Child Maltreatment History and Interpersonal Problems in Adult Couple Relationships

Abstract

This study examines the relationship between interpersonal problems in adult couple relationships and childhood maltreatment in a sample of 1,728 university students who completed an online questionnaire. Victims of maltreatment reported higher levels of couple interpersonal problems. Also, the experience of childhood maltreatment is more strongly associated with couple interpersonal difficulties for males than for females. For females, emotional neglect is more consistently related to couple interpersonal problems, including problems with being nonassertive, distant, and self-sacrificing. For males, physical abuse is significantly associated with the likelihood of being domineering, distant, and self-sacrificing. The issue of how the different forms of maltreatment might contribute differently to couple interpersonal problems for males and females is addressed and discussed.

KEYWORDS:

• adult intimate relationships
• child abuse
• childhood emotional abuse
• childhood physical abuse
• childhood sexual abuse
• interpersonal problems
• maltreatment
• neglect

Both attachment theory (Bowlby, 1969/1982) and complex trauma theory (Herman, 1992) support the idea that childhood abuse and neglect can have a powerful impact on how individuals construct their lives and their relationships (see Riggs, 2010). Childhood maltreatment often involves those most needed by the victims. For instance, in cases of physical or sexual abuse, the parent can evoke intense fear, helplessness, and horror, and simultaneously be the person from whom the child seeks protection. These experiences can irrevocably shape the way victims define the world and themselves, and can impact their interpersonal relationships as adults. A deeper understanding of the difficulties arising within couple relationships in victims of childhood maltreatment is even more important because an intimate relationship can provide adult survivors an ideal context in which to heal (Herman, 1992; Walsh, 1996; Whiffen, Judd, & Aube, 1999). Despite the theoretical interests, only recently have researchers begun to systematically examine the relationship between childhood abuse and neglect and subsequent interpersonal difficulties in adulthood (see Dodge Reyome, 2010).

ASSOCIATION BETWEEN CHILDHOOD MALTREATMENT AND COUPLE RELATIONSHIPS

To date, sexual abuse has received more attention in the literature than any of the other forms of childhood maltreatment. Many have suggested that one of the most pervasive consequences of childhood sexual abuse is the development of erroneous relational models that lead to difficulties in interpersonal relationships in adulthood (Cole & Putnam, 1992; Davis & Petretic-Jackson, 2000; Finkelhor & Browne, 1985). Victims of childhood sexual abuse report a wide variety of difficulties in their ability to establish and maintain stable and satisfying intimate relationships. Findings have shown an association between a history of sexual abuse and lower satisfaction in intimate relationships (DiLillo & Long, 1999; Hunter, 1991), higher symptoms of sexual dysfunctions (Hunter, 1991; Mullen, Martin, Anderson, Romans, & Herbison, 1994), lower level of trust in their partners, and poorer communication between spouses (DiLillo & Long, 1999). In addition, victims of sexual abuse are more likely than nonvictims to report higher levels of partner violence (Banyard, Arnold, & Smith, 2000; DiLillo, Giuffre, Tremblay, & Peterson, 2001), as well as separation and divorce (Colman & Widom, 2004; Mullen et al., 1994). Emerging research has only started to demonstrate a similar pattern of association between other types of childhood maltreatment and adult intimate relationships. Childhood physical abuse (Ornduff, Kelsey, & O'Leary, 2001; Wolfe, Wekerle, Reitzel-Jaffe, & Lefebvre, 1998) and psychological maltreatment (Crawford & O'Dougherty-Wright, 2007) are shown to be associated with both victimization and perpetration of adult intimate partner aggression (see Berzenski & Yates, 2010; Dodge Reyome, 2010; Zurbriggen, Gobin, & Freyd, 2010). An association between childhood physical abuse and a greater fear of intimacy has also been reported (Repic, 2007). In addition, studies have shown that victims of psychological maltreatment are more likely to report marital dissatisfaction (Perry, DiLillo, & Peugh, 2007).

Despite the cumulative evidence of the impact of childhood abuse on later interpersonal functioning, few studies have compared the association of different forms of maltreatment with specific relational difficulties. Those that have indicate that the various forms of abuse and neglect lead to similar interpersonal outcomes (Davis, Petretic-Jackson, & Ting, 2001; Wind & Silvern, 1992). However, findings are limited to interpersonal outcomes such as divorce or marital dissatisfaction (Colman & Widom, 2004; Davis et al., 2001; DiLillo, Lewis, & Di Loreto-Colgan, 2007). Briere and Runtz (1990) found that a history of childhood sexual abuse is associated with dysfunctions in the domain of sexuality, physical abuse is related to aggressive behaviors, and psychological maltreatment is associated with dysfunctions in the domain of self-esteem. Thus, it is possible that specific associations could also be found between the different types of maltreatment experiences and specific domains of problems within the couple relationship (e.g., coldness, dominance). These problems could eventually lead to the same interpersonal outcomes (e.g., separation and divorce).

