Spirituality and Parenting among Women Experiencing Intimate Partner Violence

Abstract

Purpose:

While spirituality and parenting have been examined among caregivers experiencing adversity, less research has explored these factors among mother survivors of intimate partner violence (IPV). Given the potentially protective role of spirituality, understanding how parenting is associated with spirituality is important.

Method:

The current study explored parenting practices, parent-child communication, and spirituality among 175 women caregivers who had experienced recent IPV. Hierarchical linear regression was used to examine associations between maternal age, education, HIV status, and illicit substance use (model 1); child age and gender (model 2); parent-child comfort communicating about sexual practices, IPV, HIV/AIDS, and substance use (model 3); and positive and negative parenting practices (model 4) with spirituality.

Results:

Findings suggested positive parenting practices, greater comfort talking about IPV, and greater discomfort talking about substance use were associated with higher spirituality.

Conclusions:

Results highlight the value of parenting and communication strategies among women caregivers experiencing recent adversity.

Spirituality encompasses transcendental belief systems and associated practices through which a person views the world and forms relationships (Mahoney, 2010, 2013; Walsh, 2010). Spirituality is associated with wide-ranging positive outcomes (Moore, 2017; Park, 2012). For instance, spirituality is a contributing factor to psychological wellness (Moore, 2017) and is often conceptualized as a protective factor among individuals encountering adversity (Park, 2012). Protective factors are broadly defined as resources or aspects that may buffer against poor psychological outcomes in the midst of adversity or hardship (Ozer, Lavi, Douglas, & Wolf, 2017). Among individuals of color, spirituality may be an especially salient protective factor (Banerjee & Pyles, 2004) and an important variable associated with positive parenting practices (Letiecq, 2007). This research is well situated within the Relational Spirituality framework, which posits that individual family members’ spirituality is implicated in the creation and maintenance of positive and/or negative relationships with other family members. In this framework, spirituality is an inherently relational phenomenon. It is related to parenting thoughts and actions that impact relationships and may be particularly salient in the context of adversity (Mahoney, 2013; Mahoney, 2010).

Research examining outcomes among women exposed to adversity typically underscores risk factors, while largely ignoring protective factors in this population. In the context of this study, protective factors are defined as factors that may attenuate or mitigate relationships between adversity and poor outcomes. In addition, there is a dearth of research on variables that predict protective factors, such as spirituality. The examination of factors associated with spirituality among women experiencing intimate partner violence (IPV) is especially important given the high prevalence of IPV and the far-reaching effects of such adversity (Breiding, Basile, Smith, Black, & Mahendra, 2015; Jouriles et al., 2018). Applying the Relational Spirituality framework, the present study aims to address a gap in the research literature by examining associations between spirituality (as a protective factor) and mother-child relationships within the context of IPV.

Intimate Partner Violence

IPV is a significant public health problem, defined as abusive and/or controlling behaviors perpetrated by a romantic partner (Garcia-Moreno, Guedes, & Knerr, 2012). IPV includes physical or sexual violence, as well as emotional or financial abuse (Carrillo, 2017; Heyman, Slep, & Foran, 2015). Globally, IPV represents the most common type of violence against women (Izaguirre & Calvete, 2014). In the U.S., approximately 22% of women endorse severe physical IPV in their lifetime (Breiding, 2014) and an estimated 4.7 million women experience one or more forms of IPV each year (Karakurt, Whiting, Esch, Bolen, & Calabrese, 2016). IPV is also associated with higher risk of negative health and mental health outcomes. Physical IPV is associated with posttraumatic stress (Adams & Beeble, 2018), chronic pain (Crane & Easton, 2017), and depression (Ouellet-Morin et al., 2015). Psychological, physical, and sexual IPV are associated with anxiety (Jaquier, Flanagan, & Sullivan, 2015) and substance use (Cafferky, Mendez, Anderson, & Stith, 2018), and sexual and physical IPV are associated with higher risk of HIV infection (Swan & O’Connell, 2012). These negative health and mental health outcomes are associated with fewer protective factors and resources, including less engagement with social support and lower spirituality (Sharma et al., 2017; Talib & Abdollahi, 2017; Yeji et al., 2014). Consistent with the Relational Spirituality framework, women may also experience weakened spiritual or religious beliefs and may also question their relationship with God, the divine, or a higher power as a result of their experiences of IPV (Yick, 2008).

