Exposure to Family Violence as a Predictor of Dating Violence and Child-to-Parent Aggression in Spanish Adolescents

Abstract

Witnessing intimate partner violence (IPV) and child maltreatment may place children on a lifelong trajectory toward violence. The primary aim of this research was to examine the associations between exposure to violence at home and two forms of violence in close relationships in Spanish adolescents: child-to-parent violence (CPV) and dating violence. A sample of 845 adolescents (13-18 years) completed measures of direct victimization and witnessing of IPV, as well as adolescent dating violence and CPV at Time 1, and measures of adolescent dating violence and CPV 6 months later. Findings indicate that direct victimization is more relevant for later CPV than is witnessing IPV against the mother. Namely, direct victimization by the mother and father predicted an increase in child-to-mother and child-to-father violence over time. Witnessing IPV and direct victimization by the father predicted an increase in dating violence victimization in girls at Time 2.

Keywords

adolescents dating violence child-to-parent violence exposure to violence intimate partner violence child maltreatment

Intimate partner violence (IPV) has been identified as a serious, worldwide human rights, and public health concern (Abramsky et al., 2011) because of its negative direct and indirect outcomes, which affect both the women and their children. Unfortunately, children’s or adolescents’ exposure to such stressful life events occasionally places them on a lifelong trajectory toward violence as either victims or perpetrators (World Health Organization, 2010).

A strong consensus has emerged suggesting that exposure to violence at home in childhood leads to aggressive behavior problems (Boxer, Gullan, & Mahoney, 2009; Gámez-Guadix & Calvete, 2012). Moreover, sociologists and criminologists have traditionally relied on the intergenerational transmission of violence, or cycle of violence theory, as a possible starting point for the repetition of IPV (Cochran, Sellers, Wiesbrock, & Palacios, 2011). This theory argues that experiencing IPV at home during childhood is likely to lead to future violence or victimization in adulthood (Sugarman & Hotaling, 1989) as these children may also be at risk of repeating the patterns of aggression and subordination learned during childhood (Andrews, Foster, Capaldi, & Hops, 2000). In an attempt to explain this link, researchers have used Bandura’s (1977) social learning theory. This model suggests that children who are victimized by IPV and are subjected to harsh parental discipline may learn that the use of violence is a tolerable and acceptable way of handling interpersonal conflicts and can help achieve certain goals (Calvete, 2007). However, several additional mechanisms can contribute to perpetuation of violence. Exposure to violence is traumatic and can adversely impact the psycho-social, emotional, and mental areas of the victims (Adams, 2010). For instance, children and adolescents may be at risk of repeating the maladaptive patterns of relationships that they learned during childhood because they often lack models of positive relationships and the interpersonal and conflict resolution skills that are required to engage in healthy relationships (Gomez, 2011). Furthermore, the repetition of IPV may be related to disturbances in emotion regulation. Thus, children exposed to IPV may lack the ability to notice, comprehend, and manage escalating emotions, as well as the skills required to resolve conflicts and problems in constructive, nonviolent ways (Siegel, 2013).

In the current study, we examine the role of exposure to family violence as a predictor of violence in two types of close relationships: dating relationships and child-to-parent relationships. Several studies have examined the role of exposure to family violence as an antecedent of dating violence. However, only a few have studied the prospective associations between exposure to family violence and future child-to-parent violence (CPV), and no study has simultaneously examined the influence on both types of violence. Thus, the current study focuses on the associations among Spanish children’s exposure to IPV at home, child maltreatment, and two forms of violence that occur in relationships characterized by affective bonds among the members: dating violence in adolescents and violence exerted toward the parents.

Adolescent dating violence is defined as a form of IPV that occurs between two adolescent individuals who are currently, or have been, intimately involved with each other (Moore, Sargenton, Ferranti, & González-Guarda, 2015). It is estimated that one third of young people experience at least one violent dating relationship (Jouriles, McDonald, Garrido, Rosenfield, & Brown, 2005). In Spain, the prevalence rates of dating violence in adolescents are high. For instance, González and Santana’s (2001) study estimated that between 10% and 11% of Spanish adolescents suffer violence at the hands of their partner, whereas Muñoz-Rivas, Graña, O’Leary, and González (2007) showed that 90% of the young people admitted to having verbally attacked their partner.

