive interpretations in ambiguous situations, and thereby reduce the likelihood of angry or aggressive responding. The notion that low CPA risk parents show positive interpretive tendencies when interpreting child behaviors has been suggested in other research. For example, Dopke et al. (2003) presented a series of vignettes depicting compliant and noncompliant child behaviors and asked high and low CPA risk parents to identify which vignettes represented the child being compliant. Dopke et al. found that low CPA risk parents were significantly more likely to interpret behaviors meant to represent noncompliance as compliance. Collectively, findings across studies suggest that low, compared to high, CPA risk parents are more likely to interpret child behaviors in positive terms (Dopke et al.) and that these positive interpretive tendencies may originate at the time of encoding (Zelli et al.). Although the SIP model of CPA, as initially formulated, emphasized cognitive processes that increase risk of CPA, the studies reviewed above suggest that aggressive behavior also might be understood as originating from the relative absence of positive or benign information processes that may reduce the likelihood of aggression (Berkowitz 2008; Dodge 2006). In keeping with this notion, Dodge (2006) proposed a revision to his SIP model for understanding the development of aggressive behavior problems in which aggression is construed as a primitive response that becomes inhibited through the process of socialization. According to Dodge (2006), patterns of hostile attribution in response to negative, aversive, or frustrating experiences develop early in life; and it is only through positive socialization experiences that the capacity to formulate benign (i.e., nonhostile) attributional tendencies is developed. Examples of positive socialization experiences leading to benign attributional styles include secure attachment to a nurturing caregiver and modeling of benign attributions by significant others. Individuals who lack such positive socialization experiences will, in all likelihood, fail to develop the capacity for benign attributional styles, resulting in persistence of the more primitive hostile attributional style. Consistent across both the SIP model of CPA and Dodge s model of aggression is the proposition that attributions of hostile/benign intent are believed to mediate how one responds to environmental challenges, with hostile/benign attributional styles leading to patterns of aggressive/nonaggressive responding, respectively. To recapitulate, the SIP model of CPA, as originally formulated, emphasized the risk potentiating role of negative/hostile schema in social information processing (Crouch and Milner 2005; Milner 1994, 2003). Accumulating evidence suggests that benign/positive schema may play an important function in reducing risk of aggression in low CPA risk parents (Dopke et al. 2003; Zelli et al. 1995). In all likelihood, both positive and negative schemata are involved in determining CPA risk and the influence of both may be evident as early as the encoding stage of information processing (Zelli et al. 1995). The present study was modeled after Zelli et al. (1995) and attempted to extend their findings to parental aggression by examining differences in encoding among parents with varying degrees of CPA risk. More specifically, the present study used a cued-recall task and asked parents to memorize sentences depicting ambiguous caregiving situations (e.g., Miguel slapped his hand on the tray as his mother fed him. ). Cues used to prompt subsequent recall included both negative (e.g., hostile, difficult) and positive (e.g., happy, sweet) words. It was predicted that high, compared to low, CPA risk parents would display 1) greater

3 J Fam Viol (2010) 25: recall to negative cues, and 2) less recall to positive cues. Given that raw recall scores may be affected by individual differences in memory ability, recall difference scores (i.e., negative minus positive cued-recall) also were computed, such that higher recall difference scores reflected greater recall to negative relative to positive cues. It was predicted that high, compared to low, risk parents would obtain higher recall difference scores (i.e., recall more to negative relative to positive cues). Methods Participants The initial participant pool included 100 general population parents (25 male, 75 female). Of the 100 participating parents, 4 parents were excluded due to missing data (i.e., left 10% or more items blank on any measure) and 30 were excluded for response distortion (3 faked bad, 6 randomly responded, and 21 