Growing literature on the co-occurrence of Substance Abuse, Violence, and AIDS/HIV (i.e., SAVA) highlights IPV as a central factor to an individual’s functioning in the midst of multiple adversities (Sullivan, Messer, & Quinlivan, 2015). While sexual and emotionally abusive IPV victimization is related to increased risk of contracting HIV (Rountree & Mulraney, 2010), both IPV perpetration and victimization are associated with substance use (Cafferky et al., 2018; Easton & Cane, 2016). These risks vary across socioeconomic status, and thus reinforce health disparities such that women experiencing lower socioeconomic status and lower educational attainment are at the greatest risk of experiencing IPV relative to their counterparts with higher socioeconomic status and higher educational attainment (Black et al., 2011). Although previous research has primarily focused on the risks and negative outcomes associated with IPV and other co-occurring adversities (i.e., substance abuse and HIV), some studies indicate that women who experience IPV rely on internal and external sources of support, including spirituality (López-Fuentes & Calvete, 2015). For instance, higher spirituality among women survivors of IPV has been associated with increased resilience (i.e., adaptive functioning following an adversity) (Howell, Thurston, Schwartz, Jamison, & Hasselle, 2017; LeGrand, Reif, Sullivan et al., 2015; Rosa, Barnett-Queen, Messick, & Gurrola, 2016). Further, spirituality can serve as a coping mechanism in the context of IPV and may increase one’s sense of self-efficacy (Drumm et al., 2014). Additionally, the Relational Spirituality framework and related research suggest that one’s spirituality may be negatively impacted as a result of experienced IPV (Yick, 2008) and also that spirituality is a salient factor in the context of the family system, parenting practices, and positive familial relationships (Mahoney, 2013), and thus may warrant further exploration among mothers experiencing IPV.

IPV and Parenting

IPV often occurs in the context of families with young children (McDonald, Jouriles, Ramisetty-Mikler, Caetano, & Green, 2006). More than 15 million children in the U.S. are exposed to IPV involving one or both of their parents (Jouriles, McDonald, Vu, & Sargent, 2016). Belsky’s model of the determinants of parenting posits that when parents face greater stress (e.g., SAVA), the likelihood of ineffective parenting strategies increases (Belsky, 1984). Previous research supports this model by highlighting that both IPV perpetration and victimization predict more negative and fewer positive parenting practices (Ehrensaft, Knous-Westfall, & Cohen, 2017). Negative parenting practices are broadly defined as practices that may increase the risk of negative outcomes among children (e.g., conduct problems) (Frick, 1991). Examples of negative parenting practices include harsh or inconsistent parenting, poor monitoring and supervision of children, low levels of positive involvement with children, and excessive corporal punishment (Frick, 1991). Positive parenting practices are associated with fewer conduct problems and are characterized by warm affect, cooperation, and effective communication (Clark & Frick, 2018). IPV is particularly detrimental for mothers given their roles and responsibilities as primary caretakers (Jouriles et al., 2018). Previous research indicates that maternal mental and physical health likely influence parenting practices and child outcomes (Jouriles et al., 2018). Mother-child relationships and communication are especially important sources of support and motivation among families experiencing IPV (Insetta et al., 2015). However, experiencing IPV can lead to less effective parenting practices. For example, mothers experiencing IPV are at risk of engaging in aggressive behaviors and using severe forms of punishment with their children (Grasso et al., 2016). These problematic parenting practices are associated with increased physical and mental health risks among children, including internalizing and externalizing forms of psychopathology (Braza et al., 2015; Grasso et al., 2016).

IPV exposure during childhood negatively affects behavioral, socioemotional, and cognitive development (Gustafsson, Cox, & Investigators, 2016). However, sensitive parenting styles and certain parenting behaviors (e.g., maternal positive regard and being a supportive presence for children) may help to mitigate these risks (Gustafsson et al., 2016). Although Belsky’s aforementioned model of parenting determinants underscores the negative outcomes of parenting stress, his seminal work also notes the myriad of potential buffers against parenting stress (Belsky, 1984). Spirituality may be one such buffer; however, there is a gap in the literature examining the potentially positive relationship between parenting practices and spirituality among mothers who have experienced IPV.