Furthermore, the sex roles in dating violence have received wide attention because there have been inconsistent findings in perpetration and victimization. For instance, Simon, Miller, Gorman-Smith, Orpinas, and Sullivan (2010) found that girls show a slightly higher percentage being aggressors than do boys (31.4% compared with 26.4%) and that boys have a significantly higher rate being victims than do girls (53.7% compared with 27.4%). In contrast, Cercone, Beach, and Arias (2005) found that 30% of males and 24% of females reported severe psychological victimization and that 18% of males and 13% of females reported severe physical assault by their partners.

Childhood exposure to violence and a history of child maltreatment have been related to an increased risk of being involved in violent intimate relationships, particularly during adolescence (Jouriles, Platt, & McDonald, 2009). Nevertheless, research has shown inconsistent results regarding gender differences in the association between childhood exposure to family violence and adolescents’ dating violence. For instance, Laporte, Jiang, Pepler, and Chamberland (2011) indicated that boys who reported childhood exposure to family violence were at particularly high risk of being aggressive with their girlfriends, whereas Renner and Whitney’s (2012) findings revealed that dating violence perpetration and victimization were more frequent in girls who had experienced family violence than in boys who had experienced family violence. Concerning victimization, researchers have noted that girls who have experienced family violence may be more likely to become victims of dating violence (Doumas, Margolin, & John, 1994); however, according to Milletich, Kelley, Doane, and Pearson (2010), boys who reported having experienced family violence were at a higher risk of being victimized by their female partner.

The second form of reproducing violent behaviors, CPV, has been defined as any act committed by a child that intimidates the progenitors and is aimed at causing them physical, psychological, or economic pain to gain control and power over them (Cottrell, 2001). The available studies concerning CPV in Canada and in the United States indicate prevalence rates ranging from 5% to 13% for physical violence against parents (Pagani et al., 2009). In Spain, the annual report of the General State Public Prosecutor’s Office revealed that in 2008, the number of CPV complaints increased by 56% over the previous year (Infocoponline, 2009). With regard to the gender of the adolescents, research has shown that the majority of acts of physical aggression are perpetrated by male adolescents against their mothers but that female adolescents perpetrate more psychological aggression against parents (Boxer et al., 2009; Calvete, Orue, & Gámez-Guadix, 2013).

Previous studies have identified exposure to violence as a risk factor for CPV (Boxer et al., 2009; Gámez-Guadix & Calvete, 2012). Recently, a qualitative study with parents and their children indicated that both direct victimization by parents and witnessing violence against mothers were risk factors for CPV (Calvete, Orue, Gámez-Guadix, Hoyo-Bilbao, & de Arroyabe, 2015). In a 3-year longitudinal study, exposure to violence at home was a predictor of CPV (Calvete, Orue, Gámez-Guadix, & Bushman, 2015), but this study did not differentiate between witnessing IPV and direct victimization. The only study, to our knowledge, that examined the associations between both types of victimization and CPV was that by Boxer et al. (2009); this study was cross-sectionally conducted in a clinic-referred sample of adolescents. They found that a youth’s physical aggression toward a specific parent was more likely when that particular parent engaged in physical aggression toward the youth. The results for witnessing IPV were complex and appeared to be related to the sex of the parent perpetrating IPV.

The main objective of this study was to examine predictive associations between exposure to violence at home (witnessing violence against the mother and/or direct victimization by mother and father) and two forms of violence in Spanish adolescents: CPV and dating violence. This is the first study to examine all these forms of violence simultaneously, which is important for understanding the interplay between the different forms of violence that occur between persons who are involved in an affective relationship (i.e., parents and children, adolescents within a dating relationship). We expected to find that all the examined forms of violence could be intercorrelated. In addition, we expected that exposure to violence at home would predict an increase in CPV and dating violence in Spanish adolescents. We also explored associations between CPV and dating violence, which have been neglected in previous studies. Age was also included in the model to control its influence on exposure to violence in family and dating relationships. Finally, gender differences were also examined because research has provided mixed results on the role of exposure to family in boys and girls (Calvete & Orue, 2013; Laporte et al., 2011). We expected that witnessing violence against the mother and direct victimization by the mother and father would be linked to the development of more aggressive behavior in boys than in girls.