faked good as indicated on the response distortion indices of the Child Abuse Potential [CAP] Inventory). Of the remaining 66 parents, 41.8% were African American, 52.2% Caucasian, 4.5% Latino, and 1.5% were other. Mean age was 29.2 years (SD=8.52). Most of the parents (68.2%) were not married and the mean number of children was 1.5 (SD=.66). Highest grade completed ranged from 10 to 20 years, with 40.3% of the parents in the sample reporting 12 or fewer years of education. Among parents with valid and complete protocols, 25 were classified as high risk and 41 as low risk for CPA, based on scores from the CAP inventory (see classification procedures described below). Mean CAP scores were 78.3 (SD=45.0) and (SD=56.1) for low and high CPA risk parents, respectively. Low and high CPA risk groups did not differ with regard to the percentage of male participants (14.9%), nor did the groups differ on the mean age of participants or number of children. Low, compared to high, risk parents were more often married (41.5% vs. 16.0%) and reported more years of education (14.5 [SD=1.69] versus 12.7 [SD=2.46]). Low, compared to high, risk parents were less often African American (31.0% vs. 60.0%) and more often Caucasian (66.7% vs. 28.0%). Materials Sentence Stimuli Twelve ambiguous sentence stimuli were selected from an initial set of 20 sentences. Each sentence contained the following elements: child s name (e.g., Riley), child s action (e.g., kicked his legs ), caregiving context (e.g., as his mother changed his diaper ). Children s names were selected from among the 100 most popular names in Children s actions were selected from a list of subtle and potent disengagement cues commonly displayed by children younger than 3 years of age. Caregiving contexts included activities that occur routinely (e.g., feeding, bathing) when caring for young children. In order to identify sentences within the initial pool of 20 sentences that were ambiguous with regard to hostile intent, a preliminary study was conducted. Participants in the preliminary study were asked to read each of the 20 sentences, and each sentence was followed by a list of 24 descriptors. After reading each sentence, participants were asked to rate the extent to which each word below describes the child s behavior. Twelve of the descriptors were negative attributes: uncooperative, aggressive, defiant, difficult, irritable, mean, negative, oppositional, hostile, unfriendly, cold, and violent. The remaining 12 descriptors were positive attributes: peaceful, animated, loving, attached, playful, content, happy, friendly, lively, sweet, accepting, and endearing. Participants marked their rating for each descriptor on a scale from 1 not at all to 5 very much. Participants in the preliminary study included 66 undergraduates and 18 parents. More specifically, a convenience sample of 66 female undergraduates was first obtained. Participation was limited to female (rather than male) undergraduates given that they were on average more likely to have had prior experience providing childcare. Their ages ranged from 18 to 21 years (M=19.6, SD=.85). The mean number of years of education was 12.6 (SD=.78). Racial/ethnic composition of the undergraduate sample was as follows: 53.0% African American, 34.8% Caucasian, 9.1% Latino, 1.5% Asian-American, and 1.5% other. The undergraduate women were heterogeneous with regard to CPA risk, with CAP scores ranging from 12 to 351 (M=127.78, SD=93.75). To examine whether the student ratings were similar to ratings provided by parents, a small parent sample was also obtained for the preliminary study. More specifically, 18 general population parents (3 fathers and 15 mothers) whose ages ranged from 20 to 34 years (M=25.9, SD=5.1) were also asked to participate in the preliminary study. The mean number of years of education among parents was 12.6 (SD=3.6). One-third of the parents (33.3%) were African American and the remaining (66.7%) were Caucasian. Most (55.6%) of parents were single, with 22.2% married and 16.7% separated or divorced. The parents were heterogeneous with regard to CPA risk, with CAP scores ranging from 27 to 305 (M=105.67, SD=82.46). Indices for the negative and positive ratings for each sentence were computed. The negative (positive) index represented the mean rating across the 12 negative (positive) traits. Mean negative and positive ratings did

