Child Abuse in Stepfamilies

Author(s): Jean Giles-Sims and David Finkelhor

Source: Family Relations, Vol. 33, No. 3, Remarriage and Stepparenting (Jul., 1984), pp. 407-413
Published by: National Council on Family Relations
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/584711
Accessed: 05-11-2015 12:52 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

National Council on Family Relations and Wiley are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Family Relations.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 130.56.64.29 on Thu, 05 Nov 2015 12:52:30 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Child Abuse in Stepfamilies*
JEAN GILES-SIMSAND DAVIDFINKELHOR**
There is an often repeated presumption that children are at increased risk of abuse
at the hands of stepparents. This paper tries to initiate a more formal examination of
the evidence and theory related to this idea. Although evidence from reported cases
suggests that stepparents are overrepresented among abusers, the available data are
inadequate to determine the nature of the relationship between the stepfamily struc-
ture and child abuse. Five theories that can or have been used to explain this pre-
sumed relationship are evaluated here: social-evolutionary, normative, stress, selec-
tion and resource theory.

Fairy tales such as Cinderella and Hansel
and Gretel have dramatized and perhaps per-
petuated a widely held presumption that chil-
dren are at high risk of abuse in stepfamilies.
The idea seems almost accepted as fact, yet it
has never been adequately tested. The dual
purpose of this paper is to examine the data
which can be marshalled to support the exis-
tence of a relationship between stepparenting
and child abuse, and to review theories that
have been or could be forwarded to explain this
relationship.
The earliest systematic inquiries into the
characteristics of child abusers implicated
nontraditional type family structures, including
the single parent family and the stepfamily. In
Gil's (1970) landmark survey of reported cases
of abuse, for example, he found a large amount
of abuse by stepfathers. Stepfathers in that
study constituted a third of the fathers or
*The authors would like to thank Murray Straus, Gerald
Hotaling and other members of the Family Violence Research
Seminar, UNH, for helpful comments on an earlier draft of this
paper, and Ruth Miller, Shirley Parshley, and Elaine Hashem
for help in preparing the manuscript. Part of the work on this
paper was made possible by grants from the National Institute
of Mental Health (MH34109), National Center for Child Abuse
and Neglect (90CA840), and Research Office of the University
of New Hampshire. This is one of a series of articles on family
violence written by associates of the Family Violence
Research Program. A list of publications can be obtained by
contacting the Program Administrator.
**Jean Giles-Sims is Assistant Professor of Sociology,
Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, TX 76129. David
Finkelhor is Associate Director of the Family Violence
Research Program, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH
03824.
Key Concepts: child abuse, resource theory, sexual abuse,
social-evolutionary perspective, stepfamilies, stress theory.
(Family Relations, 1984, 33, 407-413.)
father substitutes who were involved as per-
petrators of child abuse. Similar findings have
been replicated in a number of other studies
using reported cases (Burgess & Garbarino,
1983; Johnson, 1974; Justice & Justice, 1976;
Kimball, Stewart, Conger & Burgess, 1980;
Maden, 1980; Martin & Walters, 1982; Phelan &
Joyce, 1980; Wilson, Daly & Weghorst, 1980)
and are widely cited by reviewers (Maden &
Wrench, 1977).
These studies, unfortunately, are confined
entirely to officially reported cases. A recent
study bearing similar findings has partly tran-
scended that limitation. The National Inci-
dence (NI) Study (1981) advanced previous ef-
forts and collected national data on child
abuse, identifying cases which were officially
reported, and those that came to professional
attention but not officially reported. It also
used a clear, rigorous and uniform definition of
child abuse, and the random selection of coun-
ties allowed for more accurate statistical
generalization on a national level.
In this study of child abuse, data were
gathered in two ways. First, researchers made
a careful audit of cases coming to the attention
of child protective agencies during a one year
period in each of the 26 counties chosen to be
representative of all counties in the U.S.' Sec-
ond, other official investigatory agencies such
as police departments and community profes-
sionals (e.g., teachers and public health
workers) in each county were asked to partici-
'The 26 counties were selected in a five stage procedure.
The procedure stratified states and counties by region and size
to allow for the selection of 1 county from the 11 largest coun-
ties in the country, 1 county from among the 28 next largest
counties, and 1 small, 1 medium and 1 large county from each
of 8 randomly chosen states (National Incidence Study, 1981,
pp. 3-4).