A further limitation of the current research on childhood maltreatment is that the majority of studies have been conducted with female victims (see Dodge Reyome, 2010, for a brief discussion of this limitation of maltreatment research). The few studies that have looked at male victims often show mixed results. Whereas some report similar difficulties in couple functioning for both male and female victims (Finkelhor, Hotaling, Lewis, & Smith, 1990; Repic, 2007), others have found different associations for male victims (Colman & Widom, 2004; DiLillo et al., 2007). Thus, research is needed to clarify if and how males and females with histories of childhood maltreatment differ in their ability to maintain healthy intimate relationships.

THE INTERPERSONAL MODEL

Interpersonal theories (e.g., Horney, 1945; Leary, 1957; Sullivan, 1953) can help explain the impact of maltreatment on the quality of adult couple relationships. They offer a valuable organizational framework for understanding patterns of maladaptive intimate relationships. One current interpretation of the interpersonal theory (Horowitz et al., 2006; Kiesler, 1996), based particularly on Sullivan's (1953) early theoretical concepts, assumes that everything people do in interaction with one another reflects an effort to avoid anxiety and to achieve and maintain self-esteem. These two motives can be organized along two axes that form a circumplex structure, a dimension of affiliation or communion that ranges from hostile to friendly behaviors (horizontal axis) and a dimension of dominance or agency that ranges from submissive to domineering behaviors (vertical axis; see Figure 1). According to Horowitz et al. (2006), dimensions of communion and agency can be used to organize behaviors, traits, and intentions. They reflect two principal evolutionary challenges: (a) connecting with other people to form a protective community (communion), and (b) achieving a sense of one's own competence and control (agency). Horowitz et al. (2006), referring to Blatt (1990), suggested that personality develops following these two developmental dimensions. Ideally, the first should lead to the conviction that one is loved and can safely enter intimate and lasting relationships with others, whereas the second should contribute to a stable, realistic, independent, and competent self-image. However, when for some reason the development of one or both dimensions is disturbed during childhood, interpersonal difficulties arise (Horowitz et al., 2006).

FIGURE 1 The two-dimensional interpersonal space.

Specific interpersonal problems that exemplify a range of maladaptive behaviors derived from current interpersonal theory have been identified (Horowitz, Rosenberg, Baer, Ureno, & Villasenor, 1988). Problems related to communion range from being overly cold and distant to being excessively self-sacrificing. Problems related to agency range from being domineering and controlling to being nonassertive when interacting or attempting to interact with others. According to Alden, Wiggins, and Pincus (1990), the two-dimensional interpersonal space can be divided into eight equal octants, each representing a domain of interpersonal problem (see Figure 2). For example, being “overly accommodating” corresponds to being friendly (positive communion) and submissive (negative agency). This way of describing interpersonal behavior has often been used in the literature. However, few studies on couple relationships have referred to the circumplex model. This can be explained by the fact that the instrument most commonly used to measure interpersonal problems related to agency and communion has been developed to measure a person's most salient interpersonal problems in a global way, not specific to a relationship in particular. Indeed, while completing the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems (IIP–64; Horowitz, Alden, Wiggins, & Pincus, 2000), respondents think of relationships with friends, a spouse, or coworkers. Because the levels of communion and agency can differ according to the type of relationship (e.g., interaction with a friend vs. with a romantic partner), some believe that it is important to take into account the context in which the interaction takes place when assessing the two dimensions (Suh, Moskowitz, Fournier, & Zuroff, 2004).

FIGURE 2 Circumplex model of interpersonal problems (Alden et al., 1990).