4 76 J Fam Viol (2010) 25:73 80 not differ significantly for the undergraduate and parent samples, therefore the data from the two samples were pooled. A difference score was then calculated by subtracting the positive index from the negative index for each sentence. Difference scores closest to zero were considered ambiguous (i.e., difference scores near zero indicated that the sentence was rated as potentially negative and positive to equivalent degrees). A difference score greater than zero indicated that the child in the sentence was rated higher on the negative compared to the positive descriptors. A difference score less than zero indicated that the child in the sentence was rated higher on the positive compared to the negative descriptors. Twelve sentences with difference scores between 1 and +1 (i.e., were ambiguous in that they received nearly equal negative and positive ratings) were selected as the ambiguous sentence stimuli to be used in the encoding task. See Table 1 for mean negative ratings, positive ratings, and difference scores for the 12 sentences used in the encoding task. Recall Cues Cues for the recall task were selected from the 24 descriptors used to rate the sentences in the sentence selection process described above. More specifically, the correlations between the ratings for each of the 24 descriptors and the negative/positive indices were computed (computation of the negative/positive indices is described above). Each of the negative recall cues selected for use in the cued-recall task (uncooperative, difficult, irritable, negative, hostile, unfriendly) was significantly correlated (r s ranged from.74 to.82; p s<.05) with the negative index. Each of the positive cues selected (peaceful, accepting, loving, happy, sweet, friendly) was significantly correlated (r s ranged from.72 to.88; p s<.05) with the positive index. Recall Forms During the recall portion of the study, participants were asked to write any sentence or parts of sentences that they recalled on a cued-recall form. Instructions on the cued-recall form were as follows: Please recall as many and as much of each of the sentences you saw earlier. Below is a list of words that were not used in the sentences but which may help you recall the sentences. Following each word, write down any sentences or parts of sentences that come to mind. Try to remember as much as you can. Cue words were presented in a list aligned with the left margin of the page and each cue was followed by multiple lines on which responses were written. The cue list alternated negative and positive cues (e.g., peaceful, uncooperative, accepting, irritable, loving, unfriendly, happy, hostile, sweet, difficult, friendly, negative). An alternate version of the recall form included the same list of cues presented in the reverse order in an effort to control for order effects. CPA Risk Status CPA risk status was determined using the Child Abuse Potential (CAP) Inventory (Milner 1986). The CAP is a 160-item, agree-disagree, self-report questionnaire designed to screen for CPA risk. Scores on the physical abuse scale range from 0 to 486. The CAP Inventory also contains three validity scales (faking good, faking bad, and random responding) which were used to detect response distortion. Research has documented adequate test-retest reliabilities in general population samples (.91 for 1-day,.90 for 1-week,.83 for 1-month, and.75 for 3-month intervals) and high internal consistency estimates (ranging from.92 to.95 for general population and maltreating parents, Milner 1986). Internal consistency for the CAP as completed by the present sample was.91. Numerous studies report construct validity data for the CAP abuse scale (Milner 1986, 1994, 2004). CAP Inventory abuse risk scores are significantly associated with measures of aggression in parents (McCurdy 1995; Miller et al. 1999; Montes et al. 2001; Nayak and Milner 1998; Sachs and Hall 1991; Wilson et al. 2000; Zelenko et al. 2001) and, with one exception (Dopke and Milner 2000), the use of harsh discipline strategies in parents (Chilamkurti and Milner 1993; Dolz et al. 1997; Dopke et al. 2003; Haskett et al. 1995; McCurdy 1995; Miller et al. 1999; Monroe and Schellenbach 1989, Montes et al. 2001; Schellenbach et al. 1991; Whissell et al. 1990). Classification rates based on discriminant analysis of child physical abusers and matched comparison parents are in the mid-80% to low-90% range. Studies examining the CAP s specificity indicate 100% correct classification of nurturing foster parents, low-risk mothers, and nurturing mothers. Prospective research has revealed a significant association between CAP abuse scores and subsequent physical child abuse (Milner 1986). Using the signal detection theory cut-score suggested by Milner (1986), respondents who obtain CAP abuse scores greater than or equal to 166 were classified as high risk; those with scores below 166 were classified as low risk for CPA. Procedures The procedures and consent form for the present study were reviewed and approved by the institutional review board at the first author s institution. To recruit parents for this study, informational flyers were distributed through local agencies (e.g., daycares, churches, social service agencies). The informational flyers stated that the study involved reading and recalling sentences about children and completing questionnaires, which would take about 45 min and for which participants would receive $25. To