July 1984 FAMILY RELATIONS 407

This content downloaded from 130.56.64.29 on Thu, 05 Nov 2015 12:52:30 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Table 1.
Stepparents and Natural Parents as Perpetrators In Three Types of Child Abuse
% of cases involvinga
Physical Sexual Emotional All Forms
Perpetrator Abuse Abuse Abuse of Abuse
Stepfather 15 30 21 18
Father 45 28 38 40
Stepmother 3 1 13 6
Mother 66 43 71 64
Source: National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect (1981).
aColumns sum to more than 100 because many cases of abuse involve more than one perpetrator.

pate. Researchers left forms at various agen-
cies that could be completed anonymously by
workers, or workers could call a toll free WATS
line number to report a case of child abuse. Na-
tional estimates were generated from the 26
representative counties through an elaborate
weighting procedure.
Despite its name and its elaborate method-
ology, however, this study is still not a true "in-
cidence" study in the most usual sense of that
word. The study did not include cases known
only to people in the community other than
professionals, or cases known only to the child
and the perpetrator. This is a critical limitation
because estimates from general population
surveys suggest that the majority of child
abuse is of this sort, i.e., unreported to profes-
sionals (Straus, Gelles & Steinmetz, 1980).
Cases not coming to professional attention
probably differ in systematic ways from those
known to professionals, injecting possible bias
into the study. Another problem with the study
was that in some counties, researchers were
unable to elicit full professional cooperation.2
For these reasons, data from the NI study can-
not be said to portray the true nature of child
abuse with any confidence. However, as the
best available data to date on the incidence of
child abuse in stepfamilies, the findings from
this study are worth presenting here in more
detai 1.
The National Incidence Study findings
reported in Table 1 show the percent of step-
parents and natural parents identified as abuse
perpetrators by type of abuse. (The percent-
ages sum to more than 100% because in many
cases of abuse more than one parent was in-
volved.) As can be seen, stepfathers were in-
volved in 18% of the cases and stepmothers in
6%. Stepfathers were particularly common
among sexual abusers, where they actually
0Overall,87% of the agencies which were solicited did parti-
cipate in the study, but this figure hides some glaring omis-
sions. For example, one of the largest hospitals in one of the
largest cities-an institution that receives many reports of
abuse-did not participate.Moreover,in some urbanareas, up
to a third of all children attended privateschools, which were
not included in the study (National Incidence Study, 1981, p.
72).
outnumbered natural father abusers (30% vs.
28/%).3
Unfortunately, the information in Table 1 is
not adequate in itself to answer the question of
whether stepparents are disproportionately
represented among child abusers. One also
needs to know how many stepparents we
would expect in such statistics if stepparents
were no more abusive than other parents.
Glick's (1979) estimate from census data sug-
gests that in 1978 1 in 10 children lived with a
stepparent, in most cases a stepfather. This
suggests that if stepparents were no more like-
ly to abuse their children than natural parents,
approximately 10% of stepparents would be
identified in the abuse statistics presented in
Table 1, and that more stepfathers would be im-
plicated in abuse than stepmothers. Inspection
of the actual figures indicates that stepfathers
were significantly overrepresented in abuse
cases, and that more stepfathers were per-
petrators of abuse than stepmothers.
However, problems arise with using these
estimates as a basis for comparison. First,
Glick (1979) only counted stepparents who
were living with the stepchildren. Many chil-
dren have stepparents with whom they do not
live but who still may abuse them. Including
these noncustodial parents in the estimate
would raise the comparison figure above 10%.
Second, using Glick's estimates fails to take
into account social class and its relation to
child abuse. Divorce rates are higher at lower
socio-economic statuses (Norton & Glick,
1979) as are fertility rates (U.S. Bureau of the
Census, 1974). Also, persons with lower educa-
tion are most likely to remarry following a
divorce (Spanier & Glick, 1980). Together, these
findings suggest that the proportion of chil-
dren living with a stepparent is significantly
higher at lower socio-economic status levels
than the 10% estimated for the total popula-
tion. Suppose that instead of 10%, the propor-
'The seemingly high proportionof mothers involved in sex-
ual abuse, 43%, stems from a decision-in our view mis-
taken-to cite mothers as sexual abuse perpetrators if they
contributed to the abuse by knowingly putting the child in a
high risk situation. For more discussion on this point, see
Finkelhorand Hotaling, 1983.