The circumplex model of interpersonal problems seems to be particularly suited to the study of maltreatment because it can help conceptualize the differing patterns of outcomes seen in the victim's couple relationship. It can be hypothesized that an experience of childhood abuse and neglect will disturb one or both developmental dimensions (communion and agency) and greatly impact the way a person views the world and himself or herself. For instance, a victim of childhood maltreatment might not feel safe or protected when connecting to other people because early experiences have shown them that the people from whom they sought protection cannot be trusted or are not a source of comfort (communion). As a result, these individuals might report difficulty in making long-term commitments and an inability to express affection toward their partner or feel love for their partner in adulthood. According to the circumplex model, they will likely interact with their partner in a cold and distant manner. On the other hand, early experiences of abuse and neglect might also underscore a person's own sense of incompetence and lack of control (agency). Thus, it is possible that once in adulthood, these victims will have difficulties making their needs known and have problems being assertive toward their partner (being nonassertive).

GOALS OF THIS STUDY

The purpose of this study was to assess the problems in adult couple relationships in a sample of males and females who disclosed being victims of abuse, neglect, or both during childhood and compare them to a nonvictimized comparison group. The first aim was to expand on the findings from earlier studies that are often limited to one type of abuse. Therefore, this study examined the relationship among a range of maltreatment experiences (physical abuse, emotional abuse, physical neglect, emotional neglect, and sexual abuse) and interpersonal problems. It is postulated that the victims of childhood abuse and neglect will show more interpersonal problems in their couple relationships than nonvictims. The second aim of this study was to use interpersonal theories as a framework for understanding patterns of maladaptive intimate relationships of victims of childhood maltreatment. As mentioned earlier, it is proposed that the various forms of maltreatment will relate differently to the dimensions of agency and communion in couple relationships. Four domains of interpersonal problems were examined: domineering/controlling, cold/distant, nonassertive, and self-sacrificing. Finally, the third aim of this study was to examine if males and females with histories of childhood maltreatment differ in the types of interpersonal problems they report.

METHODS

Participants

Participants were male and female French-Canadian university students who signed up for this study through an online program. Among the 2,885 respondents, 177 were excluded because they did not meet the inclusion criteria (having been in at least one committed heterosexual relationship for more than a month) and 980 were excluded because of incomplete questionnaires or incongruent responses. The final sample consisted of 1,728 students (320 males and 1,408 females) for whom complete data were available. Participants ranged in age from 18 to 65 years (M age for males = 27.3, SD = 8.0; M age for females = 24.9, SD = 6.2). The sample consisted primarily of undergraduates (78%) and most described their ethnic or racial background as Caucasian (92.6%). Although only 7.4% of participants reported being married, another 38.4% mentioned living with their partner without being married. Three quarters of the respondents reported that the duration of the relationship was of 6 months or more (75.4%).

Procedure

Initially, e-mail invitations were sent out to all university students. The e-mail explained the purpose of the study, that participation was voluntary and confidential, and it contained the Web site address (Uniform Resource Locator) to access the Web-based questionnaire. An e-mail address and telephone number were provided for participants to contact if they had any questions about the study or the Web survey. In addition to the e-mail invitations, recruitment was carried out by advertisement placed in a number of university buildings and classrooms. As an incentive to complete the survey, participants were offered a chance to win one cash prize of $200 that was awarded by a drawing. Students who were interested in participating were first directed, via the Internet, to a consent form on which it was indicated that they would be asked to answer personal questions about their couple relationship and their childhood experiences. Upon consent, each respondent completed the online battery of questionnaires. The measures used in this study were part of this battery. With the use of a password, it was possible for participants to take breaks while completing the survey. This study received the approval of the university's institutional review ethics board.

Measures

Intrafamilial childhood sexual abuse

Different aspects of childhood sexual abuse were measured with the Instrument to Measure Sexual Aggression in Childhood—Short Form (ASE; Cyr & Frappier, 2005). This instrument is based on the Incest History Questionnaire (Courtois, 1988) and on the History of Victimization Form (Wolfe, Gentile, & Bourdeau, 1987). It contains 10 specific questions about respondents' sexual abuse histories in the first 18 years of life. A history of sexual abuse is assessed with the following question: “As a child (before the age of 18) did someone ever do something inappropriate sexually with you? By inappropriate, we mean that someone exposed themselves or asked you to expose intimate parts of your body, kissed or fondled you in a sexual manner, or did any other sexual activities, while you did not want to participate. Therefore, those situations have happened against your will; you were subjected to them or you were forced to participate in them.” Specific questions about respondents' sexual abuse histories are then asked, including the approximate number of aggressions, the nature of the sexual(s) aggression(s), the age at which they were first victimized, and the nature of their relationship with the perpetrator(s). In this study, only experiences of sexual abuse perpetrated by a member of the victim's family were considered in the analyses (e.g., parents, siblings, grandparents, cousins). In addition, only experiences that included at least one physical contact (i.e., fondling of genitals or breast, attempted or completed penetration) were classified as sexual abuse.