Method

Participants

The study was conducted with an initial sample of 845 adolescents (410 boys, 398 girls, and 37 that did not indicate their sex) who were between 13 and 18 years of age (M = 15.89 years, SD = 0.84 years). A cluster sampling procedure was used, and schools were selected randomly. Adolescents were recruited from six different schools in San Sebastian, a province in northern Spain, and its surrounding areas, Basque Country (Spain).

The survey included demographic questions concerning gender, date of birth, and parents’ education and working situation. To assess the socioeconomic status of the sample, we used the criteria recommended by the Spanish Society of Epidemiology and Family and Community Medicine (2000), which gathers information about parental occupation and income. In accordance with these criteria, the sample included 10.4% low, 24.9% low-medium, 21.1% medium, 25.4% high-medium, and 18.5% high socioeconomic status. This distribution is comparable with that of the general population in Spain.

Procedure

Head teachers of different schools in San Sebastian and its surrounding areas were contacted and informed about the nature and purposes of the study. They received a “Participant’s Information Letter” that outlined the scope, aims, duration of the study, inclusion criteria, and confidentiality. Once the schools had confirmed their participation, passive informed consent was obtained from the adolescents’ parents. None of the parents disagreed with their children’s participation in the study. After the data collection and result analysis, schools were provided a report about the overall findings of the study.

Data were collected at two different measurement occasions spaced 6 months apart, in April and May 2014 (Time 1, T1) and October and November 2014 (Time 2, T2). At T1, the adolescents completed all the questionnaires, whereas at T2, they only completed the questionnaires examining measures of dating violence and CPV.

Parents and adolescents were informed that the results would be used for educational purposes and that their children’s identities would remain anonymous and confidential. Participants completed the questionnaires and demographic data individually in their classes, and they were encouraged to ask questions if they had any trouble answering the instruments. It took them an average of 50 minutes to complete the questionnaires at T1 and approximately 40 minutes at T2. To pair the questionnaires at T1 with those of T2, a code known only to each participant was used. Some questionnaires could not be paired due to errors in coding and were eliminated, forming part of the attrition rate. The Ethics Committee of the university approved this study.

Measures

The Exposure to Violence Questionnaire (Orue & Calvete, 2010) measures exposure to violence in several contexts. Only items related to exposure to violence at home were used. Moreover, we adapted the questionnaire to assess witnessing IPV against the mother (seven items; for example, “How often have you seen your mother’s partner hitting your mother at home?”) and direct victimization by the father and by the mother (eight items; for example, “How often has your father or your mother hit you at home?”). Each item consisted of a 5-point Likert-type scale response that ranged from 0 (never) to 4 (every day). The structure of this questionnaire has been supported by confirmatory factor analyses in previous studies (Calvete & Orue, 2012; Orue & Calvete, 2010). Cronbach’s alphas were .82 for witnessing violence against the mother, .76 for victimization by the mother, and .76 for victimization by the father, respectively.

The Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory (Wolfe et al., 2001) was used to detect the existence of aggressive acts in adolescents’ dating relationships. It assesses five different forms of aggressive behavior that may occur between adolescent dating partners: physical abuse (e.g., “My partner slapped me or pulled my hair”), psychological abuse (e.g., “I insulted my partner with put-downs”), threatening behavior (e.g., “My partner threatened to hurt me”), sexual abuse (e.g., “I forced my partner to have sex when he/she did not want to”), and relational abuse (e.g., “I tried to turn my partner’s friends against him/her”). This measure was divided into two subscales: Violence Perpetration and Violence Victimization. Each subscale was based on 26 items. The response choices for each item were defined with a 4-point Likert-type scale from 0 (never) to 3 (frequently). The Spanish version has also shown good psychometric properties and confirmation of its structure (Fernández-Fuertes, Fuertes Martín, & Pulido, 2006). In this study, Cronbach’s alphas were .89 for Violence Perpetration and .82 for Violence Victimization at T1, and .81 and .85 at T2.