408 FAMILY RELATIONS July 1984

This content downloaded from 130.56.64.29 on Thu, 05 Nov 2015 12:52:30 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
tion of children with a stepparent in lower
socio-economic statuses was as high as
20-30%. In this case, the figures in Table 1
would not necessarily reflect an overrepresen-
tation of stepfathers among child abusers. The
high percentages for stepfathers would stem
from the overrepresentation of stepparents
among lower socio-economic groups. The ma-
jority of child abuse reports come from lower
socio-economic groups (Gil, 1970; Johnson,
1974). Adequate testing of whether children are
at an unusually high risk of abuse from step-
parents requires data on rates of abuse in dif-
ferent family structures controlling for many
socio-demographic characteristics, including
household size and income levels. Until this is
done, the question of whether stepfamilies are
high risk environments for child abuse cannot
be definitely settled.
Theories of Abuse in Stepfamilies
Considering many researchers have noted
the high rates of abuse in stepfamilies, it is
curious that the relationship has attracted little
theoretical attention. Even when theoretical
arguments have been applied, such attempts
have lacked rigor. Therefore, in addition to
reviewing explicitly articulated theories, our
review here extends to theoretical arguments
which have been forwarded only by inference,
but provide promise for further exploration.
Some of the theories of the connection be-
tween stepfamilies and abuse pertain primarily
to physical abuse and others primarily to sex-
ual abuse. Although physical and sexual abuse
are often lumped together as child abuse, they
are very different phenomena with different
causes. Here, we will address how the theoreti-
cal arguments pertain to each type of abuse
separately.
Social-Evolutionary Theory
The social-evolutionary (sometimes referred
to as socio-biological) perspective predicts
that stepchildren are more likely to be both
physically and sexually abused than natural
children, using different arguments to explain
each type of abuse. The prediction about physi-
cal abuse derives from the theoretical hypothe-
sis concerning parental investment, a concept
central to the social-evolutionary perspective.
Parental investment has been defined as "any
investment by the parent in an individual off-
spring that increases the offspring's chance of
surviving (and hence reproductive success) at
the cost of the parent's ability to invest in other
offspring" (Trivers, 1971, p. 139).
This group of researchers argues that step-
parents have lesser investment in and there-
fore are more likely to physically abuse nonbio-
logical children (particularly when resources
are scarce), because those children do not
carry on their genes (Burgess & Garbarino,
1983; Daly & Wilson, 1980; Wilson, Daly &
July 1984 FAMILY RELATIONS
This content downloaded from 130.56.64.29 on Thu, 05 Nov 2015 12:52:30 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Weghorst, 1980). There are, however, at least
two problems with this explanation of physical
abuse of stepchildren.
First, this theoretical perspective cannot ac-
count for abuse of natural children except in
situations of scarce resources where certain
children in the family are genetically or in other
ways inferior. Second, and more importantly,
the argument about parental investment is in-
ternally contradictory as applied to physical
abuse. If parents physically abuse stepchil-
dren, unless the stepchild dies-and few do-
the injuries resulting from the abuse are likely
to lead to an increased demand on parental
resources. Stepparents, theoretically, would
more likely avoid behavior which increases the
burden the child places on them. This argu-
ment might be more applicable to the issue of
neglect of stepchildren than to physical abuse.
The social-evolutionary perspective also has
an argument to explain the greatervulnerability
of children to sexual abuse by stepparents. Ac-
cording to the theory, inbreeding reduces
fitness. Thus the process of evolution has lead
to the survival of individuals living in social
groups which have some mechanism that in-
hibits such inbreeding. One of the theoretical
mechanisms suggested is an incest aversion
that is "pre-cultural and involves negative im-
printing on intimate associates during a critical
period of early childhood (between roughly two
and six years of age)" (van den Berghe, 1983).
Evidence for this mechanism rests on studies
of sexual avoidance among co-reared kibbutz
children (Shepher, 1971) and co-reared adop-
tive daughter-in-law marriages in Taiwan (Wolf,
1966). Because stepparents would be less like-
ly to be present in the child's life during the
critical period, the negative imprinting would
less likely occur, and thus incest with a step-
parent becomes more probable.