Childhood physical and emotional abuse and neglect

The other forms of childhood abuse and neglect were assessed using the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire–Short Form (CTQ–SF; Bernstein et al., 2003; translated into French by Paquette, Laporte, Bigras, & Zoccolillo, 2004). The CTQ–SF is a self-administered inventory that was developed to measure the severity of different types of childhood trauma. Four subscales were used in this study, including emotional abuse (five items), emotional neglect (four items), physical abuse (five items), and physical neglect (five items). Participants indicate whether they experienced certain events while growing up on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (never true) to 5 (very often true), producing four clinical subscales with scores of 5 to 25. Cutoff scores can be applied to identify individuals with histories of abuse and neglect. As recommended by Paquette et al. (2004), the CTQ cutoff scores were defined as scores of 16 or greater for emotional abuse and neglect, 14 or greater for physical neglect, and 11 or greater for physical abuse. The psychometric properties of the CTQ–SF have been well documented and appear to be adequate (Bernstein et al., 2003; Paquette et al., 2004). Reliability coefficients of the four selected subscales are satisfactory and similar to those documented in other studies (e.g., Bernstein et al., 2003; Paquette et al., 2004) with subscale alpha scores of .60 for physical neglect, .82 for physical abuse, .84 for emotional abuse, and .88 for emotional neglect.

Couple interpersonal problems

Interpersonal difficulties in intimate relationships were measured with the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems in Couple Relationships (IIP–Couple; Paradis & Boucher, 2007). The IIP–Couple is a self-report instrument, developed by the authors of this study, adapted from the IIP-64, which measures overall interpersonal problems (IIP–64; Horowitz et al., 2000). The 64 items of the IIP–64 were reworded to apply to “my partner.” For instance, the item “It is hard for me to trust other people” became “It is hard for me to trust my partner.” The instrument was then translated into French Canadian using the back-translation method (Brislin, 1970; Vallerand, 1989). The IIP–Couple is designed to assess different domains of interpersonal difficulties that individuals might have while interacting or attempting to interact with their partner. It contains 39 items preceded by the phrase “It is hard for me to …” and 25 items describing interpersonal behavior people might do too much when interacting with their partner (e.g., “I fight with my partner too much”). Participants answer on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 4 (extremely). The 64 items produce eight subscales with scores of 0 to 32. It is also possible to obtain a total score on the IIP–Couple by calculating the sum of the eight subscale scores. This study reported the results of the four subscales corresponding to the extremities of the two main axes of the interpersonal circumplex: cold/distant (e.g., “It is hard for me to feel close to my partner”), self-sacrificing (e.g., “I try to please my partner too much”), domineering/controlling (e.g., “I am too aggressive toward my partner”), and nonassertive (e.g., “It is hard for me to tell my partner to stop bothering me”). The results of a principal components analysis on the subjects' ipsatized scores (i.e., every item's deviation from the individual's overall mean) suggest that the items provide a close representation of the two-dimensional interpersonal circumplex with its two main components of agency and communion (Paradis & Boucher, 2008). In addition, analyses indicate that the IIP–Couple has the same underlying circumplex structure as for the IIP–64 shown by Alden et al. (1990). The psychometric properties of the IIP–Couple were shown to be similar to that of the original instrument with the internal consistency of each dimension ranging from .79 to .83.

RESULTS

The descriptive statistics of the variables of interest for the 1,728 participants are presented by gender in Table 1. Because the distributions of the scores for the IIP–Couple were positively skewed, square-root and log transformations were applied to normalize the distributions (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). There are 64 (20.0%) males and 336 (23.9%) females who indicated having experienced at least one type of childhood maltreatment. Of the total sample, 7.5% of males and 8.8% of females indicated that they had been victims of more than one type of childhood maltreatment. To examine the differences between males and females on the prevalence rates for the different types of childhood trauma and on the subscale scores of the IIP–Couple, chi-square analyses and t tests were conducted. Given the number of t-test comparisons, Bonferroni corrections were applied (p < .01). Significant results indicate that males were more likely to report physical abuse, χ² = 4.56, p < .05 (df = 1, N = 1728), and females were more likely to report an experience of child sexual abuse, χ² = 11.55, p < .001 (df = 1, N = 1728). In terms of interpersonal problems, males were also more likely to report being distant toward their partner (t = 3.35, p < .001), nonassertive (t = 4.76, p < .001), and self-sacrificing (t = 5.92, p < .001). They also revealed higher overall rates of couple interpersonal problems than females (t = 4.81, p < .001). However, both males and females reported similar levels of domineering behaviors while interacting with their partner (t = 1.137, ns).