5 J Fam Viol (2010) 25: Table 1 Mean (SD) negative, positive, and difference scores for the 12 ambiguous sentences Sentence Negative Positive Difference Destiny arched her back as her mother held her 2.66 (.85) 1.92 (.83) 0.75 (1.25) Juan fussed when his mother put him down to sleep 2.63 (.77) 2.26 (.81) 0.38 (.95) Megan grimaced as her mother wiped her face 2.28 (.84) 2.20 (.79) 0.09 (.98) Riley kicked his legs as his mother changed his diaper 2.73 (.97) 2.56 (.84) 0.17 (1.27) Devin lowered his head when his mother showed the toy 2.18 (.70) 2.02 (.66) 0.16 (.80) Blake pushed away the cookie when his mother offered it 2.68 (.84) 2.11 (.65) 0.58 (.84) Destiny raised her brow as her mother combed her hair 1.69 (.69) 2.47 (.82) 0.79 (.95) Hannah slapped her hand on the tray as her mother fed her 2.49 (.95) 2.69 (.72) 0.20 (1.16) Michael looked away when his mother spoke to him 1.55 (.81) 2.50 (.65) 0.95 (.93) Rachel waved her arms when her mother sat her in the high chair 2.56 (.79) 2.08 (.83) 0.48 (1.28) Miguel whimpered as his mother bathed him 2.22 (.78) 2.12 (.70) 0.11 (.86) Adam whined as his mother was leaving 2.20 (.81) 2.32 (.68) 0.12 (.92) *Negative and positive ratings ranged from 1 not at all, to 5 very likely ensure that an adequate number of high risk parents were recruited, we over sampled for high CPA risk participants by distributing flyers in programs that served families with risk factors for abuse (e.g., voluntary home visiting programs, shelter services). Upon arrival, participants were asked to read and sign a consent form that provided them with information regarding the procedures, risks, benefits, and voluntary nature of their participation. During the cued-recall task, participants were asked to read and remember the twelve sentences describing ambiguous caregiving situations. Each sentence appeared on a computer screen for 7 s before the next sentence was presented. After viewing all twelve sentences, participants were asked to complete a 2-minute distraction task, which involved matching code symbols with numbers. Next, participants were asked to write on the recall form any sentences or parts of sentences that they recalled reading earlier. Each participant was allowed 10 min to record their recall. Following the recall period, participants completed the CAP Inventory. Upon completion of the CAP, parents were debriefed and paid $25 for their participation. Recall Scoring The amount of recall to negative and positive cues was scored by two independent raters who were blind to participant CPA risk status. A recall point was awarded for recall of any child s name, child s action, or caregiving context. Interrater agreement at the item level was high (Kappa coefficient =.96). For each cue, recall scores for children s names, children s actions, and caregiving contexts were tallied. Composite scores (i.e., sums) across negative and positive cues, as well as a total recall score (i.e., sum of negative and positive recall), were calculated. Recall difference scores were computed (negative minus positive cued-recall) such that higher difference scores represented greater recall to negative relative to positive cues. Results As noted above, univariate analyses revealed that CPA risk groups differed significantly on marital status, education, and race/ethnicity. To determine which of these demographic factors were uniquely predictive of risk status, a logistic regression predicting CPA risk status was performed. The regression model was significant, F(3, 62)= 4.53, p<.01, R 2 =.18, and revealed that race/ethnicity (coded Caucasian versus other; b=.239*) and years of education (high versus low as defined by median split; b=.278*) each uniquely predicted CPA risk status. However, when considered simultaneously with race/ ethnicity and education, marital status (coded married versus other) was no longer a significant predictor of CPA risk status in the regression model (b=.09, ns). Therefore, only race/ethnicity and education were entered as covariates in the planned analyses comparing recall scores across CPA risk groups. Recall Scores. To examine differences in recall scores between high and low risk parents by cue type, a 2 (CPA risk status: high/low) x 2 (cue type: negative/positive) analysis of covariance was performed with race/ethnicity and education entered as the covariates and repeated measures on the second factor. Results from the ANCOVA revealed that none of the main effects or interaction terms involving the covariates was significant (all p s<.05). Further, the main effect for CPA risk status was not significant, F(1, 62) =.06, p>.05, r_es=.03, indicating that high and low risk parents did not vary significantly in their

