Violence against children by stepparents

Abstract

A wide range of child and caregiver characteristics, including parental psychopathology, parents’ childhood experiences of abuse, parenting stress, child age, parent age, child disabilities, socio-cultural background, and caregiver’s relationship to the child, have been reported to contribute to increased risk of violence directed against children. Although there is a dearth of research into violence against children in stepfamilies, some studies have indicated that stepparents are more likely to abuse children compared with genetic parents. Stepparents also have been found to pose a significantly greater risk of using excessive violence, which can subsequently lead to the death of a child. The risk of violence against stepchildren has also been found to be significantly elevated with the presence of stepparent’s genetic offspring. One possible explanation for increased violence in stepfamilies is that stepparents do not want to invest feelings and resources in children who do not carry copies of their genes. Sexual violence by stepparents, on the other hand, can be explained by the lack of exposure to a learning mechanism termed ‘incest aversion’, which refers to negative sexual imprinting during a critical period of early childhood to avoid inbreeding. Yet another possibility is that people who divorce are more likely to do so due to aggressive impulses which can play a part in relationship termination. When they remarry, those aggressive impulses can be directed against stepchildren. However, stepfamilies are also reported to experience more stressors associated with family violence, including alcohol abuse, child’s behavioral problems, adverse contextual backgrounds, and weaker social networks. This suggests that the stepfamily structure may not be a risk factor of violence against children per se. The purpose of this chapter is to provide a description of the problem of violence against children by stepparents, discuss the extent of the phenomenon and its possible theoretical explanations, critically review empirical research assessing violence against children by stepmothers and stepfathers, as well as suggest directions for future research.

Full text

The SAGE Handbook of Domestic Violence
1
Violence against children by stepparents
Agata Debowska 1, George Hales 1, & Daniel Boduszek 2, 3
Author Note:
1 The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
2 University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield, UK
3 SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Katowice, Poland
Correspondence concerning this chapter should be directed to Dr Agata Debowska, The
University of Sheffield, Department of Psychology, Cathedral Court, 1 Vicar Lane, S1 2LT, UK;
contact e-mail: a.debowska@sheffield.ac.uk

The SAGE Handbook of Domestic Violence
2
Abstract
A wide range of child and caregiver characteristics, including parental psychopathology,
parents’ childhood experiences of abuse, parenting stress, child age, parent age, child
disabilities, socio-cultural background, and caregiver’s relationship to the child, have been
reported to contribute to increased risk of violence directed against children. Although there
is a dearth of research into violence against children in stepfamilies, some studies have
indicated that stepparents are more likely to abuse children compared with genetic parents.
Stepparents also have been found to pose a significantly greater risk of using excessive
violence, which can subsequently lead to the death of a child. The risk of violence against
stepchildren has also been found to be significantly elevated with the presence of
stepparent’s genetic offspring. One possible explanation for increased violence in
stepfamilies is that stepparents do not want to invest feelings and resources in children who
do not carry copies of their genes. Sexual violence by stepparents, on the other hand, can be
explained by the lack of exposure to a learning mechanism termed ‘incest aversion’, which
refers to negative sexual imprinting during a critical period of early childhood to avoid
inbreeding. Yet another possibility is that people who divorce are more likely to do so due to
aggressive impulses which can play a part in relationship termination. When they remarry,
those aggressive impulses can be directed against stepchildren. However, stepfamilies are
also reported to experience more stressors associated with family violence, including alcohol
abuse, child’s behavioral problems, adverse contextual backgrounds, and weaker social
networks. This suggests that the stepfamily structure may not be a risk factor of violence
against children per se. The purpose of this chapter is to provide a description of the problem
of violence against children by stepparents, discuss the extent of the phenomenon and its
possible theoretical explanations, critically review empirical research assessing violence
against children by stepmothers and stepfathers, as well as suggest directions for future
research.
Key Words: Violence against children; Child physical abuse; Child sexual abuse;
Stepparents; Stepfamily structure

The SAGE Handbook of Domestic Violence
3
Violence against children by stepparents
1. Introduction: Description of the problem
Violence against children is a major public health issue with serious negative short-
and long-term consequences including, but not limited to, antisocial behavior, aggression,
violence, educational underachievement, depression, and self-destructive behavior
(Debowska & Boduszek, 2017; Debowska, Boduszek, Sherretts, Willmott, & Jones, 2018;
Debowska, Willmott, Boduszek, & Jones, 2017; Jaffee, Caspi, Moffitt, & Taylor, 2004; Jones,
Trudinger, & Crawford, 2004; Kendall-Tackett, Williams, & Finkelhor, 1993; Lahey, Moffitt, &
Caspi, 2003; Margolin & Gordis, 2000; Shaw & De Jong, 2012; Vachon, Krueger, Rogosch, &
Cicchetti, 2015). It appears that violence and abuse experienced in the home is especially
detrimental to children’s wellbeing because it instigates feelings of powerlessness and
betrayal (Debowska et al., 2018; Finkelhor & Browne, 1985). It has been reported that each
year, 1% of children in the population come to the attention of child protection services
(Gilbert et al., 2009a). However, violence against children is a crime that is likely to be
underreported (Hershkowitz, Horowitz, & Lamb, 2005). Indeed, research indicates that per
year between 4 and 16% of children experience physical abuse, 10% experience psychological
abuse, between 1 and 15% are neglected, and 6% experience sexual abuse (Finkelhor, 1994;
Gilbert et al., 2009b; Matthews & Walsh, 2004). In an attempt to prevent violence against
children, empirical research has focused on recognizing risk factors for victimization and
perpetration. One of the factors explored in such research has been the family structure.
More specifically, studies have explored the possibility that certain types of families, such as
stepfamilies and single-parent families, may pose a greater risk of violence to children
compared with intact families with both biological parents.
Apart from scientific evidence, stepparents are commonly thought of as being more
punitive and abusive than genetic parents. The negative portrayal of stepmothers can be
traced back at least to traditional children’s fairy tales, such as Cinderella and Hansel and
Gretel, where stepmothers were often villains of the stories. Indeed, the phenomenon of
higher incidence of child maltreatment among non-natal offspring is sometimes referred to
as the “Cinderella effect” (Claxton-Oldfield, 2000, 2008; Daly & Wilson, 2007). Stepfathers, in
turn, although spared in children’s literature, have been presented in a negative light in
traditional adult literature, including William Shakespeare’s plays and Charles Dickens’ novels.
The villainization of stepparents is perpetuated by the popular media (Claxton-Oldfield, 2000,

The SAGE Handbook of Domestic Violence
4
2008). Although some studies have investigated lethal and nonlethal violence perpetrated by
stepparents, most research on violence against children has not distinguished between
genetic parents and stepparents. In addition, it is difficult to isolate stepparent status as a risk
factor for violence against children because stepfamilies face a particularly high volume of
problems and challenges which may serve as contributing factors to violence against children.
Regarding stepfamily status as a potential risk factor for violence against children may
represent a relic from a time when such families were thought of as inferior and were
therefore stigmatized (Waldfogel, Craigie, & Brooks-Gunn, 2010). Facing such stigma could
result in stress, subsequently leading to violence against non-genetic children as a means of
releasing stress and anger. Although research in the area is bristling with difficulties, several
theoretical and conceptual frameworks motivate researchers to ask and investigate new
research questions.
2. Theoretical perspectives on violence against children by stepparents
In order to explain the origins of violence against children at the hands of non-natal
caregivers, social, evolutionary, and biological theories have been proposed. Many of those
theories explain only the occurrence of either child physical or sexual abuse, stressing the
importance of considering different forms of maltreatment as separate phenomena with
distinct sets of risk factors (Giles-Sims & Finkelhor, 1984).
2.1. Social-evolutionary theory
According to the social-evolutionary theory, sometimes also referred to as socio-
biological theory, stepchildren are overrepresented as victims of neglect as well as physical
and sexual violence due to stepparents’ lack of concern for their non-genetic offspring’s
wellbeing (Daly & Wilson, 1985, 1994). Within this perspective, neglect and child physical
abuse, which may eventually lead to the death of a child, are interpreted as byproducts of
evolved strategies that motivate reduced parental investment, including time, energy, care,
and finances, in non-genetic offspring who do not carry copies of stepparents’ genes. As such,
abusive behavior against non-genetic children increases the stepparent’s reproductive fitness
and the chances of survival of one’s genetic offspring, especially under difficult economic and
social conditions (Adler-Baeder, 2006; Archer, 2013; Hamilton, 1964; Trivers, 1972). This
theory predicts that both stepmothers and stepfathers will neglect, desert, or refuse investing
in non-genetic charges. However, this theory offers no explanation as to why parents also
neglect, physically abuse, and sometimes kill their genetically related offspring, except for