There are a number of problems with this
theory. First, all the evidence about the
presumed imprinting mechanism-meager as
it is-comes from studies of sexual inhibition
among peers. There is no evidence that such a
mechanism operates in a situation where one
partner is a child and the other an adult. More-
over, the inhibition is proposed to operate on
the child during the critical period (age 2-6),
not the adult. What it says in effect is that
daughters would initiate less, and resist sexual
encounters more with natural fathers than
stepfathers. However, the research on father-
daughter incest does not make this a plausible
explanation of the frequency of incest with
stepfathers. Incest is almost always initiated
by the parent, and generally evokes discomfort
and confusion, if not outright revulsion in the
child toward whom it is directed (Herman,
1981). Even the possibility that natural daugh-
ters might resist more strenuously does not
seem convincing in view of the fact that so
much incest occurs in spite of children's resis-
409
tance. An explanation of the high frequency of
stepfather incest from a social-evolutionary
theory needs to propose a mechanism that
creates lower inhibition in the father, not the
child.
Because the social-evolutionary perspective
is in the early stages of development and little
concrete evidence is available to support the
theoretical propositions suggested, it is diffi-
cult to assess the contributions of this theory
to explaining child abuse in stepfamilies. Other
theories yet to be discussed offer explanations
of child abuse in stepfamilies that are more
parsimonious and amenable to empirical in-
vestigation. At the same time these theories
may not be incompatible with the basic
premises of the social-evolutionary perspec-
tive.
Normative Theory
A common theoretical argument to explain
the higher rates of sexual abuse by stepfathers
suggests that stepfathers-as nonblood rela-
tions-are subject to weaker normative taboos
against incest. Since incest is a relatively
strong prohibition in human societies, the
taboo would appear to be stronger for blood
relations than for nonblood kin (Tierney & Cor-
win, 1983). The relative weakness of taboos
against incest with a stepchild could be par-
ticularly critical, because stepparents (like
parents) are in roles which provide an authority
position and opportunities for exploitation of
children (Garbarino & Gilliam, 1980).
The normative theory of sexual abuse by
stepparents is consistent with a social-evolu-
tionary perspective which argues that the
justification of incest taboos is to avoid
genetic degradation. However, the normative
argument does not require a biologically based
assumption. Incest with nonblood kin may be
less taboo in many cultures for any number of
reasons.
The normative theory has common sense
validity for many people. Yet, there is little em-
pirical evidence to support it. In many Ameri-
can jurisdictions, laws proscribing incest do
not apply to steprelations (Wulkan & Bulkey,
1981), suggesting that the taboo is absent or
weaker. However, no attitude survey exists, to
the authors' knowledge, showing that the
taboo on sex with dependent children is
weaker for stepparents. Even if such attitudes
could be documented, it is not certain they
would explain the observed high frequency of
stepfather incest. A recent study demon-
strated little correlation between the strength
of taboos against various forms of incest and
the relative frequency of occurrences
(Finkelhor & Redfield, 1982). For example,
father-daughter incest is considered more
taboo by American respondents than is
mother-son incest, yet it is more frequent.
Although there are theoretical suggestions
410 FAMILY RELATIONS
This content downloaded from 130.56.64.29 on Thu, 05 Nov 2015 12:52:30 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
that norms and sanctions differ for parents and
stepparents, a major question has yet to be ful-
ly explored: Do normative taboos against sex-
ual, or even physical, abuse of children differ
for parents and stepparents? If so, how do they
differ?
Stress Theory
The theory that higher stress levels are
responsible for the increased risk of abuse in
stepfamilies has both theoretical and empirical
support (Justice & Justice, 1976; Straus et al.,
1980). Although the relationship between
stress level and child abuse within stepfami-
lies has not been specifically tested, it is well
documented that stepfamilies experience
stress, and that stress is related to child abuse.
Higher rates of both physical and sexual
abuse among stepfamilies could be related to
the unique stresses present in those families.
Remarried families containing children from
prior marriages must solve problems un-
familiar to other types of families (Cherlin,
1978). There are few institutionalized guide-
lines for solving the unique problems of this
family structure including appropriate kinship
terms, authority to discipline stepchildren, and
family loyalty (Nelson & Nelson, 1982). Step-
parents also experience contradictory
pressures to assume some aspects of the
parental role and to refrain from others
(Cherlin, 1978; Fast & Cain, 1966; Keshet, 1980;
Maddox, 1975; Rallings, 1976). Without estab-
lished guidelines, there are more opportunities
for disagreements and stress associated with
conflicting values and beliefs (Visher & Visher,
1979).