Previous research indicates that many mothers who are survivors of IPV desire to discuss violence and the impact of substance use in their relationships with their children but rarely do so (Insetta et al., 2015). There is a dearth of research regarding HIV/AIDS and sexual practices communication between mothers who are survivors of IPV and their children. Previous research among mothers who were not identified as IPV survivors indicated that maternal warmth, an aspect of positive parenting, was associated with communication regarding safe sex practices and HIV/AIDS (Bouris, Hill, Fisher et al., 2016). When conversations occur with loved ones about specific adversities faced by women (e.g., HIV and substance use), such communication could be linked to greater spirituality, and thus suggests that spirituality may be a fundamental source of strength for the entire family system (Hussen et al., 2014; Rafferty, Billing, & Mosack, 2015). Despite these findings and proposed associations, research thus far has focused primarily on risk factors associated with negative parenting practices and poor mother-child communication, with a limited examination of positive and buffering factors, such as spirituality. Given Belsky’s model of the determinants of parenting and strengths-related research (Erdem & Safi, 2018; Jouriles et al., 2018), it is possible that positive mother-child relationships and better communication will be related to greater spirituality; however this relationship remains to be examined.

Parenting, Spirituality, and the Relational Spirituality Framework

The Relational Spirituality framework posits that spirituality and spiritual beliefs may play an important role in the creation and maintenance of family relationships (Mahoney, 2010, 2013). Within this framework, spirituality is associated with parenting cognitions and behaviors that foster and maintain positive relationships with family members (Mahoney, 2010, 2013). In addition, this framework suggests that spirituality may be particularly salient for family relationships in the context of “family crises,” such as domestic violence (Mahoney, 2010). The Relational Spirituality framework rests upon the assumption that spirituality is an inherently relational phenomenon in that this construct encompasses one’s relationship with God, the divine, or the sacred (Mahoney, 2010, 2013; Mattis & Jagers, 2001). This relationship is associated with one’s family-related behaviors and cognitions and, as such, is an important factor to examine (Mahoney, 2010, 2013).

This framework is supported by prior cross-sectional research indicating that spirituality is a relevant protective factor among parents and families. Existing literature indicates positive relational outcomes, including decreased parenting stress, more positive interactions between parents and children (Lamis, Wilson, Tarantino, Lansford, & Kaslow, 2014), and greater parent-child closeness (Petts, 2014), are associated with spirituality. Previous research has also found that African American parents who were more spiritual employed greater positive parenting behaviors (e.g., monitoring and teaching their children about maintaining personal safety) in order to minimize children’s exposure to community violence (Letiecq, 2007).

In alignment with the Relational Spirituality framework, prior research indicates associations between positive parenting practices and spirituality across many populations, including African American mothers (Lamis et al., 2014; Rostosky, Abreu, Mahoney, & Riggle, 2017). The relationship between positive parenting practices and spirituality has also manifested in the context of adversity, including discrimination and neighborhood disorder (Lamis et al., 2014; Rostosky et al., 2017). Similarly, negative parenting practices (e.g., parent-child conflict) are associated with lower spirituality, while positive parent-child interactions and communication are associated with greater spirituality (Smokowski, Bacallao, Cotter, & Evans, 2015; Wilson, Lamis, Winn, & Kaslow, 2014). In addition, existing clinical interventions have shown that spirituality-focused interventions and interventions with spiritual components are associated with better health outcomes among children (Nouhi, Janbozorgi, Heris, Najimi, & Khastar, 2017). The proposed associations among parent-child relationships (i.e., parenting practices and mother-child communication) and spirituality within the context of IPV align with the Relational Spirituality framework and illustrate the importance of examining protective factors in the context of maternal adversity. Ultimately, the use of positive parenting practices as well as open mother-child communication, may be associated with greater spirituality. However, less is known about how spirituality may be related to parenting practices in the context of other singular or concurrent adversities (i.e., substance use and HIV).

Current Study

The purpose of the current study was to examine the relationship between parenting practices and spirituality among women caregivers exposed to IPV. Consistent with Belsky’s model of the determinants of parenting, experiencing IPV and other SAVA-related adversities may be associated with poorer parenting and child outcomes (Belsky, 1984). However, Belsky’s model also suggests that factors, such as spirituality, may buffer against the relationship between parenting stress and poorer outcomes. Thus, it is important to examine factors, such as spirituality, that may be associated with better outcomes. The Relational Spirituality framework indicates that behaviors and cognitions implicated in the creation and maintenance of family relationships are associated with personal spirituality (Mahoney 2010, 2013). Therefore, it is also paramount to explore variables associated with greater spirituality among women caregivers experiencing SAVA-related adversities. Thus, this study contributes to the literature by exploring the relationship between mother-child communication about various adversities and spirituality.