TABLE 1 Means, Standard Deviations, and Prevalence of Childhood Maltreatment and Interpersonal Problems in Couple Relationships by Gender

	Males ^a		Females ^b
	M (SD)	Prevalence (clinical scores)	M (SD)	Prevalence (clinical scores)	p ^c
Type of trauma experience in childhood
Physical abuse (CTQ)	6.3 (3.1)	25 (7.8%)	5.9 (2.5)	68 (4.8%)	.033
Emotional abuse (CTQ)	7.5 (3.8)	17 (5.3%)	8.2 (4.3)	111 (7.9%)	ns
Physical neglect (CTQ)	6.9 (2.7)	7 (2.2%)	6.5 (2.5)	18 (1.3%)	ns
Emotional neglect (CTQ)	10.1 (4.7)	47 (14.7%)	10.1 (4.7)	211 (15.0%)	ns
Sexual abuse (ASE)		10 (3.1%)		123 (8.7%)	.000
Interpersonal problems in couple relationships (IIP–Couple)
Domineering	6.7 (5.3)		6.4 (5.2)		ns
Distant	5.0 (5.7)		3.7 (4.6)		.001
Nonassertive	9.6 (6.2)		8.0 (6.0)		.000
Self-sacrificing	9.9 (6.1)		7.9 (5.7)		.000
Total score (sum of subscales 1 to 8)	57.6 (34.2)		48.3 (30.3)		.000
Note: CTQ = Childhood Trauma Questionnaire; ASE = Instrument to Measure Sexual Aggression in Childhood—Short Form; IIP–Couple = Inventory of Interpersonal Problems in Couple Relationships.
^a n = 320. ^b n 1,408. ^cDifferences between males and females on prevalence of trauma experiences in childhood (χ^2) and mean scores of couple interpersonal problems (t tests).

To examine the relationship between a range of maltreatment experiences (physical abuse, emotional abuse, physical neglect, emotional neglect, and sexual abuse) and interpersonal problems, separate two-way analyses of variance (Gender × Victimization) were performed to compare the total score on the IIP–Couple for each type of trauma experienced in childhood (victims vs. nonvictims). The means and standard deviations of interpersonal problems in couple relationship for each type of maltreatment are presented by gender in Table 2. Results reveal that victims of childhood physical abuse, F(1, 1724) = 44.66, p < .001; emotional abuse, F(1, 1724) = 19.32, p < .001; physical neglect, F(1, 1724) = 11.71, p < .001; and emotional neglect, F(1, 1724) = 27.16, p < .001, report significantly more interpersonal problems than nonvictims of childhood maltreatment. Results also show significant main effects of gender on the total number of couple interpersonal problems reported, with males presenting more interpersonal difficulties than females in the analyses involving physical abuse, F(1, 1724) = 24.19, p < .001; emotional abuse, F(1, 1724) = 12.18, p < .001; physical neglect, F(1, 1724) = 14.09, p < .001; and emotional neglect, F(1, 1724) = 20.16, p < .001. In addition, significant interaction effects were found between the severity of physical abuse and gender, F(1, 1724) = 9.06, p < .01, and between the severity of physical neglect and gender, F(1, 1724) = 6.47, p < .05. This indicates that males and females were affected differently by physical abuse and neglect. Specifically, physical abuse and physical neglect seem to have a significantly greater impact on interpersonal problems in males than in females. Surprisingly, no significant main effects or interactions of trauma or of gender were found for childhood sexual abuse, indicating that males or females with a history of childhood sexual abuse do not report more interpersonal problems.

TABLE 2 Mean Total Scores and Standard Deviations of Interpersonal Problems in Couple Relationships by Gender and Maltreatment History

Type of trauma experience in childhood	Males ^a		Females ^b
	Nonvictims	Victims	Nonvictims	Victims
Physical abuse (CTQ)	54.0 (29.8)	98.8 (52.0)	47.5 (29.7)	63.7 (39.9)
Emotional abuse (CTQ)	56.1 (33.0)	83.2 (44.9)	47.3 (29.5)	60.3 (33.5)
Physical neglect (CTQ)	56.4 (32.6)	108.3 (61.6)	48.2 (30.1)	56.0 (40.9)
Emotional neglect (CTQ)	54.6 (32.3)	74.3 (39.8)	46.5 (28.7)	68.1 (36.5)
Sexual abuse (ASE)	56.1 (32.2)	50.6 (27.5)	47.0 (29.5)	56.5 (32.0)
Note: CTQ = Childhood Trauma Questionnaire; ASE = Instrument to Measure Sexual Aggression in Childhood—Short Form. Inventory of Interpersonal Problems in Couple Relationships means and standard deviations are presented before transformation.
^a n = 320. ^b n 1,408.