The unique problems stepfamilies face may
create stress levels higher than those in intact
families. Pasley and Ihinger-Tallman (1982) in a
recent review postulated three main causes of
stress in remarried families: (1) clashing of
family cultures, (b) differing perceptions of
how the family's time, energy, material goods
and affections should be shared, and (c) feel-
ings of loyalty to current and prior family mem-
bers. High stress levels may act as an interven-
ing variable to explain high reported abuse
rates in stepfamilies. There is empirical evi-
dence from the national survey of violence in
American families (Straus et al., 1980) linking
stress and the physical abuse of children.
Justice and Justice (1976) also found a positive
association between crises or major life
changes and child abuse. The connection be-
tween stress and sexual child abuse has not
been empirically demonstrated to the same ex-
tent, but it is frequently mentioned in the litera-
ture (Tierney and Corwin, 1983).
Stress theory accounts for more of the corre-
lates of child abuse than either social-evolu-
tionary or normative theory. Specifically, it
helps explain the correlation between child
abuse and low family income, large family size,
July 1984
and family disruption. For these reasons, the
testing of the implications of stress theory
should actively focus on the following: Is child
abuse in stepfamilies associated with com-
paratively high levels of stress following a re-
marriage? How do some stepfamilies manage
to minimize stress? Where stress is minimized,
does it decrease the likelihood of chiid abuse?
Selection Factors
Still another theoretical possibility is that
the association between stepfamilies and
cases of child abuse is spurious, and that there
are common antecedent conditions to both.
Besides the socio-demographic variables men-
tioned earlier, it may be that the same factors
which make people prone to divorce and remar-
riage also make them prone to abuse children.
For example, people with individual character-
istics such as a tendency toward violence or
sexual deviance may be overrepresented
among stepparents, because such characteris-
tics played a part in the termination of their
previous marriage. Such characteristics would
also contribute to their high rates of child
abuse in the new marriage.
Research has indicated that physical
abusers are often emotionally disturbed, have
difficulty in dealing with aggressive impulses,
and have low self-esteem and/or a tendency to
be rigid and domineering (Elmer, 1967; John-
son & Morse, 1968; Spinetta & Rigler, 1972;
Wasserman, 1967). Sexual abusers are cited as
persons who have impulse control problems,
are authoritarian, have alcohol problems, have
difficulty empathizing, and have low self-
esteem (Meiselman, 1978). Such persons are
likely to have difficulty in their marital relation-
ships which may in turn lead to higher rates of
divorce and remarriage. Thus, people entering
remarriage and forming stepfamilies after
divorce may be more abusive people than
those who do not divorce.
The idea that people available for remarriage
may be more violence prone is supported by
studies of divorcing couples. These couples
report that violence occurred in a large number
of their marriages (Levinger, 1966). Survey data
from the general population indicate that per-
sons who have been violent to a spouse are
also likely to use violence in child rearing
(Straus et al., 1980). This tendency toward
abusiveness could conceivably have been
something learned and reinforced in the first
marriage or prior to that marriage.
An argument made to support the theory of
selection factors is that remarriages are also
subject to high rates of divorce because people
who are unstable or ill suited for family life are
overrepresented among the remarried. How-
ever, this argument has been criticized be-
cause it overlooks the fact that divorce and re-
marriage may be an indication of desire for a
better family life situation. Nonpathological
July1984 FAMILY RELATIONS
This content downloaded from 130.56.64.29 on Thu, 05 Nov 2015 12:52:30 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
factors may be more important in explaining
the high divorce rate for remarrieds (see
Cherlin, 1978; Furstenberg, 1979; Goetting,
1982). At this point, however, no empirical evi-
dence is availabe to test whether any common
antecedent condition exists which explains the
association between stepfamilies and reported
cases of abuse. Further work should take
selection factors into consideration.
Resource Theory
A final theoretical approach to explaining
higher rates of child abuse by stepparents is
resource theory. According to this theory, the
more resources a person can command, the
more power and authority that person has at
his/her disposal to regulate a social system.
Therefore the less likely he/she is to resort to
physical force to get his/her way (Goode, 1971).