Violence against parents was assessed using the Child-to-Parent Aggression Questionnaire (Calvete, Gámez-Guadix et al., 2013). It consists of 20 parallel items, 10 of which relate to the father and 10 of which relate to the mother. Within each block of 10 items, seven describe psychological aggression (e.g., insulting someone or threatening to hit), and three describe physical aggression (e.g., hitting someone with something that could hurt or kicking). For the purpose of this research, only 16 items were used. Items defining minor forms of aggression, such as shouting, annoying, or bothering both parents, were deleted. Adolescents responded by indicating how often they had performed each of the behaviors against their fathers or mothers in the last year using the following 4-point scale from 0 (never) to 3 (it has happened six or more times). Items were summed to obtain the total scores for child-to-mother and child-to-father violence. This questionnaire has shown to have excellent psychometric properties in a sample of 2,700 Spanish adolescents, and both exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses have provided strong empirical support for its factor structure and reliability (Calvete, Gámez-Guadix et al., 2013). In this study, Cronbach’s alphas were .61 and .66 for child-to-father and child-to-mother violence at T1, and .64 and .72 at T2

Statistical Approach

Path analysis was used to test the hypotheses of the study. As several variables were not normally distributed, all models were tested via weighted least square (WLS) method using LISREL 9.2. Following the recommendations of several authors (e.g., Hu & Bentler, 1999), the goodness of the model fit was evaluated using the comparative fit index (CFI), the non-normative fit index (NNFI), the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR). Generally, CFI and NNFI values of .90 or higher reflect a good fit. RMSEA values lower than .06 indicate an excellent fit, and SRMR values of .08 or less indicate that the model adequately fits the data. All missing values were imputed using the expectation-maximization (EM) imputation algorithm with SPSS. For the path analyses, we used only participants who have had a romantic relationship in the year previous to the T1 measures and the interval between T1 and T2 (N = 606).

Results

Descriptive Analyses

Table 1 displays the prevalence rates of all types of violence assessed in the study and comparisons by gender. Overall, the rates of witnessing violence against mothers were similar in boys and girls, except for physical aggressions, which were more frequently observed by girls. Regarding child abuse, the rates of physical victimization by parents were higher in boys than in girls. More girls than boys admitted having perpetrated and having been victims of psychologically abusive acts in romantic relationships. Higher percentages of boys reported perpetration of sexual abuse acts against their partners. Boys also reported more frequent physical victimization by their partners. Finally, the prevalence rates of psychological abuse against fathers were higher in boys than in girls.

Table 1.

Prevalence of the Variables of the Study in T1.

	Total	Girls	Boys	χ²	P
T1 witness psychological	12.6	14.3	11.0	2.14	.14
T1 witness physical	2.1	3.3	0.9	5.90	.015
T1 witness sexual	0.6	0.7	0.5	0.22	.64
T1 witness economical	7.5	8.7	6.3	1.65	.20
T1 severe psychological victimization by mother for peer review	15.9	13.8	17.9	2.67	.10
T1 physical victimization by mother	27.1	24.0	30.1	3.89	.05
T1 severe psychological by victimization father	15.9	13.8	17.9	2.67	.10
T1 physical victimization by father	27.5	23.5	31.5	6.66	.01
T1 dating violence psychological perpetration	74.0	81.9	67.6	12.89	.00
T1 dating violence physical perpetration	10.7	12.7	8.8	1.87	.17
T1 dating violence sexual perpetration	30.9	23.6	37.7	10.54	.001
T1 dating violence psychological victimization	74.6	82.8	68.0	14.09	.00
T1 dating violence physical victimization	12.2	9.1	15.1	3.81	.05
T1 dating violence sexual victimization	34.7	36.2	33.5	0.405	.53
T1 child–mother severe psychological violence	7.2	6.4	7.9	0.70	.40
T1 child–mother physical violence	6.8	7.6	6.1	0.83	.36
T1 child–father severe psychological violence	7.9	5.3	10.5	7.99	.005
T1 child–father physical violence	7.3	6.0	8.6	2.21	.14