The SAGE Handbook of Domestic Violence
5
situations where resources are scarce and the survival of one, usually the stronger child, is
favored over the survival of the genetically inferior child. Furthermore, if physical abuse of a
stepchild results in injuries but not in death, then the demand on parental resources is likely
to be increased. Therefore, if stepparents aim for reducing investment in stepchildren,
physical abuse should be avoided (Giles-Sims & Finkelhor, 1984).
The prediction of increased risk of sexual abuse among non-genetic children has been
explained by the incest aversion mechanism, also referred to as the Westermarck effect,
wherein the close proximity of individuals living together from early childhood (approximately
between 2 to 6 years of age) is a kinship cue used to activate sexual intercourse aversion
between them. Since non-genetic caregivers are less likely to be present in the child's life
during the critical period, the negative imprinting would be less likely to take place, rendering
sexual relations with a stepparent more probable (Giles-Sims & Finkelhor, 1984; Holanda
Júnior, 2017; van den Berghe, 1983). This approach also emphasizes that incest is undesirable
from biological and evolutionary perspectives, rather than for cultural and social reasons
solely, because offspring from first-degree consanguineous parents are significantly more
likely to be affected by various diseases, including autosomal dominant diseases, limb
abnormalities, chromosomal disorders, and cognitive disabilities than children of non-
consanguineous parents. Stillbirths and child deaths are also significantly higher among
consanguineous parents (by approximately 80%) than among non-consanguineous parents
(Shawky, Elsayed, Zaki, El-Din, & Kamal, 2013). Nevertheless, there is limited research
evidence in support of this perspective in a situation where one partner is a child and the
other is an adult. In a recent empirical investigation using survey methodology among a
sample of genetically related (45% of the sample) and sociolegal (55%) fathers and daughters
(N = 632) from Canada and the United States, the viability of the Westermarck effect as a
mechanism that accounts for incest avoidance for fathers was not supported. Contrary to the
hypothesis, physical proximity was not found to be negatively associated with incest
propensity. However, feelings of disgust were negatively associated with incest propensity,
revealing a proximate mechanism facilitating incest avoidance among fathers (Pullman,
Babchishin, & Seto, 2019).
2.2. Normative theory
Normative theory has been proposed to explain the higher rates of sexual abuse by
stepfathers. The theory holds that stepfathers, in particular, as non-genetic relatives to their

The SAGE Handbook of Domestic Violence
6
stepchildren, are subject to weaker normative taboos against incest than genetic fathers.
Compounded by the position of authority held by caregivers, stepchildren may be sexually
exploited more often than genetically related children. The normative theory of sexual abuse
by stepparents is congruent with the social-evolutionary theory presented above, which
posits that incest taboos are critical to avoiding genetic degradation. However, the normative
approach is not entirely biologically based. Ideas about acceptability of inbreeding are subject
to considerable variation across societies, indicating a cultural origin. Thornhill (1991) outlines
several reasons regarding cultural variation of incest norms and rules. For instance, one
reason is that taboos tend to be stronger in societies where married females live with their
in-laws in order to dissuade tempted males from mating with a married female. A
demonstrative example is found from anthropological reports on the Tallensi clan in Ghana,
among whom sexual relations between siblings were merely frowned upon, whereas sexual
relations with the wife of a fellow clan member were severely punished (Goody, 1956). In this
instance, taboo against affairs of this kind places paternal certainty and solidarity of a family
home as more important than sexual conquests. There also exist potentially outlying societies
such as Ptolemaic Egypt, in which marriages between consanguineous siblings seemed to be
relatively commonplace, perhaps normalized by incestuous relationships found in their
religious stories and demonstrated by the marital tendencies of their rulers (Hopkins, 1980).
Empirical evidence in support of the normative theory, however, is scant. Research is needed
to investigate whether different taboos exist against sexual relations between genetically and
non-genetically related parents and children.
2.3. Stress theory
Another theoretical framework for studying violence against children in stepfamilies
is stress theory. Giles-Sims and Finkelhor (1984) argue that stepfamilies experience higher
levels of conflict and stress than intact families. Stressors associated with divorce and
stepfamily formation include moving, economic strain, and loss of parental support (Amato,
2000). Inability to cope with such life stressors may lead directly to family violence, including
child abuse, or indirectly through, for example, substance abuse. Stress theory, unlike the
above-presented frameworks, helps to explain the association between child abuse and low
family income, large household size, and family disruption (Adler-Baeder, 2006; Giles-Sims &
Finkelhor, 1984). However, this perspective would indicate that stepfamily structure is not a
risk factor for child abuse per se. Rather, stepfamilies create an environment more conducive

The SAGE Handbook of Domestic Violence
7
to child abuse due to increased occurrence of stressors associated with family violence,
including alcohol abuse, child’s behavioral problems, adverse contextual backgrounds, and
weaker social networks.
2.4. Resource theory
Resource theory holds that the more economic and social resources an individual has
at their disposal, the more power and authority they are granted in the society. Such
individuals do not need to resort to violence to obtain what they want. In contrast, people
with limited resources do not possess the power and authority they may desire or expect,
which can result in violent behavior as a means of compensating for the lack of other assets.
The family, similarly to other social units, is a power system, rendering the resource theory
applicable in this context (Goode, 1971). Importantly, this theory may be helpful in
understanding physical violence perpetrated specifically by stepparents. In particular, non-
genetic caregivers who enter a family unit may be denied the authority they want due to lack
of resources to earn it. Violence perpetrated against stepchildren, therefore, can be used to
attain dominance in the context of the new family situation when other means are lacking
(Azar, 1991; Giles-Sims & Finkelhor, 1984). Resource theory has received modest support in
relation to self-reported child protection services (CPS) involvement. Adjusting for annual
income, participation in welfare programs, and food insecurity, attenuate the link between
maternal conjugal status and CPS involvement (Berger, Paxson, & Waldfogel, 2009). Recently,
Cools and Kotsadam (2017) studied the impact of resources in the context of intimate partner
violence (IPV), which, similarly to child abuse, is a form of family violence. The researchers
utilized data from a sample of 580,000 women from 30 different countries in Sub-Saharan
Africa. According to the normative theory, women with few resources (such as wealth,
employment, and education) should be at an increased risk of abuse. Similarly, men with
fewer resources are likely to be more abusive. The study findings provided little evidence in
favor of this view. In particular, although household wealth was correlated with less abuse,
the relationship was non-linear. Strikingly, more education and employment were associated
with more abuse. In considering that IPV frequently co-occurs with child maltreatment (e.g.,
Chan, 2011), limited support for the tenets of resource theory can also be expected in the
context of violence against children, but this requires testing.