6 78 J Fam Viol (2010) 25:73 80 overall recall scores. The main effect for cue type was significant, F(1, 62)=14.27, p<.01, r_es=.43, with significantly higher recall scores for negative, M=7.28, SE=.46, compared to positive, M=3.79, SE=.41, cues. The interaction of CPA risk and cue type was significant, F(1, 62)=4.03, p<.05, r_es=.25. Adjusted mean recall scores for low and high risk parents for negative and positive cues are presented in Table 2. For negative cues, although the pattern of the means was as expected, followup tests revealed that total recall for negative cues did not differ significantly by CPA risk status; F(1, 62)=.83, p>.05, r_es=.11. Risk group difference in recall to positive cues approached significance, such that high, compared to low, CPA risk parents obtained lower recall scores to positive cues, F(1, 62) =2.14, p=.075, r_es=.18. Recall Difference Scores It was predicted that high, compared to low, CPA risk parents would display greater recall to negative (relative to positive) cues as evidenced by higher recall difference scores. As expected, the mean recall difference score was significantly higher for the high (M=4.64, SE=.87), compared to the low (M=2.33, SE=.66), CPA risk group, F(1, 62) =4.03, p<.05, r_es=.25. Discussion Present findings provide evidence that high and low CPA risk parents differ in how they encode sentences depicting ambiguous caregiving contexts. Although high and low risk parents did not differ significantly in their overall level of recall for negative cues, high-risk parents obtained significantly higher recall difference scores reflecting relatively greater recall to negative (relative to positive) cues. This finding is consistent with that of Zelli et al. (1995), who reported that aggressive, compared to nonaggressive, individuals had relatively greater recall to hostile cues; and (as was the case in the present study) this relative difference was largely due to the fact that aggressive, compared to nonaggressive individuals tended to recall less information when prompted by nonhostile/positive cues. Results from the present study as well as that of Zelli et al. Table 2 Adjusted mean (SE) recall scores for low and high CPA-risk parents by cues type Cue type CPA-risk status Low (n=41) High (n=25) Negative 6.81 (.60) 7.75 (.79) Positive 4.47 (.53) 3.11 (.70) CPA child physical abuse are consistent with Dodge s (2006) proposition that aggressive individuals may fail to develop the capacity for benign attributional styles, resulting in persistence of more primitive hostile patterns of information processing. In everyday terms, results from the present study suggest that while both low and high CPA risk parents appear to be equally likely to encode ambiguous behaviors (e.g., infant s crying) in negative terms (e.g., difficult, uncooperative); low risk parents appear to have a somewhat greater capacity to also encode such behaviors in positive terms (e.g., sweet, loving). Greater capacity to encode ambiguous or challenging moments in parenting in positive terms may buffer against pervasively negative interpretations and attributions and thus protect against angry or aggressive reactions. Consistent with this notion, Bugental et al. (2002) found that an intervention designed to increase generation of benign interpretations of challenging caregiving situations was associated with reductions in harsh parenting practices among high risk parents. More specifically, Bugental et al. (2002) instructed high risk parents to articulate attributions for their infants challenging behaviors and to continue to generate alternative attributions until at least one benign/positive attribution was suggested. In a similar vein, mindfulness interventions may prove useful in helping high CPA risk parents increase cognitive flexibility, allowing them to entertain benign/ positive interpretations, which in turn may help reduce the likelihood of angry or aggressive reactions. Noteworthy is the fact that the