Given prior conceptual and quantitative research suggesting that greater parenting stress (e.g., SAVA-related adversity) may increase the risk of negative parenting practices (Belsky, 1984) and that spirituality in the context of the Relational Spirituality framework may serve as an impetus for positive relationships in the context of adversity (Mahoney, 2010, 2013), we hypothesized that 1) comfort communicating about adversities (i.e., comfort discussing IPV, comfort discussing substance use, comfort discussing HIV/AIDS, and comfort discussing sexual practices) would be positively associated with spirituality; 2) negative parenting practices would be negatively associated with spirituality; and 3) positive parenting practices would be positively associated with spirituality. This study aims to further understanding of the relationship between parenting practices and spirituality in the context of IPV.

Method

Participants

Participants included 175 women caregivers aged 22–62 (M_age = 35.18, SD = 8.39) who identified as the primary caregiver of a child aged 6–14 (M_age = 10.35, SD = 2.82; 50% male) and who endorsed having experienced IPV in the past six months. The sample was comprised primarily of women of color from low socioeconomic status (SES) backgrounds. Specifically, 69.8% self-identified as Black/African American, 14% as multiracial, 10.5% as White, 2.9% as Hispanic/Latina, 2.3% as “Other” race or ethnicities, and 0.6% as Asian. Approximately, 76% were living below the poverty line (i.e., making a household income of less than $20,000 per year). Most participants (86%) self-identified as a Christian denomination (49.4% Baptist, 28.5% non-denominational Christian, 3.5% Pentecostal, 2.3% Catholic, 1.7% Methodist, 0.6% Seventh Day Adventist), 8.7% indicated that they did not have a religion, 4.1% identified as “other” religion and 1.2% as Muslim.

Procedure

After obtaining IRB approval, women were recruited via flyers, direct contact with study staff, or referral from community organizations serving individuals experiencing adversity in the US Mid-South. Women were being recruited as part of a larger study examining risk and resilience among women caregivers experiencing adversity in the form of IPV and/or HIV positive status. All participants in the current study endorsed experiencing IPV in the past six months. Active recruitment and study participation occurred from May 2014 to December 2015. To be eligible for participation in the larger study, participants had to be able to understand and speak English, be 18 years of age or older, have a child between the ages of 6–14, be the primary female caregiver of said child, and have experienced violence with a partner in the past 6 months or have received a positive HIV diagnosis. After providing informed consent, eligible and interested women completed self-report questionnaires that were read aloud by trained study staff. All study measures and questions regarding the mother-child relationship and the child’s experiences were asked and answered in relation to the participant’s one child aged 6–14 years. Upon completion of the questionnaires, participants received a list of mental health resources, contact information for the lead investigators, and a gift card as compensation for their time.

Measures

Daily Spiritual Experiences Scale (DSES; dependent variable)—

The DSES is a 16-item self-report measure of personal interactions with God or higher power(s) across dimensions of spirituality, such as personal intimacy with a higher power, strength and comfort (e.g., “I find strength in my religion or spirituality”), perceived divine love, inspiration or discernment (e.g., “I ask for God’s help in the midst of daily activities”), transcendence (e.g., “During worship, or at others times when connecting with God, I feel intense joy which lifts me out of my daily concerns”), and internal integration (Underwood & Teresi, 2002). Items are assessed on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (many times a day). Scores are summed with total scores ranging from 16 to 80. Higher scores indicate greater spirituality. The DSES has high internal consistency reliability, α = .94 to .95, and adequate construct and discriminant validity (Underwood & Teresi, 2002). In this study, internal consistency was α=.94 and is consistent with other research among women from low SES backgrounds (Watlington & Murphy, 2006).

The Alabama Parenting Questionnaire (APQ; independent variable)—

The APQ (Frick, 1991) is a 42-item measure assessing positive and negative parenting practices. The present study focused on positive and negative parenting practices. The Positive Parenting subscale (16 items) was comprised of the sum of the Parental Involvement scale and the Positive Parenting scale. The Poor Monitoring/Supervision, Inconsistent Discipline, and Corporal Punishment subscales were summed to yield a Negative Parenting subscale (19 items). Participants rated the frequency of each item on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always). Summing relevant scale items yielded total positive and total negative parenting scores ranging from 16 to 80 and 19 to 95, with higher scores indicating greater frequencies of positive parenting and negative parenting, respectively. A sample positive parenting item is: “You reward or give something extra to your child for obeying you or behaving well”. A sample negative parenting item is: “You slap your child when he/she is misbehaving”. The APQ has good internal consistency among low SES samples (Howell, Miller, Lilly et al., 2015) and adequate criterion validity (Frick, Christian, & Wooton, 1999). In this study, the Negative Parenting subscale had an α=.84 and the Positive Parenting subscale had an α=.76.