Stepwise regressions were used to explore whether the various forms of maltreatment would relate differently to the different dimensions of couple interpersonal problems along the dimensions of agency and communion. Table 3 summarizes the results of these analyses for both males and females. In each model, the five different types of childhood trauma experiences served as the predictor variables (continuous) of the four domains of interpersonal problems. Given the size of the sample, the inclusion criterion was limited to a significance level of .01. Results indicated that different forms of maltreatment contribute differently to problems related to dimensions of agency and communion. For both males and females, emotional neglect was most strongly associated with couple interpersonal problems in the submissive southern hemisphere of the circumplex (being nonassertive). On the other hand, physical abuse for males and emotional abuse for females contributed more to couple interpersonal problems in the northern hemisphere (being domineering). Childhood physical neglect as well as an experience of childhood sexual abuse did not add to the prediction of couple interpersonal problems in either males or females. Finally, in regards to the third aim of this study, it appears that males and females with histories of childhood maltreatment differ in terms of the types of interpersonal problems they report. Indeed, results of the stepwise regressions indicate that experiences of child maltreatment contributed more strongly to the prediction of couple interpersonal difficulties in males than in females. For males, physical abuse significantly predicted the likelihood of being domineering, distant, and self-sacrificing. In addition, for males, emotional neglect significantly predicted the likelihood of being distant and nonassertive. For females, emotional neglect significantly predicted the likelihood of being overly distant, nonassertive, and self-sacrificing, whereas emotional abuse significantly predicted the likelihood of being domineering and distant.

TABLE 3 Summary of Stepwise Regressions of Interpersonal Problems in Couple Relationships on Child Maltreatment Experiences

Outcome variables	Males ^a				Females ^b
	Predictors	ß	t	R ^2 adjusted (model)	Predictors	ß	t	R ^2 adjusted (model)
Domineering	Physical abuse	.304	5.68∗∗	.089	Emotional abuse	.181	6.90∗∗	.032
Distant	Physical abuse	.173	2.90∗	.077	Emotional neglect	.133	3.65∗∗	.051
	Emotional neglect	.167	2.80∗		Emotional abuse	.115	3.14∗
Nonassertive	Emotional neglect	.200	3.64∗∗	.037	Emotional neglect	.117	4.40∗∗	.013
Self-sacrificing	Physical abuse	.252	4.65∗∗	.061	Emotional neglect	.125	4.73∗∗	.015
Note: All models summarized in Table 3 were significant, p < .001.
^a n = 320. ^b n 1,408.
∗p < .01. ∗∗p < .001.

DISCUSSION

This study explored the relationship between childhood experiences of abuse and neglect and problems in adult couple relationships in a sample of male and female university students. The aims of the study were to: (a) examine the relationship among a range of maltreatment experiences (sexual, physical, and emotional abuse, and neglect) and couple interpersonal problems, (b) determine if the various forms of maltreatment are related differently to the dimensions of agency and communion in couple relationships, and (c) examine if males and females with histories of childhood maltreatment differed in terms of the different types of couple interpersonal problems they report. Of the individuals in the current sample, 22% reported having experienced at least one childhood trauma, and 8.2% reported having experienced two or more types of such traumas. The proportion of respondents reporting different maltreatment types is consistent with those of previous findings drawn from university samples (Higgins & McCabe, 2001). As shown in previous studies, females reported a higher prevalence of sexual abuse (Finkelhor et al., 1990; Putnam, 2003), whereas males reported more physical abuse in childhood (Edwards, Holden, Felitti, & Anda, 2003; Thompson, Kingree, & Desai, 2004).