present data suggest that all parents (regardless of CPA risk) appear to possess the propensity to encode ambiguous or challenging child behaviors in negative terms; therefore, it may be unrealistic to expect high CPA risk parents to change the extent to which they encode information in negative terms. Rather, focusing on the accessibility of benign/positive mental representations during ambiguous/challenging moments in parenting may be of greater import, as the present findings suggest that this is more likely the mechanism that differentiates high from low CPA risk parents. Of course, a number of limitations should be considered when interpreting the present findings. Contrary to our `a priori predictions, the amount of recall to negative cues did not significantly differ between high and low risk parents. This finding is at odds with results reported by Zelli et al. (1995), which indicated that aggressive, compared to nonaggressive, respondents displayed greater recall to hostile cues in the spontaneous processing condition. These seemingly divergent findings may reflect methodological differences between the two studies. In the Zelli et al. study, level of aggression was defined based on self-reported histories of aggressive behavior (i.e., slapping, kicking, punching, etc.). The present study differs from the Zelli et al. study in that it used general population parents with

7 J Fam Viol (2010) 25: varying degrees of CPA risk, without assessing for actual histories of aggressive behavior. It remains possible that abusive, compared to nonabusive, parents may display greater recall to hostile cues and additional research is needed to explore this possibility. Another limitation of the present study involves use of the cued-recall task as a means of assessing implicit encoding processes. The basic premise of the cued-recall task is that recall amounts reflect the extent to which a given cue was active at the time of encoding. It should be noted, however, that retrieval processes may also influence the nature of the responses generated on the recall task. Thus, additional research employing alternate strategies of assessing implicit encoding patterns in high and low CPA risk parents would help refine our understanding in this area. The significance of the present study is highlighted by the fact that encoding differences between high and low CPA risk parents may initiate a chain of affective and information processes that affect risk for aggression. That is, spontaneous encoding processes may automatically (i.e., without awareness or intention) impact other information processing stages (e.g., interpretations, attributions) as well as influence affective states (Bargh 1997; Bargh and Ferguson 2000; Milner 2000). Alternatively, affective states and schema activation may moderate the encoding processes. Future research is needed to examine encoding patterns across different affective states, as well as examine how particular mindsets (e.g., goals, expectancies) might impact spontaneous encoding in high and low risk parents. Although, this study did not examine the dynamic interplay of the various information processes and affective states involved in determining CPA risk, the present findings indicate that even under very benign experimental conditions, encoding differences are apparent between high and low risk for CPA parents. References Azar, S. T., Reitz, E. B., & Goslin, M. C. (2008). Mothering: thinking is part of the job description: application of cognitive views to understanding maladaptive parenting and doing intervention and prevention work. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 29, Bargh, J. A. (1997). The automaticity of everyday life. In R. S. Wyer (Ed.), Advances in social cognition (Vol. X, pp. 1 62). Mahwah: Erlbaum. Bargh, J. A., & Ferguson, M. J. (2000). Beyond behaviorism: on the automaticity of higher mental processes. Psychological Bulletin, 126, Berkowitz, L. (2008). On the consideration of automatic as well as controlled psychological processes in aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 34, Bugental, D. B., Ellerson, P. C., Lin, E. K., Rainey, B., Kokotovic, A., & O Hara, N. (2002). A cognitive approach to child abuse prevention. Journal of Family Psychology, 16, Chilamkurti, C., & Milner, J. S. (1993). Perceptions and evaluations of child transgressions and disciplinary techniques in high- and lowrisk mothers and their children. Child Development, 64, Crouch, J. L., & Milner, J. S. (2005). The social information processing model of child physical abuse: A conceptual model for prevention and intervention strategies. In