The SAGE Handbook of Domestic Violence
8
2.5. Selection theory
This perspective suggests that although stepchildren are overrepresented as victims
of child abuse, the relationship between stepfamily structure and violence is spurious. This is
because common risk factors, such as general tendency toward violence and antisocial
behavior, may render certain individuals more likely to both divorce and to abuse children
(Giles-Sims & Finkelhor, 1984). In support of this theory are research findings demonstrating
that perpetrators of child physical abuse tend to be impulsive, have low self-esteem,
experience more life stress, and are likely to have alcohol and/or drug abuse problems (Milner
& Chilamkurti, 1991). Perpetrators with more psychological and behavioral problems are also
more likely to use excessive violence. In a profiling study of child abuse perpetrators,
Yamapolskaya, Greenbaum, and Berson (2009) found that male perpetrators with domestic
violence history and perpetrators with multiple problems (including substance abuse
problems, criminal records, and history of domestic violence) were most likely to commit a
fatal assault on a child. Furthermore, lack of appropriate coping mechanisms to deal with
stress, lack of empathy toward victims, intimacy deficits, and loneliness have all been
identified as risk factors for the perpetration of child sexual abuse (Whitaker et al., 2008).
Similar risk factors, including anger, lacking sympathy/tenderness, as well as being more
impulsive, may also play a role in divorce (Tucker, Kressin, Spiro, & Ruscio, 1998). However,
although these studies have pointed to common risk factors for divorce and child abuse, they
do not explain the correlation between stepfamily structure and child maltreatment. This is
because, arguably, divorced individuals who are impulsive and aggressive are less likely to
find a new partner and remarry for the same reasons they divorced. In addition, for some
people divorce and remarriage may be an attempt at creating a better family life situation.
2.6. Labeling theory
Rooted in the tradition of symbolic interactionism, Gelles and Harrop (1991) proposed
that the observed increased incidence of child physical abuse in stepfamilies can be
accounted for by labeling theory. Specifically, the authors argued that because social workers
expect more children living in stepfamilies to be maltreated, they are more likely to formally
report cases of alleged physical abuse involving stepchildren. Therefore, research based on
formal reports of child abuse may be inherently flawed. Although formal reports can offer
some unique insights into how child abuse by stepparents can be manifested, they should not
be used to assess the prevalence of child maltreatment across family structures.

The SAGE Handbook of Domestic Violence
9
3. Empirical research findings on child abuse in stepfamilies
Some of the earliest studies exploring characteristics of individuals who resort to
violence against children found a significant relationship between stepparenting and child
abuse. For example, Gil (1970), in his seminal study of reported cases of abuse, demonstrated
that 13.6% of all abuse perpetrators were stepparents, with stepfathers being particularly
prone to abuse their stepchildren. Similar findings were presented in other studies which also
utilized officially reported cases of child abuse (e.g., Burgess & Garbarino, 1983; Maden, 1980;
Martin & Walters, 1982). However, the focus on officially reported cases of abuse is unlikely
to provide an accurate statistical picture of family-level risk factors for child maltreatment
because most abuse is not formally disclosed or reported (Radford et al., 2011; Wekerle,
2013; Zeuthen & Hagelskjær, 2013). Indeed, notwithstanding the importance of official
reports, survey studies demonstrate a much higher proportion of children with a history of
maltreatment than officially recorded by CPS (Gilbert et al., 2009b). There are myriad reasons
for not reporting own abuse experiences, some of the most prominent ones being young age,
social stigma experienced following disclosure, or not construing the way one is treated as
abusive (Debowska et al., 2018). Professionals working with children as well as other adults
who suspect a child is being abused may not make a formal report to authorities due to belief
that reporting causes intrusions into family, their dissatisfaction with CPS, as well as desire to
avoid court proceedings (Humphries, Debowska, Boduszek, & Mattison, 2016; Vulliamy &
Sullivan, 2000). Even in countries where law requires childcare professionals to report
suspected child abuse and neglect (CAN), underreporting is a considerable problem
(Matthews & Walsh, 2004). This suggests that both victims and witnesses are reluctant to
report abuse.
To address limitations ensuing from analyzing official abuse records, the National
Incidence Study (NIS) was developed (National Data Archive on Child Abuse and Neglect,
2020). The NIS is a congressionally mandated, periodic research effort to assess the incidence
of CAN in the United States using data from a representative sample of professionals working
with families. To date, four waves of the research have been conducted. Although early
reports from the first NIS (NIS-1) indicated that stepfathers were particularly common among
sexual abusers, this apparent overrepresentation may be due to not controlling for important
socio-demographic characteristics which may confound the relationship between type of
caretaker and child abuse (Giles-Sims & Finkelhor, 1984). Contrary to earlier research findings,

The SAGE Handbook of Domestic Violence
10
data from the second NIS (NIS-2) demonstrated that the rate of overall violence was
significantly lower for stepchildren compared with all other children in the study. However,
the researchers acknowledged the possible methodological limitations, such as the smaller
than expected percentage of stepparents included in the sample and the differences in age
distributions of children residing with stepparents compared to children residing with genetic
parents, which could have biased the results (Gelles & Harrop, 1991). In spite of those
limitations, these findings contested the nearly 20-year record of research findings mostly
based on clinical or official data indicating that stepparents are more likely than genetic
parents to abuse children. Further, in the final report on the findings from the third NIS (NIS-
3), stepfamily structure was not listed as a risk factor for child abuse. Family-level risk factors
in this study wave included single parents, large families, and low-income families (Sedlak &
Broadhurst, 1996). Most recently, data from the fourth NIS (NIS-4) revealed that, in relation
to family structure, children living with their married biological parents experienced the
lowest rate of abuse (Sedlak et al., 2010). Sedlak et al.’s analysis of the data revealed that
children living with one biological parent and their partner, compared with those living with
both biological parents, had more than 10 times the rate of abuse and nearly 8 times the rate
of neglect, challenging earlier findings reported by Gelles and Harrop (1991). Nevertheless, it
must be noted here that adequate testing of whether children with a stepfamily family
structure are at an increased risk of abuse compared with children with different family
structures, requires controlling for many socio-demographic characteristics which may also
have an effect on the occurrence of child maltreatment and which may be overrepresented
in stepfamilies (e.g., large household size and low income).
3.1. Child physical abuse
As indicated by the theoretical frameworks presented earlier in this chapter, children
living with unrelated adults may be at an increased risk of physical abuse compared with
children living with biological parents. This association has been supported by many empirical
investigations. For example, in Creighton’s (1985) epidemiological study of abused children
and their families in the United Kingdom between 1977 and 1982, father substitutes were
significantly more likely to physically abuse children than genetic fathers. However, this
analysis was based on records of children placed on the National Society for the Prevention
of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) registers. A criterion for putting a child on such a register was
that they had sustained physical injury, meaning that the less severe cases of physical abuse

The SAGE Handbook of Domestic Violence
11
were unlikely to be recorded. Moreover, the caregivers of the abused children in the sample
were characterized by early parenthood, marital instability, large households, criminality, and
mobility, i.e., factors associated with more violence. It therefore appears that children living
in more troubled families and less safe neighborhoods were more likely to be placed on a
register, perhaps rendering the findings ungeneralizable to the UK general population. The
use of this sample could have led to overestimating the effect of stepfamily structure on child
physical abuse. Indeed, other studies have demonstrated that the risk of child physical abuse
is greater for children living in isolated, impoverished, and less stable neighborhoods
(Freisthler, Gruenewald, Ring, & LaScala, 2008; Kalil & Ryan, 2010), which further challenges
Creighton’s (1985) findings.
In recognizing the possibility that a wide range of factors rather than or in addition to
a single family characteristic can affect the risk of child physical abuse, Malvaso, Delfabbro,
Proeve, and Nobes’ (2015) study focused on a broad range of variables, including socio-
economic, parent, and child characteristics. The researchers analyzed the data from the
Longitudinal Study of Australian Children (LSAC), which is a national study of child
development, health, and wellbeing. The analysis was based solely on Cohort K at Wave 3
children (aged 8-9 years, N = 4,331). When not controlling for additional factors, an elevated
risk of physical injury and multiple injury was found among children living in stepfamilies
(23.2% and 4.6% respectively) compared with children living with both biological parents
(16.1% and 2.2% respectively). There were no significant differences between the groups in
the rates of hospitalization, which could indicate comparable severity of injuries sustained by
the two groups of children. Further analyses revealed that children residing in stepfamilies
differed significantly on important contextual factors from children residing in biological
families. More specifically, stepfamilies were characterized, among other disadvantages, by
lower socio-economic status, greater financial hardship, poorer living conditions, more
problematic alcohol use by mothers, mothers’ lower levels of education, mothers’ lower age,
larger households, and greater mobility. In addition, children in stepfamilies scored
significantly higher on a range of problem behavior indicators (such as conduct problems,
hyperactivity, and peer problems). When controlling for all these factors in a single statistical
model, membership of a stepfamily no longer significantly predicted child injury. This finding
demonstrates that stepfamily structure may not be a risk factor for child physical abuse, but
may be related to the presence of other risk factors. Nonetheless, even though the sample