A person who contributes needed resources to
a system is granted authority. In contrast,
when a person lacks resources, the social
system often resists granting him/her authori-
ty. Then violence is more likely to be used to
gain desired needs. This is particularly true
when a person feels that he/she has a right to
authority, but resources are insufficient to gain
it voluntarily (Gelles & Straus, 1979).
This theory, when applied to physical abuse
of stepchildren, focuses on the legitimacy of
the power position of stepparents and at the
dynamics within stepfamilies which may block
a stepparent from a position of authority.
Authority may come from many types of re-
sources, e.g., economic resources or parenting
skills. Theoretically, the more valued resources
the stepparent brings into the family, the more
likely it is that he/she will be granted authority.
Examples of this would include a stepparent
who significantly improves the overall well-
being of the new family with money, kindness,
generosity or love. On the other hand, when a
stepparent does not bring new resources,
either financial or interpersonal, to the family,
the stepparent is less likely to be granted a
position of authority. Even when a stepparent
does bring resources, a family may refuse to
recognize his/her authority for other reasons
(Keshet, 1980). This blocking of authority may
be particularly frustrating for stepfathers
because of the expectation that fathers should
be the head of household. Resource theory
suggests that when a stepparent wants
authority but does not have the resources to
earn it, he or she may resort to the use of
violence to gain control (Goode, 1971).
Although the resource theory of power has
been applied to the use of violence in general,
it has not, to our knowledge, been directly
tested in regard to stepfamilies. The theory
does lead to several relevant and important
research questions: Does the rate of child
abuse in stepfamilies vary with the authority
granted to the stepparent? Does the rate of
411
child abuse by stepparents vary with the
amount of resources contributed by the step-
parent? Is child abuse related to resistance in
the natural parent-child subsystem to accept-
ing the authority of the stepparent?
Synthesizing Theories of Child Abuse in
Stepfamilies
The theories discussed here are those which
might help explain the differences in reported
child abuse rates between stepfamilies and in-
tact families. There are other relevant theories
of child abuse (Gelles & Straus, 1979) not in-
cluded here because they are less germane to
explaining these differences.
The theories presented are not necessarily
competing theories, nor are they mutually ex-
clusive. Therefore, it is not necessarily appro-
priate to devise research with the goal of vali-
dating one theory at the expense of another. A
more productive approach may be to try to syn-
thesize the concepts from among theories to
create the most effective explanation of child
abuse in stepfamilies. Our review suggests two
priorities.
First, priority in future research should be
given to gathering data from the general
population which can be analyzed to deter-
mine: (a) the actual rates of child abuse in step-
families compared to other families, and (b)
selection factors which explain both the rates
of remarriage and rates of child abuse. Al-
though many studies have reported higher
rates of physical and sexual abuse in stepfami-
lies, all of the available studies are based on
reported cases of abuse and none have pro-
vided adequate data to assess the possible
confounding of socio-demographic factors and
rates of child abuse. In addition, the personal
history of violence and individual character-
istics of abusers need to be studied to deter-
mine if they also are confounded with family
structure, thus producing higher reported rates
of child abuse in stepfamilies.
Second, research priority should be given to
testing certain empirical questions derived
from the theories reviewed here. Special em-
phasis should be given to four factors: (a) the
objective and the relative level of economic
resources available to the family, (b) the nature
of norms for the stepparent role and the
strength of sanctions associated with those
norms, (c) the differential use of resources to
benefit natural children over stepchildren, par-
ticularly when overall resources are scarce,
and (d) the link between the extent of and ac-
ceptance of the stepparent's authority and
child abuse.
Stress theory, resource theory and the
social-evolutionary theory all emphasize the
link between resources and child abuse. How-
ever, stress theory and resource theory do not
require the assumption of a biologically based
cause. In contrast, social-evolutionary theory
412 FAMILY RELATIONS
This content downloaded from 130.56.64.29 on Thu, 05 Nov 2015 12:52:30 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
argues that abuse of stepchildren is ultimately
caused by an evolutionary process that favors
expending resources on natural children over
stepchildren to increase the chances of those
children passing on their genes. Stress theory
and resource theory emphasize that the link be-
tween resources and child abuse can be
demonstrated within a variety of family struc-
tures. These theories also emphasize that
higher stress levels within stepfamilies and the
limitation of resources and rejection of the
authority of stepparents explain the higher
rates of child abuse in stepfamilies.