Table 2 displays means and standard deviations for general scores of the variables. Girls scored higher than boys on witnessing the violence perpetrated toward their mothers, whereas boys scored higher than girls on victimization of violence by the father. Similarly, girls scored higher than boys did in victimization at T1. Finally, regarding CPV, girls scored higher in perpetrating violence toward the mother. No statistically significant differences were observed for the rest of the variables. Table 3 displays correlation coefficients between the variables of the study. Correlations between dating violence victimization and perpetration were high. CPV variables were significantly associated with dating violence variables.

Table 2.

Gender Differences for the Variables of the Study.

	Male adolescents		Female adolescents
	n = 435		n = 421
Variable	M	SD	M	SD	Range	t	p
T1 witnessing	0.34	1.19	0.72	2.45	0-28	−2.88	.004
T1 victimization mother	2.89	2.71	2.74	2.63	0-16	0.80	.413
T1 victimization father	2.85	2.59	2.46	2.23	0-16	2.35	.019
T1 dating violence perpetration	4.57	7.34	5.54	6.25	0-78	−1.57	.120
T1 dating violence victimization	4.91	6.19	6.03	6.28	0-78	−1.98	.048
T1 child–mother violence	1.84	2.05	2.21	2.06	0-24	−2.60	.010
T1 child–father violence	1.73	2.16	1.76	1.80	0-24	−0.22	.825
T2 dating violence perpetration	5.66	6.19	5.84	4.70	0-78	−0.31	.756
T2 dating violence victimization	6.52	6.84	6.44	5.97	0-78	0.12	.907
T2 child–mother violence	1.75	2.25	2.22	2.18	0-24	−2.62	.009
T2 child–father violence	1.64	2.03	1.84	1.97	0-24	−1.80	.239

Table 3.

Correlations Among Study Variables.

Study variables	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	M	SD
1. T1 witnessing	1										0.54	1.94
2. T1 victimization mother	.17**	1									2.81	2.66
3. T1 victimization father	.26**	.73**	1								2.65	2.42
4. T1 dating violence perpetration	.16**	.21**	.16**	1							1.75	1.99
5. T1 dating violence victimization	.17**	.23**	.24**	.74**	1						2.02	2.06
6. T1 child–mother violence	.16**	.47**	.36**	.37*	.29**	1					1.75	2.00
7. T1 child–father violence	.17**	.28**	.41**	.28**	.26**	.68**	1				2.00	2.23
8. T2 dating violence perpetration	.10	.19**	.17**	.40**	.37**	.18**	.09	1			5.08	7.00
9. T2 dating violence victimization	.12*	.17**	.17**	.38**	.48**	.18**	.09	.86**	1		5.76	5.41
10. T2 child–mother violence	.15**	.37**	.24**	.26**	.25**	.58**	.35**	.42**	.42**	1	5.51	6.47
11. T2 child–father violence	.14**	.26**	.32**	.06	.06	.38**	.50**	.23**	.19**	.71**	6.47	6.36

p< .05. **p< .01.