The SAGE Handbook of Domestic Violence
12
used was representative of 8-9 year olds in the Australian population, the number of children
identified as residing in stepfamilies was low (n = 194) compared with the number of children
living with two biological parents (n = 3255). Therefore, additional studies with larger sample
sizes and from more diverse cultural backgrounds are needed to verify the findings.
In yet another study exploring how the presence of a stepfather affects the risk of
child physical abuse, Alexandre, Nadanovsky, Moraes, and Reichenheim (2010) administered
a face-to-face questionnaire to mothers of children aged 1-12 years visiting two public
outpatient pediatric clinics in Brazil. The study found that physical abuse was reported for
34% of children living with stepfathers compared with 17.6% of children living with birth
father. When adjusted for other risk factors, the odds ratio for physical abuse or severe
physical abuse in a family with mother and stepfather was 2.7 compared to households with
both genetic parents. Unexpectedly, however, the authors found that the abuse was
predominantly perpetrated by biological mothers rather than stepfathers. This surprising
finding could be explained by the methodology, as mothers were asked to report abuse on
behalf of their children. Therefore, respondents may have been motivated to paint an overly
positive picture of their new partners, a claim that is supported by a tendency for mothers to
disbelieve true claims of abuse against stepfathers made by their own children (Cyr, Wright,
McDuff, & Perron, 2002). Although this finding requires a more thorough empirical
investigation, it appears that violence in such cases may be influenced by stressors associated
with divorce, stepfamily formation, and stepfamily life.
3.2. Child sexual abuse
In a global study by the World Health Organization (WHO) (2014), it was reported that
approximately 20% of women and 5-10% of men were sexually victimized as children. The
consequences associated with child sexual abuse include post-traumatic stress disorder
(PTSD) symptoms, depression, anxiety, low self-esteem, and substance disorders (Mullers &
Dowling, 2008). Research findings also revealed that sexually abused children experience
more problems than children who were maltreated in other ways (Lewis, McElroy, Harlaar, &
Runyan, 2016). In addition, incestuous abuse by a relative results in more negative
consequences than sexual abuse perpetrated by nonrelatives (Stroebel et al., 2012).
Stepchildren are argued to be at increased risk of sexual abuse perpetrated by
stepparents for several reasons, as suggested by theoretical frameworks presented earlier.
While the assumptions of relevant theories regarding stepparents and sexual abuse have not

The SAGE Handbook of Domestic Violence
13
been explicitly tested, research has sought to examine risk factors associated with sexual
abuse, including the presence of stepparents within the familial structure. For example, in
Creighton’s (1985) epidemiological study of abused children and their families, a substantial
proportion of sexually abused children were reared in non-nuclear families. Of these victims
in non-nuclear families, the most common conjugal situation of their parents was genetic
mother and stepfather. Moreover, stepfathers were significantly more likely to sexually abuse
daughters compared to genetic fathers. This finding is supported in other studies (Faust,
Runyon, & Kenny, 1995; Hwa et al., 2010; Paveza, 1998), and may extend to mother’s
paramours and male acquaintances (Finkelhor, 1980; Shah, Dail, & Heinrichs, 1995). However,
as some of these studies rely on official records of abuse (e.g. Creighton, 1985; Paveza, 1998),
the data may be inaccurate. For instance, official records detect substantially fewer abuse
cases than self-reported data (Radford et al., 2011), and there are specific concerns about the
willingness of boys to disclose sexual abuse victimizations to authorities (Finkelhor, Hotaling,
Lewis, & Smith, 1990; Negriff, Schneiderman, Smith, Schreyer, & Trickett, 2014). Nonetheless,
findings indicate that stepfather-daughter incest is the most common form of stepparent
perpetrated child sexual abuse. A recent meta-analysis sought to examine risk factors for child
sexual abuse victimization and concluded that the presence of a stepfather had a small effect
on risk of child sexual abuse (Assink et al., 2019). Additionally, it was found that a strong
moderator of the risk was the proportion of male children in the sample. Specifically, samples
with higher proportions of males found weaker risks associated with the presence of a
stepfather on child sexual abuse. Hence, most research has targeted the apparent unique
relationship between the presence of stepfathers and the sexual abuse of young girls.
Stepfamilies are likely to be characterized by several stressors which may confound
the relationship between stepfathers and child sexual abuse. For instance, it has been found
that girls raised by a genetic mother and stepfather were at greater risk of sexual abuse, but
were often victimized by males other than the stepfather (Finkelhor, 1980). The mother-
daughter relationship seemed pivotal in explaining this finding, as emotional and physical
distance in this relationship increased the daughter’s risk of childhood sexual abuse
(Finkelhor, 1980), which may imply an influence of attachment. Indeed, a case-control study
comparing families where child sexual abuse had occurred and families where no such abuse
was reported found that emotional closeness between mother and daughter was associated
with an eleven-fold increased risk of sexual abuse (Paveza, 1998), although this study did not

The SAGE Handbook of Domestic Violence
14
investigate the influence of stepfathers. Additional risk factors such as the mother’s
inclination to be less supportive when the perpetrator is a stepfather may leave daughters
vulnerable to severe abuse (Cyr et al., 2002; Faust et al., 1995). It is therefore worth studying
more closely the mother-daughter relationship as this may partially explain the effect of
stepfathers on increased risk of sexual abuse. Several other facets of family life were
associated with increased risk of sexual abuse, including low income, marital satisfaction,
presence of IPV, daughters assuming maternal roles at an immature age, inadequate housing,
social isolation, and alcohol dependency (Faust et al., 1995; Paveza, 1998). Therefore, it is
plausible that the relationship between stepfathers and child sexual abuse could be explained
by other aspects of the family environment.
It has been posited that the absence of a genetic father removes quality investment
typically afforded to the daughters (Daly & Wilson, 2007), and that disruption to the conjugal
relationship, specifically the introduction of a stepfather, is associated with increased risk of
sexual abuse, which has some support (Finkelhor et al., 1990). This may be because girls raised
in such a familial environment do not receive appropriate guidance to identify or cope with
situations where there is a risk of sexual abuse, or are more likely to be exposed to potential
abusers. Indeed, some evidence suggests that abusive fathers (genetic or non-genetic) differ
from non-abusive fathers in that they are less involved in childcare, less assertive, have lower
social competencies, and have lower self-esteem (Faust et al., 1995). This suggests that the
parental investment of sexually abusive fathers may be of low quality. Further research is
required to test whether stepfathers are more likely to resemble these characteristics
associated with low quality parental investment. There is, however, evidence that abusive
stepfathers perpetrate more severe sexual abuse than abusive genetic fathers (Russell, 1983),
which may be related to a lack of incest aversion.
Although the extant literature indicates a relationship between the presence of a
stepfather and increased risk of childhood sexual abuse victimization (particularly for girls),
the evidence base does not point to an obvious answer. What appears to be a direct
relationship between stepfathers and child sexual abuse perpetrated against daughters may
be a spurious finding due to the influence of confounding variables within the family
environment. Indeed, little is known about precisely how the presence of a stepfather
increases the risk of child sexual abuse for girls.