Results indicate that male and female victims of childhood physical and emotional abuse and neglect show overall more interpersonal difficulties in their couple relationships than nonvictims (see Dodge Reyome, 2010). These findings are therefore unique in demonstrating empirically that specific childhood maltreatment experiences have a pervasive influence on couple functioning in adulthood. However, no such associations were found when looking at victims of childhood sexual abuse. These results are unexpected given that most studies have reported positive relations between a history of sexual abuse and difficulties in intimate relationship (e.g., Colman & Widom, 2004; DiLillo & Long, 1999; Hunter, 1991; Mullen et al., 1994). There are several potential explanations for these results. First, sexual abuse in childhood was assessed by a single item requiring an answer of “yes” or “no.” It is possible that measuring the experience of sexual abuse with the use of a 5-point Likert scale could have provided more accurate and sensitive information by providing a range on which to assess the severity of the trauma. However, this explanation is unlikely given that all previous studies mentioned earlier also measured a history of sexual abuse using a single “yes” or “no” item. Consequently, the differences in the results between other studies and those reported here appear to be more likely due to sample characteristics. For instance, in the Colman and Widom (2004) study, the sample consisted of substantiated cases of sexual abuse drawn from the records of county juvenile and criminal courts. These might represent more severe cases then the ones found in this study. In addition, even if the inclusion criteria in this study were limited to victims of intrafamilial sexual abuse, most of the intrafamilial abuse reported by the victims was perpetrated by a member of their extended family (e.g., cousins, grandparents) rather than by an immediate family member (e.g., parents, siblings). Thus, it is possible that, in this sample, the duration of sexual abuse experience was less chronic than the other types of childhood maltreatment, and therefore perceived by the victim as less severe. Finally, it could be possible that the victims of sexual abuse from this sample possess certain characteristics that make them more resilient, such as coping skills or a higher threshold for trauma-related stress. Subsequently, these characteristics weakened their vulnerability to couple interpersonal difficulties. Further research on the effects of sexual abuse on couple interpersonal functioning should take into account the severity of the abuse and explore other potential contributing factors, such as coping skills.

With respect to the second aim of this study, emotional neglect was most strongly associated with couple interpersonal problems in the submissive southern hemisphere of the circumplex for both males and females. This might show that if one's feelings and needs have been neglected as a child, one might avoid communicating his or her wishes and needs to his or her partner in adulthood. In contrast, physical abuse for males and emotional abuse for females contributed more to couple interpersonal problems in the northern hemisphere (e.g., domineering behaviors). Thus, if as a child someone is subjected to emotional or physical acts of aggression, he or she might feel threatened by others and feel a need to control and manipulate his or her partner to protect his or her sense of worth and self-respect (see Dodge Reyome, Ward, & Witkiewitz, 2010, for a discussion of childhood emotional abuse and codependency). This finding is of particular interest because there is evidence that interpersonal problems located in the northern hemisphere of the circumplex (domineering, vindictive, intrusive) are important mediating factors of the association between violence in the family of origin and violence in intimate relationships in adulthood (Murphy & Blumenthal, 2000). In contrast, childhood sexual abuse and physical neglect did not contribute to the prediction of any of the four specific domains of interpersonal problems for either males or females. As discussed earlier, it is difficult to assume whether the absence of results for sexual abuse reflects differences in sample characteristics or if it is explained by the potential contribution of coping factors not measured in this study. The lack of significant results in the case of physical neglect might be due to the lower prevalence rates of this type of trauma in the current sample. Indeed, physical neglect, considered a more chronic form of maltreatment often associated with poverty (English, 1998), was less common in this sample. It is therefore possible that different associations would have emerged with a more diverse sample. This is consistent with the fact that significant differences were found for victims of physical neglect when examining overall couple interpersonal difficulties, but not when the four specific domains of problems were examined.

Finally, regarding the third aim of this study, results were examined for males and females separately, assessing how males and females differ in the way they experience interpersonal problems while interacting with their partner. Contrary to previous research that failed to show gender differences when looking at interpersonal problems (Bullitt & Farber, 2002; Löffler-Stastka, Ponocny-Seliger, Fischer-Kern, & Leithner, 2005), the results of this study revealed that regardless of maltreatment histories, males tended to report more couple interpersonal problems than females. It is possible that previous studies did not find any significant sex differences because they examined interpersonal difficulties in general, rather than difficulties specific to intimate relationships, as measured in this study. For instance, it is possible that males and females show similar patterns of interpersonal problems when interacting with their friends and coworkers but males report more problems when interacting with their partner. In addition, results stemming from this study show that a history of maltreatment contributes more to couple interpersonal problems in males than in females. These results are in contrast to previous studies that have failed to confirm any gender differences (Finkelhor et al., 1990; Repic, 2007). Furthermore, the results reported here are in stark contrast to those of previous studies that have suggested that female victims of childhood abuse and neglect are more vulnerable to relationship dysfunction than males (Colman & Widom, 2004; DiLillo et al., 2007). It is possible that although males experience more interpersonal problems when interacting with their partner, these difficulties are not perceived when studies limit their investigation to particular outcomes such as divorce or marital dissatisfaction. Lastly, results revealed slightly different patterns of couple interpersonal problems for males and females. Whereas for males, physical abuse seemed more consistently associated with couple interpersonal difficulties, emotional neglect was the best predictor of interpersonal problems in females. At this juncture, it is unclear what processes are responsible for the sex differences. Future research should seek to clarify how and why different types of child maltreatment relate differently to the dimensions of agency and communion for males and females.