The Parent Child Communication about SAVA Scale (independent variable)—

The Parent Child Communication about SAVA Scale is a 4-item measure assessing parents’ comfort and willingness to discuss issues of substance abuse, violence, AIDS/HIV, and sexual practices with their child. This measure is based on the Speaking Extent and Comfort Scale (SPEACS; Lyons & Spicer, 1999). Participants rated their agreement with statements regarding their comfort talking about SAVA topics with their child (i.e., “You are comfortable talking with your child about safe sex practices, such as not having sex and using condoms”) on a scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). Individual items were used in the present study; resulting in four variables exploring comfort discussing substance use, comfort discussing IPV, comfort discussing HIV/AIDS, and comfort discussing sexual practices.

Demographics (control variables)—

A demographics questionnaire was administered to each participant to ascertain basic background information, including age, race, ethnicity, education, household income, and child gender.

HIV Status (categorical; control variable)—

HIV status was assessed by asking participants the following question: “What was the result of your most recent HIV test?” with response options: Positive (you have HIV), Negative, Refuse to answer. Responses were then dichotomized into living with HIV versus not living with HIV. Of the sample, 23.6% (n = 39) participants endorsed living with HIV.

Illicit Substance Use (categorical; control variable) –

Illicit substance use was assessed using the 26-item World Health Organization Alcohol, Smoking, and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST) version 3. Consistent with the scoring criteria for the WHO ASSIST and legal standards in the Memphis Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), any use of cannabis, cocaine, amphetamines, inhalants, sedatives, hallucinogens, or opioids was considered illicit (i.e., illegal). Endorsement of any of these drugs over the past 6 months was combined and dichotomized into yes or no to illicit use. Of the sample, 27% (n = 38) endorsed illicit use.

The Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2; categorical; used to determine study sample) —

The CTS2 (Straus, 1979) is a 39-item self-report measure of psychological, physical, and sexual violence in a dating, cohabitating, or marital relationship. The CTS2 is the most widely used measure of IPV (Bender, 2017). For this study, participants reported on violence with a partner over the past six months. Items are assessed on a seven-point Likert scale from 0 (never happened) to 6 (happened more than 20 times). The measure contains five subscales assessing physical assault (M = 43.64, SD = 58.41) (e.g., “My partner twisted my arm or hair”), psychological aggression (M = 75.17, SD = 54.58) (e.g., “My partner insulted or swore at me”), injury (M = 12.59, SD = 20.32) (e.g., “You had a broken bone from a fight with your partner”), sexual coercion (M = 20.13, SD = 33.53) (e.g., “My partner used threats to make me have sex”), and negotiation (M = 55.58, SD = 38.41) (e.g., “My partner explained his or her side of a disagreement to me”). A total score is generated by summing responses on the physical assault, psychological aggression, sexual coercion, and injury subscales. A dichotomous IPV prevalence score was obtained by recoding total scores into yes (CTS2 score ≥ 1) or no (CTS2 score = 0). Participants were included if they scored ≥ 1 on this dichotomous variable. Participants who scored a 0 were not included in the current analyses. The CTS2 has good internal consistency in studies with survivors of IPV (Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996) and low SES samples (Howell et al., 2015), with alpha coefficients ranging from .79 to .95, as well as adequate construct and discriminant validity (Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996).

Data Analytic Plan

Analyses were completed in SPSS v. 25. Visual examination of scatterplots indicated data met the assumption of homoscedasticity and review of Tolerance and VIF statistics indicated the assumption of multicollinearity was met. Bivariate correlation analyses assessed associations across study variables. Hierarchical multiple regression analyses assessed relationships between each independent variable and the outcome of spirituality. Model 1 included demographic variables (i.e., maternal age and education) and adversity variables (HIV status and illicit substance use); Model 2 added child demographic variables (i.e., child age and gender); Model 3 added mother-child communication regarding: IPV, illicit substance use, sexual practices, and HIV/AIDS; and Model 4 added positive and negative parenting practices.