The SAGE Handbook of Domestic Violence
15
3.3. Child homicides
Child homicide is the intentional killing of a child or infant. The terms filicide,
infanticide, and neonaticide have been used interchangeably in child homicide studies. Even
though infanticide refers to the killing of an infant (under the age of one year), it has
frequently been used to denote the killing of a child of any age by a caregiver. Neonaticide
corresponds to the killing of a child in the first 24 hours after birth, while filicide refers to the
killing of a child over the age of 12 months (Bourget, Grace, & Whitehurst, 2007; Stanton &
Simpson, 2002). Homicide statistics identify children under the age of one as the most likely
victims of violence, including homicide (Brookman & Nolan, 2006; Paulozzi & Sells, 2002).
Although official statistics indicate that child homicide is a relatively rare occurrence, this may
be partly due to some crimes being undetected (Haapasalo & Petäjä, 1999). Indeed, some
child homicide cases may be miscategorized as death by another cause (UNICEF, 2003).
In a recent review of studies investigating victim, perpetrator, and offense
characteristics in filicide, Debowska, Boduszek, and Dhingra (2015) demonstrated that child
homicides perpetrated by genetic parents and stepparents differ considerably in terms of
underlying motivational factors. Genetic parents are more likely to choose methods of killing
which produce quick and painless death, whereas stepparents are more likely to kill their
wards by beating (Liem & Koenraadt, 2008; Weekes-Shackelford & Shackelford, 2004).
Stepparents’ tendency to choose more brutal means of homicide is revealing of more feelings
of bitterness and resentment than witnessed in offenses perpetrated by genetic parents (Daly
& Wilson, 1998). In addition, the killing of genetic offspring, compared with the killing of
stepchildren, more often led to subsequent suicide of a male perpetrator (Wilson, Daly, &
Daniele, 1995). Stepfathers who kill their offspring tend to be relatively young, antisocial,
have criminal convictions, and a history of substance abuse (Hicks & Gaughan, 1995; Kasim &
Cheah, 1995; Nobes, Panagiotaki, & Russell Jonsson, 2019), suggesting that aggression toward
children may be rooted in caregivers’ psychopathic tendencies. Individuals scoring high on
psychopathic traits are characterized by disturbed personality patterns, with a deep lack of
empathy (Boduszek, Debowska, Dhingra, & DeLisi, 2016) and increased levels of aggression,
both reactive and instrumental (Blair, 2007). Characteristics such as callousness, impulsivity,
and grandiosity increase the likelihood of engaging in criminal behavior (Debowska,
Boduszek, Hyland, & Goodson, 2014; Hart & Hare, 1997). Indeed, empirical research revealed
a strong positive association between psychopathy and violence (e.g., Dolan & Doyle, 2000;

The SAGE Handbook of Domestic Violence
16
Salekin, Rogers, & Sewell, 1996; Skeem & Mulvey, 2001). Psychopaths were also described as
sensation seekers driven by sadistic impulses (Porter & Woodworth, 2007). Since child
homicides by stepfathers are often marked by greater brutality, psychopathic tendencies may
be a useful theoretical framework in explaining this phenomenon in future studies.
Although research on stepparental child homicide is still scarce and findings are
inconclusive, studies conducted to date have demonstrated that children living with non-
natal caregivers are at a greater risk of lethal injury compared with children living with both
biological parents. Daly and Wilson (1994) noted that this risk is more than 100 times higher
among very young stepchildren compared to genetic children. Schnitzer and Ewigman’s
(2005) investigated the role of household composition as an independent risk factor for
inflicted-injury death among children below the age of 5 years. The analysis involved 149
children who died in Missouri between January 1992 and December 1999 as well as two age-
matched controls per fatal case randomly selected from children who died of natural causes.
The researchers found that children residing in households with unrelated adults were nearly
50 times more likely to die of inflicted injuries than children residing with two genetic parents.
In households with unrelated adults, most perpetrators (83.9%) were the unrelated adult
household member. These results demonstrate that young children living with unrelated
caregivers are at an exceptionally high risk of fatal injury. Weekes-Shackelford and
Shackelford (2004) reported similar findings for American children aged less than 5 years. The
researchers extracted information on 3,925 filicide cases from national-level database of
Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHRs) for the years 1976-1994 in the United States. Based
on comparisons with population estimates of genetic fathers and stepfathers, results showed
child homicide rates of 60 per million children by stepfathers, and 7 per million children by
genetic fathers, an increased risk of 8.57. That is, child homicide occurred more frequently
among the smaller group of non-genetically related perpetrators. However, this risk could
have been overestimated because population surveys only indicate how many children live
with stepfathers and so the true proportions of children with stepfathers (cohabiting and non-
cohabiting) are unknown.
Harris, Hilton, Rice, and Eke (2007) examined 378 cases of parental and stepparental
filicide which occurred in Canada prior to 2003. Data were obtained from the Violent Crime
Linkage Analysis System (ViCLAS) and included information on perpetrator’s age, sex,
relationship to the victim, criminal history, and offense characteristics. Results revealed that

The SAGE Handbook of Domestic Violence
17
stepparents posed a significantly greater risk of lethal injury to children compared with
genetic parents. Child homicides by stepfathers were often characterized by sexual motives
and antisociality. The victims of stepfathers were usually very young. A similar behavioral
pattern was found in non-human primates, whereby a newly dominant male kills offspring
fathered by his predecessor (Wrangham & Peterson, 1996). The greatest risk of filicide in
Harris et al.’s (2007) study, however, was represented by stepmothers. Female non-natal
caregivers were frequently found to beat and injure a child, and were usually known to child
abuse services prior to the homicide. The risk of abuse and maltreatment significantly
increased with the presence of stepmother’s genetic offspring. This may indicate that women
do not want to invest resources in children to whom they did not give birth. In contrast,
Mariano, Chan, & Myers (2014) found that the most common stepparental filicide event was
stepfathers killing stepsons, followed by stepfathers killing stepdaughters. Of all stepparental
child homicides, 92% were perpetrated by males. In addition, stepparents, when compared
with biological parents, were significantly more likely to kill using firearms.
Most recently, Nobes et al.’s (2019) research inquired into child homicide by fathers
in Britain between 2000 and 2015 as recorded by the Home Office’s Homicide Index. To
address limitations of prior research, Nobes et al. made more accurate estimates of family
composition in the population using data from three large British surveys. This analysis
revealed that children aged between 0-4 years were 15.74 times more likely to be killed by a
stepfather compared to a genetic father. The increased risk was much less pronounced for
stepchildren aged 5-9 years (1.60) as well as stepchildren aged 10-17 years (2.85). All of these
odds ratios were reduced when only data from cohabiting father-child dyads were analyzed.
This indicates that a substantial amount of risk to children is posed by non-cohabiting adults.
In considering the physical distance that characterizes the relationship between a child and
non-cohabiting adult, such violence could be explained by poor attachment bonds between
the child and the perpetrator. Indeed, the usefulness of exploring attachment issues in child
homicide context is supported by earlier research which found that mothers who murdered
their children were likely to have an insecure attachment with them (Barone, Bramante,
Lionetti, & Pastore, 2014). In addition, stepfathers in Nobes et al.’s (2019) data set were found
to be much younger than genetic fathers. When father’s age was included in the analysis, it
accounted for much of the overrepresentation of stepfathers among the perpetrators and so
the researchers concluded that stepfathers posed little or no greater risk to children than