Stress theory, resource theory and social-
evolutionary theory are not necessarily con-
tradictory. According to each of these theories,
child abuse in stepfamilies can be reduced by
altering the resources of the family as a whole
or that of individual family members. However,
the implications of the social-evolutionary per-
spective for elimination of child abuse among
stepparents are less optimistic. If the ultimate
cause is biologically inherited, it is hard to af-
fect change by altering present conditions.
Also, it is important to evaluate the heuristic
value of different theories. The hypotheses of
normative theory, stress theory and resource
theory are more amenable to empirical investi-
gation than those of social-evolutionary theory.
Also, they are more fruitful for further specifi-
cation of the processes that lead to children
being abused in stepfamilies. Therefore, these
perspectives are more likely to identify goals
for constructive intervention. For example, if
weak norms against sexual abuse by step-
parents create a potential for violations as
predicted by normative theory, then norms and
their legal sanctions can be changed. More-
over, if stress caused by conflicting expecta-
tions is at the root of some child abuse, the
families can be counseled to define their ex-
pectations more clearly and to act in consis-
tent ways to reduce overall stress levels. As
the number of stepfamilies increase, expecta-
tions for stepparents should become more
clearly defined. If conflicts over authority play
a part in child abuse then stepparents can be
counseled to avoid the frustration of wanting a
position of authority too soon, and finding it
blocked by other family members.4
In conclusion, no one factor or set of factors
may be sufficient to explain child abuse in
stepfamilies. Further research on the combina-
tion of empirical questions suggested by all of
these theories is most likely to further our
understanding of this issue. We suggest that
those factors most amenable to manipulation
and alteration through intervention receive
priority attention.
4See D. Mills in this special issue for a discussion of this
idea.
July 1984

REFERENCES
Burgess, R. L., & Garbarino,J. (1983). Doing what comes
naturally?An evolutionary perspective on child abuse. In
D. Finkelhor, R. J. Gelles, G. T. Hotaling, & M. A. Straus
(Eds.), The dark side of families: Currentfamily violence
research (pp.88-101). Beverly Hills: Sage.
Cherlin, A. (1978). Remarriageas an incomplete institution.
AmericanJournal of Sociology, 84(3),634-650.
Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (1980). Discriminative parental solici-
tude: A biological perspective. Journal of Marriageand the
Family,42(2),277-288.
Elmer, E. (1967). Children in jeopardy: A study of abused
minors and their families. Pittsburgh: University of Pitts-
burgh Press.
Fast, I., &Cain, A. C. (1966).The stepparent role: Potential for
disturbances in family functioning. American Journal of
Othopsychiatry,36, 485-491.
Finkelhor,D., & Hotaling,G. T. (1983).Sexual abuse in the Na-
tional Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect. Final
reportto the National Center for Child Abuse and Neglect.
Finkelhor,D., & Redfield, D. (1982).Public definitions of child
sexual abuse. Unpublished paper, Universityof New Hamp-
shire.
Furstenberg, F. F. (1979). Recycling the family. Marriageand
Family Review, 2(3), 12-22.
Garbarino, J., & Gilliam, G. (1980). Understanding Abusive
Families. Lexington, MA:Lexington Books.
Gelles, R. J., &Straus, M.A. (1979).Determinantsof violence in
the family:Towarda theoretical integration. In W. R. Burr,
R. Hill, F. I. Nye, & I. L. Reiss (Eds.),Contemporarytheories
about the family (pp. 549-559). New York:The Free Press.
Gil, D. (1970). Violence against children:Physical child abuse
in the United States. Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress.
Glick, P. C. (1979).Childrenof divorced parents in demographic
perspective. Journal of Social Issues, 35(4), 170-182.
Goetting, A. (1982). The six stations of remarriage:Develop-
mental tasks of remarriageafter divorce. Family Relations,
31, 213-222.
Goode, W.J. (1971).Force and violence in the family.Journalof
Marriageand the Family,33, 624-636.
Herman,J. (1981).Father daugher incest. Cambridge:Harvard
UniversityPress.
Johnson, B., & Morse, H. A. (1968). Injuredchildren and their
parents. Children,15, 147-152.
Johnson, C. L. (1974). Child abuse irnthe Southeast. Athens,
GA: Regional Institute of Social Welfare Research, Univer-
sity of Georgia.
Justice, B., &Justice, R. (1976).Theabusing family. New York:
HumanSciences Press.