Results

Participants had a mean score of 58.97 (SD=13.70) on the measure of spirituality. On measures of positive and negative parenting, participants had an average score of 69.88 (SD=7.56) and 33.01 (SD=8.21), respectively. As displayed in Table 1, bivariate correlations revealed that spirituality and positive parenting were significantly and positively correlated. Maternal age was significantly and positively associated with mother-child communication regarding illicit substance use, sexual practices, and HIV/AIDS. Means and standard deviations for all study variables as well as bivariate correlations are displayed in Table 1.

Table 1.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations of Continuous Variables

	Age	Maternal Education	IPV-C	Substance-C	Safe Sex-C	HIV/AIDS-C	Positive Parenting	Negative Parenting	Spirituality
Age	35.18 (8.39)	−.08	.13	.25**	.23**	.18*	.04	−.08	.11
Maternal Education		12.51 (2.39)	.03	.03	−.12	−.12	.10	−.23**	.05
IPV-C			4.15 (1.33)	.56**	.42*	.50**	.17*	.01	.20*
Substance-C				4.31 (1.36)	.56**	.60**	.11	−.01	.02
Safe Sex-C					3.66 (1.65)	.78**	.09	.45	.11
HIV/AIDS-C						3.85 (1.56)	.13	.08	.04
Positive Parenting							69.88 (7.59)	−.21**	.28**
Negative Parenting								33.01 (8.21)	−.13
Spirituality									58.97 (13.70)

Note. Diagonal of table provides means (and standard deviations). Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) C = Comfort and willingness to discuss intimate partner violence-related topics; Substance-C = Comfort and willingness to discuss substance use-related topics; Safe Sex-C = Comfort and willingness to discuss sexual health-related topics; HIV/AIDS-C = Comfort and willingness to discuss HIV/AIDS-related topics.

^*p < .05;

^**p < .01

As displayed in Table 2, Model 1 of the hierarchical linear regression, which included age, education, HIV status, and illicit substance use, was not significant. To examine the association between child demographics and spirituality, child age and gender were added to Model 2. This model was also not significant.

Table 2.

Hierarchical Regression Examining Variables Associated with Spirituality

Variable	B	SE	β	t	R2	ΔR2	F
Model 1					.03		1.25
Age	.18	.16	.11	1.13
Education	.39	.46	.07	0.83
HIV Status	−2.89	2.93	−.10	−0.99
Substance Use	.03	2.78	.00	0.00
Model 2					.04	.01	1.02
Age	.12	.17	.07	0.67
Education	.41	.46	.08	0.88
HIV Status	−3.20	2.95	−.11	−1.08
Substance Use	−.30	2.84	−.01	−0.11
Child Age	.45	.43	.09	1.04
Child Gender	−.68	2.21	−.03	−0.31
Model 3					.13	.08	2.04*
Age	.15	.17	.09	0.91
Education	.46	.46	.08	1.00
HIV Status	−3.30	2.87	−.11	−1.15
Substance Use	.97	2.81	.03	0.35
Child Age	.13	.49	.03	0.26
Child Gender	−.43	2.17	−.02	−0.20
IPV Comfort	3.03	.98	.30	3.11**
Substance Comfort	−2.52	1.07	−.26	−2.35*
Safe Sex Comfort	1.75	1.05	.22	1.68
HIV/AIDS	−.98	1.15	−.11	−0.86
Comfort
Model 4					.19	.07	2.78**
Age	.19	.16	.11	1.13
Education	.15	.46	.03	.33
HIV Status	−1.73	2.82	−.06	−0.61
Substance Use	2.63	2.76	.08	.95
Child Age	.22	.48	.04	0.45
Child Gender	−1.07	2.11	−.04	−.51
IPV Comfort	2.65	.95	.27	2.78**
Substance Comfort	−2.61	1.04	−.27	−2.52*
Safe Sex Comfort	1.46	1.02	.18	1.44
HIV/AIDS	−.92	1.11	−.11	−.83
Comfort
Positive Parenting	.49	.15	.26	3.22**
Negative Parenting	−.08	.13	−.05	−.61

Note.

^*p < .05;

^**p < .01;

^***p < .001

To examine the association between mother-child communication and spirituality, four variables assessing comfort discussing IPV, substance use, sexual practices, and HIV/AIDS were added to Model 3. This third model was significant, F(10, 143)=2.04, p<.05, R²=12.5%. Here, greater comfort discussing IPV (ß=.30, p<.01) and lower comfort discussing substance use (ß=−.26, p<.05) were associated with higher spirituality (see Table 2).