The SAGE Handbook of Domestic Violence
18
genetic fathers. The influence of confounding variables on the association between family
structure and child homicide was also acknowledged in Temrin, Nordlund, and Sterner’s
(2004) study. Using official data of all children in Sweden who died as a result of violence
between 1965-1999, the researchers found that stepchildren were not overrepresented as
victims of lethal parental violence. These results highlight the importance of controlling for
confounds when comparing the risk of lethal injury between genetic and non-genetic
children.
4. Conclusions and directions for future research
Research into child abuse by stepparents is fraught with difficulties. Firstly, theoretical
frameworks proposed to account for violence perpetrated by non-natal caregivers have a
limited explanatory power and some have not been empirically tested at all. A fundamental
methodological problem observed in the literature, especially in studies related to child
homicide, is the use of perpetrator samples drawn from correctional and forensic psychiatric
settings. Findings based on such samples are biased and may lack internal validity. Control
samples drawn from the general population have been rarely recruited and, hence, potential
risk factors leading to violence toward children cannot be confidently identified. Research
utilizing samples composed of treatment participants and matched controls is needed for
more reliable estimates of risk posed to children by stepparents to be made. Future research
should also distinguish between cohabiting and non-cohabiting stepparents. Such studies
could explore differences in attachment bonds between stepparents residing and not residing
with their stepchildren and test whether those differences can account for violence against
children. Even though research based on national data related to children’s wellbeing and
records of all children who died in a specific time period are more generalizable to the general
population, such data sets are unlikely to contain information on perpetrator characteristics,
other than the nature of their relationship with the child. In some instances, however, those
records could be linked with other data sets to access information on caregivers’
psychopathology or criminal history. Such rich data could be subject to multilevel modeling,
which would reduce overstatement of statistical significance observed in studies using
traditional statistical techniques and allow for estimating group effects simultaneously with
the effects of group-level predictors. Even though linking data from different sources would

The SAGE Handbook of Domestic Violence
19
be time-consuming, findings based on the analysis of such data would be indispensable in
designing appropriate preventive measures to ensure safety of all children.
References
Adler-Baeder, F. (2006). What do we know about the physical abuse of stepchildren? A
review of the literature. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 44(3-4), 67-81.
https://doi.org/10.1300/J087v44n03_05
Alexandre, G. C., Nadanovsky, P., Moraes, C. L., & Reichenheim, M. (2010). The presence of
a stepfather and child physical abuse, as reported by a sample of Brazilian mothers
in Rio de Janeiro. Child Abuse & Neglect, 34(12), 959-966.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2010.06.005
Amato, P. R. (2000). The consequences of divorce for adults and children. Journal of Marriage
and the Family, 62, 1269–1287. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.01269.x
Archer, J. (2013). Can evolutionary principles explain patterns of family
violence? Psychological Bulletin, 139(2), 403-440. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029114
Assink, M., van der Put, C. E., Meeuwsen, M. W. C. M., de Jong, N. M., Oort, F. J., Stams, G. J.
J. M., & Hoeve, M. (2019). Risk factors for child sexual abuse victimization: A meta-
analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 145(5), 459-489. doi: 10.1037/bul0000188
Azar, S. T. (1991). Models of child abuse: A metatheoretical analysis. Criminal Justice and
Behavior, 18(1), 30-46. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854891018001004
Barone, L., Bramante, A., Lionetti, F., & Pastore, M. (2014). Mothers who murdered their
child: An attachment-based study on filicide. Child Abuse & Neglect, 38(9), 1468-
1477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2014.04.014
Berger, L. M., Paxson, C., & Waldfogel, J. (2009). Mothers, men, and Child Protective
Services involvement. Child Maltreatment, 14(3), 263-276. doi:
10.1177/1077559509337255
Blair, R.J.R. (2007). Dysfunctions of medial and lateral orbitofrontal cortex in psychopathy.
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1121, 461-479.
Boduszek, D., Debowska, A., Dhingra, K., & DeLisi, M. (2016). Introduction and validation of
Psychopathic Personality Traits Scale (PPTS) in a large prison sample. Journal of
Criminal Justice, 46, 9-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2016.02.004

The SAGE Handbook of Domestic Violence
20
Bourget, D., Grace, J., & Whitehurst, L. (2007). A review of maternal and paternal filicide.
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 35(1), 74-82.
Brookman, F., & Nolan, J. (2006). The dark figure of infanticide in England and Wales:
Complexities of diagnosis. Journal of interpersonal violence, 21(7), 869-889.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260506288935
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: Current family violence research (pp. 88-101).
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Chan, K. L. (2011). Co-occurrence of intimate partner violence and child abuse in Hong Kong
Chinese families. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(7), 1322-1342.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260510369136
Claxton-Oldfield, S. (2000). Deconstructing the myth of the wicked stepparent. Marriage &
Family Review, 30(1-2), 51-58. https://doi.org/10.1300/J002v30n01_04
Claxton-Oldfield, S. (2008). Stereotypes of stepfamilies and stepfamily members. In J. Pryor
(Ed.), The international handbook of stepfamilies: Policy and practice in legal, research,
and clinical environments (pp. 30-52). New Jersey, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Cools, S., & Kotsadam, A. (2017). Resources and intimate partner violence in Sub-Saharan
Africa. World Development, 95, 211-230.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.02.027
Creighton, S. J. (1985). An epidemiological study of abused children and their families in the
United Kingdom between 1977 and 1982. Child Abuse & Neglect, 9(4), 441-448.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0145-2134(85)90052-3
Cyr, M., Wright, J., McDuff, P., & Perron, A. (2002). Intrafamilial sexual abuse: brother–sister
incest does not differ from father–daughter and stepfather–stepdaughter incest.
Child Abuse & Neglect, 26(9), 957-973. doi: 10.1016/S0145-2134(02)00365-4
Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (1985). Child abuse and other risks of not living with both
parents. Ethology and Sociobiology, 6(4), 197-210. https://doi.org/10.1016/0162-
3095(85)90012-3
Daly, M., & Wilson, M. I. (1994). Some differential attributes of lethal assaults on small
children by stepfathers versus genetic fathers. Ethology and Sociobiology, 15(4), 207-
217. doi: 10.1016/0162-3095(94)90014-0

The SAGE Handbook of Domestic Violence
21
Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (1998). The evolutionary social psychology of family violence. In C.
Crawford, & D. L. Kreb (Eds.), Handbook of evolutionary psychology (pp. 431-456).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (2007). Is the “Cinderella Effect” controversial? A case study of the
evolution-minded research and critiques thereof. In C. Crawford & D. Krebs (Eds.),
Foundations of evolutionary psychology (pp. 383-400). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Debowska, A., & Boduszek, D. (2017). Child abuse and neglect profiles and their
psychosocial consequences in a large sample of incarcerated males. Child Abuse &
Neglect, 65, 266-277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2016.12.003
Debowska, A., Boduszek, D., & Dhingra, K. (2015). Victim, perpetrator, and offense
characteristics in filicide and filicide–suicide. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 21,
113-124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2015.01.011
Debowska, A., Boduszek, D., Hyland, P., & Goodson, S. (2014). Biological correlates of
psychopathy: A brief review. Mental Health Review Journal, 9(2), 110-123.
Debowska, A., Boduszek, D., Sherretts, N., Willmott, D., & Jones, A. D. (2018). Profiles and
behavioral consequences of child abuse among adolescent girls and boys from
Barbados and Grenada. Child Abuse & Neglect, 79, 245-258.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2018.02.018
Debowska, A., Willmott, D., Boduszek, D., & Jones, A. D. (2017). What do we know about
child abuse and neglect patterns of co-occurrence? A systematic review of profiling
studies and recommendations for future research. Child Abuse & Neglect, 70, 100-
111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2017.06.014
Dolan, M.C., & Doyle, M. (2000). Violence risk prediction: Clinical and actuarial measures
and the role of the Psychopathy Checklist. British Journal of Psychiatry, 177, 303-
311.
Faust, J., Runyon, M. K., & Kenny, M. C. (1995). Family variables associated with the onset
and impact of interfamilial childhood sexual abuse. Clinical Psychology Review, 15(5),
443-456. https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-7358(95)00025-K
Finkelhor, D. (1980). Risk factors in the sexual victimization of children. Child Abuse &
Neglect, 4(4), 265-273. Doi: 10.1016/0145-2134(80)90045-9
Finkelhor, D. (1994). The international epidemiology of child sexual abuse. Child Abuse &
Neglect, 18(5), 409-417. https://doi.org/10.1016/0145-2134(94)90026-4