Exposure to Violence at Home, CPV, and Dating Violence

An initial model was created consisting of paths from the measures at T1 (witnessing domestic violence against mother, direct victimization by father, direct victimization by mother, child-to-mother aggression, child-to-father aggression, dating violence perpetration, dating violence victimization, and age) and those at T2 (child-to-mother aggression, child-to-father aggression, dating violence perpetration, and dating violence victimization). Our findings indicated that all the variables regarding violence at T1 were significantly correlated. The lowest coefficients were observed for the associations between dating violence measures and witnessing violence against the mother (.10 and .11). The highest coefficients were observed between direct victimization by parents and their corresponding measures of CPV (e.g., .41-.49 between victimization by mother and child-to-mother aggression and .41 between victimization by father and child-to-father aggression). Age was significantly associated with victimization by mother and father and with child-to-mother violence, but the coefficients represented small effects. The autoregressive paths were statistically significant and indicated the moderate stability of CPV and dating violence (coefficients ranging from .31 to .56). In addition, longitudinal paths indicated that victimization by the mother predicted an increase in child-to-mother violence and that victimization by the father predicted an increase in child-to-father violence at T2. Witnessing IPV at T1 predicted an increase in dating violence victimization at T2. Dating violence victimization at T1 predicted an increase in dating violence perpetration at T2. Finally, age predicted an increase in dating violence victimization and perpetration. The model was re-estimated using only significant paths, and the fit indexes were excellent, χ²(22, N = 606) = 38, RMSEA = .035, 90% CI = [.015, .053], p = .89, CFI = .99, NNFI = .99, RMSR = .025. The model explained 30%, 24%, 18%, and 29%, respectively, of the variance in child-to-mother violence, child-to-father violence, dating violence perpetration, and dating violence victimization at T2. Figure 1 displays the standardized paths of the model.

Figure 1.

Predictive model for CPV and dating violence in the total sample.

Next, we performed a multiple-group analysis to assess whether the described model was equivalent for boys and girls. Following the standard guidelines for these analyses (Byrne, 2006), we first estimated the model separately for girls and boys. We found several paths that were significant in one sample but not in the other. In the sample of boys, victimization by the mother did not predict an increase in child-to-mother violence at T2, and witnessing IPV against the mother did not predict dating violence victimization at T2. All associations among the T1 variables were statistically significant, except the association between witnessing violence against the mother and dating violence victimization. The model displayed adequate fit indexes: χ²(17, N = 282) = 81, NNFI = .95, CFI = .99, RMSEA = .07, 90% CI = [.04, .09], SRMR = .04.

In the sample of girls, two additional paths emerged: Witnessing IPV against the mother predicted an increase in perpetration of dating violence, and direct victimization by the father predicted dating violence victimization. The model displayed adequate fit indexes: χ²(18, N = 324) = 55, NNFI = .95, CFI = .98, RMSEA = .06, 90% CI = [.04, .07], SRMR = .03.

We examined an unconstrained model that included both girls and boys simultaneously. In this model, we freely estimated all the parameters that were significant for either boys or girls. This model provided an adequate fit to the data: χ²(34, N = 606) = 120, NNFI = .95, CFI = .98, RMSEA = .07, 90% CI = [.05, .08], SRMR = .04. Finally, the unconstrained model was compared with a model that constrained the pattern of paths between the variables to make them equal for both subsamples (i.e., girls and boys). This imposition did not significantly increase the value of the chi-square, Δχ²(14, N = 606) = 14, p = .37. Although the lack of significance for this change indicates that the general pattern of relationships between exposure to violence at home, CPV, and dating violence was similar for girls and boys, we tested each of the paths that were significant in only one group, one by one, to test gender differences. Only the path from victimization by the mother to child-to-mother violence was different, Δχ²(1, N = 606) = 4, p = .04, which indicated that this path was stronger in girls than in boys.

Discussion

This longitudinal study examined the predictive role of two types of exposure to family violence (witnessing IPV against mothers and direct victimization by parents) in two types of violent behaviors in Spanish adolescents: aggressions against parents and dating violence. To the authors’ knowledge, it is the first study to examine all these forms of violence simultaneously. Overall, the findings indicate that direct victimization is more relevant for later CPV, whereas witnessing IPV against the mother is more relevant to dating violence. The main results are discussed below.

At a cross-sectional level, several statistically significant associations emerged between both types of exposure to violence, CPV, and dating violence. As in previous studies (Stith, Smith, Penn, Ward, & Tritt, 2004), there was a high reciprocity between dating violence victimization and perpetration. The results also indicate that adolescents who act aggressively in one type of close relationships (e.g., child-to-parent relationship) tend to act aggressively in other close relationships (e.g., romantic relationships). This is an important finding, as this is the first study to examine the associations between dating violence and CPV.