To examine the association between parenting and spirituality, positive parenting and negative parenting were added to the final model. This fourth model was significant, F(12, 141)=2.78, p<.01, R²=19.1%. According to research standards (Falk and Miller, 1992), our R² value in this fourth model is adequate for interpretation and is also in the moderate range as determined by Cohen (1988). As shown in Table 2, greater comfort discussing IPV (ß=.27, p<.01), lower comfort discussing substance use (ß=−.27, p<.05), and greater use of positive parenting practices (ß=.26, p<.01) were associated with higher spirituality.

Discussion

Informed by Belsky’s model of the determinants of parenting (Belsky, 1984) and the Relational Spirituality framework (Mahoney, 2010, 2013), this study examined the relationship between maternal parenting practices and spirituality among women survivors of recent IPV, some of whom also were experiencing additional SAVA-related adversities. Although findings are exploratory, they contribute to a growing body of literature examining both positive and negative parenting in the context of IPV and related adversities. This study moves the field forward by assessing the relationship between spirituality and parent-child communication about several SAVA-related adversities, as well as parenting practices while controlling for demographics and SAVA-related variables. In addition, this study moves the field forward by examining a potential buffer or protective factor (i.e., spirituality) in the context of often stigmatized experiences, and thus provides a more balanced view of the experiences of families.

Notably, participants in our study reported slightly lower spirituality and significantly higher experiences of IPV as compared to participants from similar samples (Watlington & Murphy, 2006). Participants in our study reported using more positive than negative parenting practices. This finding is at odds with previous research indicating that mothers who have experienced IPV are at risk of engaging in less positive and more negative parenting practices (Ehrensaft et al., 2017; Grasso et al., 2016). However, our findings align with research suggesting heterogeneity of parenting practices among women caregivers who have experienced IPV (Dayton, Levendosky, Davidson, & Bogat, 2010; Tailor, Stewart-Tufescu, & Piotrowski, 2015). These findings also show that IPV does not uniformly negatively impact parenting (Greeson et al., 2014). Thus, results highlight the importance of strengths-based approaches to research examining women survivors of IPV. In addition, findings underscore the importance of assessing both positive and negative parenting practices among women coping with SAVA-related adversities in clinical settings. Finally, findings highlight the salience of both Belsky’s model of the determinants of parenting (Belsky, 1984) and the Relational Spirituality framework (Mahoney, 2010, 2013) in the context of IPV and other SAVA-related adversities.

As hypothesized, more positive parenting practices were associated with higher spirituality. This finding is aligned with prior theoretical work from Belsky (1984) and the Relational Spirituality framework (Mahoney, 2010, 2013), which suggests that spirituality may buffer against parenting stress and motivate positive relationships with family members. In addition, our findings align with prior research indicating that spirituality interventions and interventions with spiritual components improve health outcomes among children (Nouhi et al., 2017). Although we did not examine spirituality as a moderator of the relationship between adversity and parenting, our research underscores the salience of spirituality within this context. Indeed, study findings are also aligned with previous quantitative work (Howard et al., 2007; Lamis, Wilson, Tarantino, Lansford, & Kaslow, 2014; Petts, 2014) suggesting that, especially among women of color experiencing poverty, harnessing spiritual supports to engage in positive parenting practices may be beneficial to the whole family’s well-being. Future research examining how poverty interacts with spirituality within the context of maternal IPV and other SAVA-adversities to influence parenting and communication is needed.

Surprisingly, greater comfort discussing IPV but less comfort discussing substance use were associated with higher spirituality. This finding suggests that women experiencing a SAVA-related adversity or adversities have varying levels of comfort discussing different types of adversity and that spirituality may influence comfort or discomfort with certain topics. In our sample of women survivors of IPV, those women caregivers who were comfortable discussing IPV with their children also benefited from having higher spirituality. It may be that experiencing IPV allowed these women to discuss it with their children. This finding is aligned with the Relational Spirituality framework, which suggests that spirituality is associated with better overall familial relationships, and thus communication regarding IPV could be an aspect of such positive familial relationships (Mahoney, 2010, 2013). Higher spirituality was helpful in discussing adversities that were inflicted upon women (i.e., victimization from IPV) but less helpful in discussing adversities that women directly engaged in (i.e., illicit substance use). This also aligns with prior research indicating that spirituality may not play a significantly protective role against substance use among women (Staton-Tindall, Duvall, Stevens-Watkins et al., 2013). In the case of our results, perhaps the source of the adversity might have contributed to women’s comfort discussing these topics with their children. Our results also underscore the importance of assessing mother-child communication regarding SAVA given that our R² value significantly increased when these variables were added to the model. Future research is needed to examine this association further and to explore how and why mother-child communication across different SAVA topics may be differentially related to spirituality in the context of IPV.