The SAGE Handbook of Domestic Violence
22
Finkelhor, D., & Browne, A. (1985). The traumatic impact of child sexual abuse: A
conceptualization. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 55(4), 530-541.
Finkelhor, D., Hotaling, G., Lewis, I. A., & Smith, C. (1990). Sexual abuse in a national survey
of adult men and women: Prevalence, characteristics, and risk factors. Child Abuse &
Neglect, 14(1), 19-28. Doi: 10.1016/0145-2134(90)90077-7
Freisthler, B., Gruenewald, P. J., Ring, L., & LaScala, E. A. (2008). An ecological assessment of
the population and environmental correlates of childhood accident, assault, and
child abuse injuries. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 32(11), 1969-
1975. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-0277.2008.00785.x
Gelles, R. J., & Harrop, J. W. (1991). The risk of abusive violence among children with
nongenetic caretakers. Family Relations, 40(1), 78-83.
Gil, D. (1970). Violence against children: Physical child abuse in the United States.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
Gilbert, R., Kemp, A., Thoburn, J., Sidebotham, P., Radford, L., Glaser, D., & MacMillan, H.
L. (2009a). Recognising and responding to child maltreatment. The Lancet,
373(9658), 167-180. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61707-9
Gilbert, R., Widom, C. S., Browne, K., Fergusson, D., Webb, E., & Janson, S. (2009b).
Burden and consequences of child maltreatment in high-income countries. The
Lancet, 373, 68-81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61706-7
Giles-Sims, J., & Finkelhor, D. (1984). Child abuse in stepfamilies. Family Relations, 33(3),
407-413. https://www.jstor.org/stable/584711
Goode, W. J. (1971). Force and violence in the family. Journal of Marriage and the Family,
33, 624-636. https://www.jstor.org/stable/349435
Goody, J. (1956). A comparative approach to incest and adultery. The British Journal of
Sociology, 7(4), 286-305. doi: 10.2307/586694
Hamilton, W. D. (1964). The genetical evolution of social behaviour. Journal of Theoretical
Biology, 7, 1–52.
Haapasalo, J., & Petäjä, S. (1999). Mothers who killed or attempted to kill their child: life
circumstances, childhood abuse, and types of killing. Violence and Victims, 14(3),
219-239. doi: 10.1891/0886-6708.14.3.219

The SAGE Handbook of Domestic Violence
23
Harris, G.T., Hilton, N.Z., Rice, M.E., & Eke, A.W. (2007). Children killed by genetic
parents versus stepparents. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28, 85-95.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2006.08.001
Hart, S.D., & Hare, R.D. (1997). Psychopathy: Assessment and association with criminal
conduct. In D.M. Stoff, & J. Breiling (Eds), Handbook of Antisocial Behaviour (pp. 22-
35). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons Inc.
Hershkowitz, I., Horowitz, D., & Lamb, M. E. (2005). Trends in children's disclosure of abuse
in Israel: A national study. Child Abuse & Neglect, 29(11), 1203-1214.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2005.04.008
Hicks, R. A., & Gaughan, D. C. (1995). Understanding fatal child abuse. Child Abuse &
Neglect, 19(7), 855-863. https://doi.org/10.1016/0145-2134(95)00044-9
Holanda Júnior, F. W. N. (2017). Incest avoidance and prohibition: Psychobiological and
cultural factors. Psicologia USP, 28(2), 287-297. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0103-
656420160050
Hopkins, k. (1980). Brother-sister marriage in Roman Egypt. Comparative Studies in Society
and History, 22(3), 303-354. doi: 10.1017/S0010417500009385
Humphries, R. L., Debowska, A., Boduszek, D., & Mattison, M. L. (2016). Gender differences
in psychosocial predictors of attitudes toward reporting child sexual abuse in the
United Kingdom. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 25(3), 293-309.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10538712.2016.1133752
Hwa, H., Chen, S., Wu, M., Shun, C., Liu, S., Lee, J., Chen, Y. (2010). Analysis of cases of
sexual assault presenting at a medical centre in Taipei. Taiwanese Journal of
Obstetrics and Gynecology, 49(2), 165-169. Doi: 10.1016/S1028-4559(10)60035-6
Jaffee, S. R., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T. E., & Taylor, A. (2004). Physical maltreatment victim to
antisocial child: evidence of an environmentally mediated process. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 113(1), 44-55. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.113.1.44
Jones, D. A., Trudinger, P., & Crawford, M. (2004). Intelligence and achievement of children
referred following sexual abuse. Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health, 40(8), 455-
460. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1754.2004.00427.x
Kalil, A., & Ryan, R. M. (2010). Mothers' economic conditions and sources of support in
fragile families. The Future of Children, 20(2), 39-61. doi: 10.1353/foc.2010.0009

The SAGE Handbook of Domestic Violence
24
Kasim, M. S., & Cheah, I. (1995). Childhood deaths from physical abuse. Child Abuse and
Neglect, 19, 847– 854.
Kendall-Tackett, K. A., Williams, L. M., & Finkelhor, D. (1993). Impact of sexual abuse on
children: a review and synthesis of recent empirical studies. Psychological
Bulletin, 113(1), 164-180. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.113.1.164
Lahey, B. B., Moffitt, T. E., & Caspi, A. (Eds.). (2003). Causes of conduct disorder and juvenile
delinquency. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Lewis, T., McElroy, E., Harlaar, N., & Runyan, D. (2016). Does the impact of child sexual
abuse differ from maltreated but non-sexually abused children? A prospective
examination of the impact of child sexual abuse on internalizing and externalizing
behavior problems. Child Abuse & Neglect, 51, 31-40.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.11.016
Liem, M., & Koenraadt, F. (2008). Filicide: A comparative study of maternal versus paternal
child homicide. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 18(3), 166-176.
https://doi.org/10.1002/cbm.695
Maden, M. (1980). Disposition of reported child abuse. Saratoga, CA: Century 21 Press.
Malvaso, C., Delfabbro, P., Proeve, M., & Nobes, G. (2015). Predictors of child injury in
biological and stepfamilies. Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma, 8(3), 149-159.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40653-015-0052-1
Margolin, G., & Gordis, E. B. (2000). The effects of family and community violence on
children. Annual Review of Psychology, 51(1), 445-479.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.445
Mariano, T.Y., Chan, H.C., & Myers, W.C. (2014). Toward a more holistic understanding of
filicide: A multidisciplinary analysis of 32 years of U.S. arrest data. Forensic Science
International, 236, 46-53.
Martin, M. J., & Walters, J. (1982). Familial correlates of selected types of child abuse and
neglect. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 44, 267-276.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/351537
Mathews, B., & Walsh, K. (2004). Queensland teachers' new legal obligation to report child
sexual abuse. Australia & New Zealand Journal of Law & Education, 9(1), 25-40.