K. Kendall-Tackett & S. Giacomoni (Eds.), Child victimization: Maltreatment, bullying and dating violence prevention and intervention strategies (Chapter 19) (pp. 1 19). Kingston: Civic Research Institute. Dodge, K. A. (2006). Translational science in action: hostile attributional style and the development of aggressive behavior problems. Develompent and Psychopathology, 18, Dolz, L., Cerezo, M. M., & Milner, J. S. (1997). Mother-child interactional patterns in high- and low-risk mothers. Child Abuse & Neglect, 21, Dopke, C. A., & Milner, J. S. (2000). Impact of child noncompliance on stress appraisals, attributions, and disciplinary choices in mothers at high and low risk for child physical abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 24, Dopke, C. A., Lundahl, B. W., Dunsterville, E., & Lovejoy, M. C. (2003). Interpretations of child compliance in individuals at highand low-risk for child physical abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 27, Farc, M., Crouch, J. L., Skowronski, J. S., & Milner, J. S. (2008). Hostility ratings for children at risk for child abuse: impact of chronic and temporary schema activation. Child Abuse and Neglect, 32, Haskett, M. E., Scott, S. S., & Fann, K. D. (1995). Child abuse potential inventory and parenting behavior: relationships with high-risk correlates. Child Abuse & Neglect, 19, McCurdy, K. (1995). Risk assessment in child abuse prevention programs. Social Work Research, 19(2), Miller, B. A., Smyth, N. J., & Mudar, P. J. (1999). Mothers alcohol and other drug problems and their punitiveness toward their children. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 60, Milner, J. (1986). The child abuse potential inventory: Manual (2nd ed.). Webster: Psytec. Milner, J. S. (1993). Social information processing and physical child abuse. Clinical Psychology Review, 13, Milner, J. S. (1994). Assessing physical child abuse risk: the child abuse potential inventory. Clinical Psychology Review, 14, Milner, J. S. (2000). Social information processing and child physical abuse: Theory and research. In D. J. Hansen (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation, 46 (pp ). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Milner, J. S. (2003). Social information processing in high-risk and physically abusive parents. Child Abuse & Neglect, 27, Milner, J. S. (2004). The Child Abuse Potential (CAP) inventory. In D. L. Seal & S. Beers (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of psychological assessment: Vol. 2. Personality assessment and psychopathology. New York: Wiley. Monroe, L. D., & Schellenbach, C. J. (1989). Relationship of child abuse potential inventory scores to parental responses: a construct validity study. Child and Family Behavior Therapy, 11, Montes, M. P., de Paul, J., & Milner, J. S. (2001). Evaluations, attributions, affect, and disciplinary choices in mothers at high and low risk for child physical abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 25, Nayak, M., & Milner, J. S. (1998). Neuropsychological functioning: comparison of parents at hlgh- and low-risk for child physical abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 22,

8 80 J Fam Viol (2010) 25:73 80 Sachs, B., & Hall, L. A. (1991). Maladaptive mother-child relationships: a pilot study. Public Nursing, 8, Schellenbach, C., Monroe, L., & Merluzzi, T. (1991). The impact of stress on cognitive components of child abuse potential. Journal of Family Violence, 6, Todorov, A., & Bargh, J. (2002). Automatic sources of aggression. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 7, Whissell, C., Lewko, J., Carreire, R., & Radford, J. (1990). Test scores and sociodemographic information as predictors of child abuse potential scores in young female adults. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 5, Wilson, S. R., Brown, V. K., Bylund, C., Hayes, J., Herman, A., & Behl, L. (2000). Mothers trait verbal aggressiveness and child abuse potential. Paper presented at the meeting of the Central States Communication Association, Cincinnati. Zelenko, M. A., Huffman, L. C., Lock, J., Kennedy, Q., & Steiner, H. (2001). Poor adolescent expectant mothers: can we assess their potential for child abuse? Journal of Adolescent Health, 29, Zelli, A., Huesmann, L. R., & Cervone, D. (1995). Social inference and individual differences in aggression: evidence for spontaneous judgments of hostility. Aggressive Behavior, 21, Zelli, A., Cervone, D., & Huesmann, L. R. (1996). Behavioral experience and social inference: individual differences in aggressive experience and spontaneous versus deliberate trait inference. Social Cognition, 14,