Also consistent with Belsky’s (1984) model of the determinants of parenting and the Relational Spirituality framework (Mahoney, 2010, 2013), our findings illustrate that parent-child communication about adversity and positive parenting practices relate to spirituality among women survivors of IPV. Again, such findings provide support for the Relational Spirituality framework and suggest that spirituality may be a salient source of parenting-related resilience in the context of IPV and other SAVA-related adversities. In addition, the finding that positive parenting practices are associated with higher spirituality is supported by prior research indicating that a variety of positive parenting practices are associated with spirituality in the context of violence (Letiecq, 2007). Outside of the Relational Spirituality framework, these associations also make sense conceptually given previous research suggesting that spirituality is a source of strength in the context of stress (Seidlitz et al., 2002) and among women experiencing IPV (Banerjee & Pyles, 2004; Drumm et al., 2014). Findings also align with results from a spirituality-based parenting intervention that found increases in parenting-efficacy and parenting satisfaction when spiritual practices were incorporated (Howard et al., 2007). Such prior research and the current study’s findings underscore the salience of spirituality in this context. Further, results are consistent with calls from researchers to integrate religion and spirituality in clinical practice for psychologists, social workers, counselors, therapists and nurses and establish competencies of the integration of spirituality and religion across these professions (Oxhandler & Pargament, 2017; Oxhandler & Parrish, 2017).

Given sparse literature examining the relationship between mother-child communication and spirituality, it is difficult to place our findings that comfort discussing IPV is associated with higher spirituality and comfort discussing substance use is associated with lower spirituality in the context of available literature. Previous qualitative research examining parent-child communication about IPV indicates that many women survivors desire to communicate with their children about IPV but have never done so (Insetta et al., 2015). Thus, another contribution of our study is examining the relationship between specific adversity-related communication and spirituality in the context of IPV. Findings give further support to the call for parenting interventions that incorporate spirituality (Mahoney, LeRoy, Kusner, Padgett, & Grimes, 2013).

Limitations

Although there is clear value added to the literature from these findings, results should be interpreted in light of several limitations. The cross-sectional design precludes our ability to make conclusions regarding temporal or causal associations between parenting and spirituality. The current sample is also limited to service-seeking women from the Mid-South United States, precluding the generalizability of our results to: (1) IPV-exposed women caregivers who are not help-seeking, (2) fathers experiencing IPV, and (3) parents living outside the Mid-South United States. Levels of spirituality observed in the current sample may not be representative of spirituality among other IPV-exposed populations. Given that the Mid-South United States is part of the “Bible-belt” region, our findings may not generalize to populations in other regions. In addition, our findings may not generalize to women who are experiencing lower levels of IPV. Relatedly, we did not collect data regarding the recency of IPV. Thus, analyses could not control for time since IPV or for on-going IPV experiences. Another limitation of our study includes the use of variables that have primarily been examined among majority White samples. Thus, comprehensive psychometric research is needed to examine the measurement of these variables among women of color samples. Finally, reliance on maternal self-report data may have resulted in response biases, as maternal caregivers may not have felt comfortable responding honestly to sensitive items, and maternal caregivers’ perceptions of their own parenting practices may not be entirely accurate or consistent with reports from other informants.

Future Directions

Future studies should employ longitudinal designs to elucidate temporal associations between parenting behaviors and spirituality to deepen the application of the Relational Spirituality framework. Future research should also include caregivers of all genders from diverse regions to facilitate understanding of how parenting impacts spirituality in different contexts. Examining a larger sample comprised of diverse religious groups would strengthen understanding of how context impacts the association between parenting and spirituality. Including a measure of religiosity in future studies would fill current knowledge gaps regarding how spirituality and religiosity are differentially related to parenting. Finally, future research incorporating qualitative assessments of parenting and parent-child communication would be useful to explore how women survivors of IPV experience nuances in spirituality and parenting.

Conclusions

This study advanced the field’s understanding of relationships between parenting practices, parent-child communication, and spirituality among women survivors of IPV. Results showcase the value of exploring nuances in parenting and communication since varying aspects of each were related to spirituality. Given that spirituality has important implications for resilience in families experiencing adversity, study findings suggest a novel avenue for promoting well-being in the context of difficult life experiences that many families endure.