The SAGE Handbook of Domestic Violence
25
Milner, J. S., & Chilamkurti, C. (1991). Physical child abuse perpetrator characteristics: A
review of the literature. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 6(3), 345–366.
https://doi.org/10.1177/088626091006003007
Mullers, E. S., & Dowling, M. (2008). Mental health consequences of child sexual
abuse. British Journal of Nursing, 17(22), 1428-1433.
https://doi.org/10.12968/bjon.2008.17.22.31871
National Data Archive on Child Abuse and Neglect. (2020). National Data Archive on Child
Abuse and Neglect. Retrieved from https://www.ndacan.acf.hhs.gov/index.cfm
Negriff, S., Schneiderman, J. U., Smith, C., Schreyer, J. K., & Trickett, P. K. (2014).
Characterizing the sexual abuse experiences of young adolescents. Child Abuse &
Neglect, 38(2), 2616-70. Doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2013.08.021
Nobes, G., Panagiotaki, G., & Russell Jonsson, K. (2019). Child homicides by stepfathers: A
replication and reassessment of the British evidence. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: General, 148(6), 1091-1102. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000492
Paulozzi, L., & Sells, M. (2002). Variation in homicide risk during pregnancy—United States,
1989-1998. MMWR Weekly, 51, 187-189.
Paveza, G. J. (1998). Risk factors in father-daughter child sexual abuse: A case-control study.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 3(3), 290-306. Doi: 10.1177/088626088003003003
Porter, S., & Woodworth, M. (2007). Psychopathy and aggression. In C.J. Patrick (Ed.),
Handbook of Psychopathy (pp. 481-494). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Pullman, L. E., Babchishin, K., & Seto, M. C. (2019). An examination of the Westermarck
hypothesis and the role of disgust in incest avoidance among fathers. Evolutionary
Psychology, 17(2), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474704919849924
Radford, L., Corral, S., Bradley, C., Fisher, H., Bassett, C., Howat, N., & Collishaw, S. (2011).
Child abuse and neglect in the UK today. Retrieved from
http://www.nspcc.org.uk/childstudy
Russell, D. E. H. (1983). The incidence and prevalence of intrafamilial and extrafamilial
sexual abuse of female children. Child Abuse & Neglect, 7(2), 133-146. doi:
10.1016/0145-2134(83)90065-0
Salekin, R.T., Rogers, R., & Sewell, K.W. (1996). A review and meta-analysis of the
Psychopathy Checklist and Psychopathy Checklist-Revised: Predictive validity of
dangerousness. Clinical Psychology Science and Practice, 3, 203-215.

The SAGE Handbook of Domestic Violence
26
Schnitzer, P. G., & Ewigman, B. G. (2005). Child deaths resulting from inflicted injuries:
Household risk factors and perpetrator characteristics. Pediatrics, 116(5), e687-e693.
https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2005-0296
Sedlak, A. J., & Broadhurst, (1996). Third National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and
Neglect (NlS-3): Final report. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human
Services. Retrieved from
https://library.childwelfare.gov/cwig/ws/library/docs/gateway/Blob/13635.pdf?r=1
&rpp=-10&upp=0&w=+NATIVE%28%27IPDET+PH+IS+%27%27nis-
3%27%27%27%29&m=6&order=+NATIVE%28%27year%2Fdescend%27%29
Sedlak, A. J., Mettenburg, J., Basena, M., Petta, I., McPherson, K., Green, A., & Li, S. (2010).
Fourth national incidence study of child abuse and neglect (NIS-4) (2009-2010):
Report to Congress. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services.
Retrieved from
http://cap.law.harvard.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2015/07/sedlaknis.pdf
Shah, R. Z., Dail, P. W., & Heinrichs, T. (1995). Familial influences upon the occurrence of
childhood sexual abuse. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 4(4), 45-61. doi:
10.1300/J070v04n04_03
Shaw, M., & De Jong, M. (2012). Child abuse and neglect: a major public health issue and
the role of child and adolescent mental health services. The Psychiatrist, 36(9), 321-
325. https://doi.org/10.1192/pb.bp.111.037135
Shawky, R. M., Elsayed, S. M., Zaki, M. E., El-Din, S. M. N., & Kamal, F. M. (2013).
Consanguinity and its relevance to clinical genetics. Egyptian Journal of Medical
Human Genetics, 14(2). 157-164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmhg.2013.01.002
Skeem, J. L., & Mulvey, E. P. (2001). Psychopathy and community violence among civil
psychiatric patients: Results from the MacArthur Violence Risk Assessment
Study. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 69, 358-374.
Stanton, J., & Simpson, A. (2002). Filicide: A review. International Journal of Law and
Psychiatry, 25(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-2527(01)00097-8
Stroebel, S. S., O'keefe, S. L., Beard, K. W., Kuo, S. Y., Swindell, S. V., & Kommor, M. J. (2012).
Father–daughter incest: Data from an anonymous computerized survey. Journal of
Child Sexual Abuse, 21(2), 176-199. https://doi.org/10.1080/10538712.2012.654007

The SAGE Handbook of Domestic Violence
27
Temrin, H., Nordlund, J., & Sterner, H. (2004). Are stepchildren over–represented as victims
of lethal parental violence in Sweden? Proceedings of the Royal Society of London.
Series B: Biological Sciences, 271(suppl_3), S124-S126.
https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2003.0125
Thornhill, N. W. (1991). An evolutionary analysis of rules regulating human inbreeding and
marriage. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14(2), 247-261. doi: 10.1016/0162-
3095(90)90032-2
Trivers, R. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual
selection and the descent of man (pp. 136 –179). Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Tucker, J. S., Kressin, N. R., Spiro III, A., & Ruscio, J. (1998). Intrapersonal characteristics and
the timing of divorce: A prospective investigation. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 15(2), 211-225. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407598152005
UNICEF (2003). Annual report. Retrieved from http://www.unicef.org/
Vachon, D. D., Krueger, R. F., Rogosch, F. A., & Cicchetti, D. (2015). Assessment of the
harmful psychiatric and behavioral effects of different forms of child
maltreatment. JAMA Psychiatry, 72(11), 1135-1142. doi:
10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2015.1792
Van den Berghe, P. L. (1983). Human inbreeding avoidance: Culture in nature. Behavioral
and Brain Sciences, 6(1), 91-102. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0001485
Vulliamy, A. P., & Sullivan, R. (2000). Reporting child abuse: Pediatricians’ experiences with
the child protection system. Child Abuse & Neglect, 24(11), 1461-1470.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0145-2134(00)00199-X
Waldfogel, J., Craigie, T. A., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2010). Fragile families and child wellbeing.
The Future of Children, 20(2), 87-112. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20773696
Weekes-Shackelford, V. A., & Shackelford, T. K. (2004). Methods of filicide: Stepparents and
genetic parents kill differently. Violence and Victims, 19(1), 75-81. doi:
10.1891/vivi.19.1.75.33232
Wekerle, C. (2013). Resilience in the context of child maltreatment: Connections to the
practice of mandatory reporting. Child Abuse & Neglect, 37(2-3), 93-101.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2012.11.005
Whitaker, D. J., Le, B., Hanson, R. K., Baker, C. K., McMahon, P. M., Ryan, G., ... & Rice, D. D.
(2008). Risk factors for the perpetration of child sexual abuse: A review and meta-

The SAGE Handbook of Domestic Violence
28
analysis. Child Abuse & Neglect, 32(5), 529-548.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2007.08.005
Wilson, M., Daly, M., & Daniele, A. (1995). Familicide: The killing of spouse and children.
Aggressive Behavior, 21(4), 275–291. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-
2337(1995)21:4<275::AID-AB2480210404>3.0.CO;2-S
World Health Organization (WHO). (2014). Global status report on violence prevention
2014. Retrieved from
http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/violence/status_report/2014/en/
Wrangham, R., & Peterson, D. (1996). Demonic Males: Apes and the origins of human
violence. Boston, MA: Mariner Books.
Yampolskaya, S., Greenbaum, P. E., & Berson, I. R. (2009). Profiles of child maltreatment
perpetrators and risk for fatal assault: A latent class analysis. Journal of Family
Violence, 24(5), 337-348. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-009-9233-8
Zeuthen, K., & Hagelskjær, M. (2013). Prevention of child sexual abuse: Analysis and
discussion of the field. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 22(6), 742-760.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10538712.2013.81113
Author note
Agata Debowska, PhD is a Lecturer in Psychology at the University of Sheffield. Her current
research interests and publications include violence against women and children, gender-
based violence prevention, psychopathy, and criminal social identity.
George Hales, MSc is a PhD researcher at the University of Sheffield. His current research
interests and publications include violence against children, adverse childhood experiences,
and resilience.
Daniel Boduszek, PhD is a Professor of Criminal Psychology at the University of
Huddersfield, Professor of Psycho-Criminology at the SWPS University of Social Sciences and
Humanities, and Director of Quantitative Research Methods Training Unit. His current
research interests and publications include the aspects of criminal cognitions, homicidal
behavior, psychopathy, prisonization, and recidivism.