Keshet, J. K. (1980).Fromseparation to stepfamily. Journalof
FamilyIssues, 1(4),517-532.
Kimball,W. H., Stewart, R. B., Conger, R. D., & Burgess, R. L.
(1980).A comparison of family interaction in single versus
two parent abusive, neglectful and normal families. In
R. Field, S. Goldberg, D. Stern, &A. Sostek (Eds.),High risk
infants and children:Adultand peer interactions (pp.43-59).
New York:AcademicPress.
Levinger,G. (1966).Sources of maritalsatisfaction among ap-
plicants for divorce. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry,
36, 804-806.
July 1984 FAMILY RELATIONS
This content downloaded from 130.56.64.29 on Thu, 05 Nov 2015 12:52:30 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Maddox, B. (1975). The half-parent: Living with other people's
children. New York: Evans.
Maden, M. (1980). Disposition of reported child abuse. Sara-
toga, CA: Century 21 Press.
Maden, M. F., & Wrench, D. F. (1977). Significant findings in
child abuse research. Victimology, 2(2), 196-224.
Martin, M. J., & Walters, J. (1982). Familial correlates of
selected types of child abuse and neglect. Journal of Mar-
riage and the Family, 44, 267-276.
Meiselman, K. (1978). Incest. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
National Incidence Study on Child Abuse and Neglect. (1981).
Washington: National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect.
Nelson, M., & Nelson, G. K. (1982). Problems of equity in the
reconstituted family: A social exchange analysis. Family
Relations, 31(2), 223-231.
Norton, A., & Glick, P. (1979). Marital instability in America:
Past, present, and future. In G. Levinger, & 0. C. Moles
(Eds.), Divorce and separation: Context, causes, and conse-
quences (pp. 6-19). New York: Basic Books.
Pasley, K., & Ihinger-Tallman, M. (1982). Stress in second fami-
lies. Family Perspective, 16, 81-86.
Phelan, R., & Joyce, B. (1980). The CSATP program model:
Clients, treatment and family growth. Unpublished report of
an inquiry into the Child Sexual Abuse Treatment Program
through interviews with counselors. Palo Alto, CA: The
Scripps Center.
Rallings, E. M. (1976). The special role of stepfather. The Fami-
ly Coordinator, 25, 445-449.
Shepher, J. (1971). Mate selection among second generation
Kibbutz adolescents and adults. Archives of Sexual Behav-
ior, 1, 293-307.
Spanier, G. B., & Glick, P. C. (1980). Paths to remarriage. Jour-
nal of Divorce, 3(3), 283-298.
Spinetta, J. J., & Rigler, D. (1972). The child abusing parent: A
psychological review. Psychological Bulletin, 77, 296-304.
Straus, M. A., Gelles, R. J., & Steinmetz, S. K. (1980). Behind
closed doors: Violence in the American family. Garden City,
NY: Doubleday/Anchor Press.
Tierney, K. J., & Corwin, D. L. (1983). Exploring intra-familial
child sexual abuse: A systems approach. In D. Finkelhor,
R. J. Gelles, G. T. Hotaling, & M. A. Straus (Eds.), The dark
side of families: Current family violence research, (pp.
102-116). Beverly Hills: Sage.
Trivers, R. L. (1971). Parental investment and sexual selection.
In B. Campbell, (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of
man: 1871-1971 (pp. 136-179). Chicago: Aldine.
U. S. Bureau of the Census. (1974, July). Current Population Re-
ports, Series p-23 No. 48.
van den Berghe, P. (1983). Human inbreeding avoidance: Cul-
ture in nature. The Behavior and Brain Sciences, 6, 91-123.
Visher, E. B., & Visher, J. S. (1979). Stepfamilies: A guide to
working with stepparents and stepchildren. New York: Brun-
ner Mazel.
Wasserman, S. (1967). The abused parent of the abused child.
Children, 14, 175-179.
Wilson, M., Daly, M., & Weghorst, S. J. (1980). Household com-
position and the risk of child abuse and neglect. Journal of
Biosocial Science, 12, 333-340.
Wolf, A. P. (1966). Childhood association, sexual attraction and
the incest taboo: A Chinese case. American Anthropologist,
50, 383-398.
Wulkan, D., & Bulkey, J. (1981). Analysis of incest statutes. In
J. Bulkey, (Ed.), Child sexual abuse and the law (pp. 52-80).
Washington: American Bar Association.
413