Future Directions

Given that victims of abuse and neglect from lower socioeconomic backgrounds might experience more severe forms of maltreatment, and that the sample used in this study was composed mainly of Caucasian French-Canadian university students (92.6%), these results should be generalized with caution. Indeed, it is possible that the patterns of association between childhood traumas and couple interpersonal difficulties are different for this group than for other abuse victims. Thus, further research should include clinical samples as well as representative samples of the general population. Second, the correlational design of the study precludes the possibility of exploring causal relationships, leaving other interpretations open to possibility. Future studies should help delineate the causal factors explaining interpersonal problems in couple relationships of victims of abuse and neglect. Also, self-reports were used to measure childhood maltreatment. Self-reports are commonly used in research on this topic. However, they are not equivalent to court-documented cases of childhood abuse and neglect. Similarly, the participants' perception of their interpersonal problems was not validated by direct observation of their behavior. It is possible that concerns about social desirability have impacted the participants' willingness to report current or past negative experiences, such as difficulties in couple relationships and childhood maltreatment. However, all questionnaires comprised behaviorally specific questions and were completed anonymously to encourage an accurate reporting of information.

Finally, a number of researchers have noted that the role of multiple victimization experiences in explaining responses to childhood maltreatment has largely been ignored in the literature (Finkelhor, Ormrod, & Turner, 2007; Higgins, 2004). Unfortunately, the analyses reported in this article did not assess multitype maltreatment and its combined influence on couple interpersonal behaviors. Indeed, despite the large sample of this study, the sample size would decrease when assessing multitype maltreatment (37% of the victims), which would yield statistically insignificant results due to small sample size. Given the overlap between maltreatment types and the possible negative impact of experiencing more than one type of maltreatment (Davis et al., 2001; Higgins & McCabe, 2000; Ney, Fung, & Wickett, 1994), future research should address the contribution of coexisting traumas.

Conclusions

In summary, despite the vast attention paid by previous studies to the adult intimate relationships of victims of childhood sexual abuse, the male and female victims of sexual abuse in this study did not appear to be more vulnerable to couple interpersonal problems than nonvictims. However, physical abuse, emotional abuse, and emotional neglect were strongly associated with couple interpersonal problems, especially for males. Significant differences in terms of couple interpersonal difficulties were also revealed between those with a history of physical neglect and those without such a history. Intervention programs addressing difficulties in couple relationships should thus consider the history of all types of childhood maltreatment in helping couples build healthier relationships. Additionally, being a victim of emotional neglect was associated with couple interpersonal problems in the submissive southern hemisphere of the circumplex, such as having difficulties expressing needs to a partner and having problems being firm and assertive toward a partner. On the contrary, physical abuse for males and emotional abuse for females contributed more to couple interpersonal problems in the northern hemisphere, with problems related to being controlling, manipulating, and aggressive toward and trying to change a partner. In light of these results, it seems that the different forms of childhood maltreatment have a greater influence on the dimension of agency (submissive to domineering behaviors) than on the dimension of communion (from hostile to friendly behaviors). Different associations could surface with a larger and more diverse sample. Nevertheless, these results suggest that therapists should consider the different types of childhood maltreatment and their association with specific issues in intimate relationships (e.g., nonassertiveness or domineering behaviors) that can be targeted during treatment (see Carbone, 2010, for therapeutic intervention with emotional abuse survivors). Finally, it seems that the differential impact of maltreatment for males and females is also an important factor to be addressed in clinical interventions. Future work should continue to shed further light on the contribution of various forms of childhood abuse and neglect to the development of problems in adult intimate relationships.

The research reported in this article was supported by a grant from the Fonds de Recherche sur la société et la culture (FQRSC) and by a grant from the Centre de recherche interdisciplinaire sur les problèmes conjugaux et les agressions sexuelles (CRIPCAS).