More importantly, this study examined longitudinal relationships among these variables, which allows identifying the contribution of previous experience with violence in the increase of CPV and dating violence in Spanish adolescents. Namely, the longitudinal results showed that direct victimization by the mother predicted an increase in child-to-mother violence and that direct victimization by the father predicted an increase in child-to-father violence. Although these paths represented small effects, they suggest that there is reciprocity in CPV and that children’s aggressive reactions to their parents could represent responses to previous aggressions by the parents. Previous studies have found that exposure to family violence is associated with CPV (Boxer et al., 2009; Calvete, Orue, Gámez-Guadix, & Bushman, 2015), but the current study contributes by examining the unique predictive role of different types of exposure to family violence (e.g., victimization by mother and victimization by father).

Dating victimization at T1 predicted an increase in child-to-mother violence. This unexpected result suggests that other sources of victimization can also act as risk factors for CPV. Interestingly, in a recent qualitative study with families in which high levels of CPV occurred, victimized parents often reported that their children had previously been victims of bullying by peers (Calvete, Orue, Gámez-Guadix, Del Hoyo, et al., 2015). Thus, these findings jointly suggest that several sources of victimization (i.e., abuse by parents, peers, and partners) can be antecedents of CPV.

Furthermore, dating violence victimization at T1 also predicted an increase in dating violence perpetration over time, and both victimization and perpetration tended to increase slightly with age. As described above, there is a high reciprocity that characterizes dating violence (Stith et al., 2004). Longitudinal evidence is scarce (for exceptions, see Foshee, Linder, MacDougall, & Bangdiwala, 2001; Gomez, 2011; O’Leary & Slep, 2003), and the current study contributes to understanding the temporal associations between victimization and perpetration.

We explored gender differences in the mechanisms of transmission of violence. Although the general pattern of associations was very similar in boys and girls, some paths were significant only in the sample of girls. One of the more remarkable results was that witnessing IPV against the mother was not associated with dating violence victimization in boys either cross-sectionally or longitudinally. In girls, however, both witnessing violence against mothers and being the direct victim of maltreatment by the father were predictors of an increase in dating violence victimization. These results are consistent with diverse studies showing that females who witness IPV are more likely to become victims of adolescent partner violence (e.g., Vézina et al., 2015).

Furthermore, witnessing IPV against the mother also predicted an increase of perpetrating dating violence in girls. This result is also consistent with literature on gender-specific roles in adolescent relationships that associates witnessing violent behaviors toward the mother with girls perpetrating violence toward their partners. For instance, Renner and Whitney (2012) found that experiencing IPV was related to dating violence perpetration and victimization in girls, but not in boys. Nevertheless, other previous studies have also found that exposure to IPV is important for both genders (Foshee, Bauman, & Linder, 1999).

The study also provides data on the prevalence rates of several types of violence. It reveals high father–child and mother–child victimization rates among Spanish adolescents. Regarding CPV, prevalence rates are relatively similar to those obtained in other countries, such as Canada and the United States (Pagani et al., 2009). In Spain, prevalence rates regarding CPV have dramatically increased in the last years. When trying to understand this increase, researchers have suggested that exposure to family violence and an inadequate parenting style in a context of financial crisis can act as risk factors contributing to the development of aggressive behaviors toward the parents. Thus, the economic crisis in Spain, which started in 2008, could have forced some parents to set limits to the consumerist behavior of their children, contributing to increasing conflicts between children and parents (Calvete, Orue, & Gámez-Guadix, 2013).

Interestingly, girls scored higher on witnessing IPV toward their mothers, which is consistent with the data obtained by Fox, Corr, Gadd, and Butler (2014), who found that more girls than boys in their study reported having witnessed IPV toward their mothers. In contrast, more boys than girls reported direct physical victimization by both the mother and the father. A possible explanation for this finding might account for the relationship between direct physical victimization and harsh parenting based on using physical punishment against the sons. In Spain, several studies indicate that harsh parenting is more frequently used with sons than with daughters (Calvete, Gámez-Guadix, & Orue, 2010).

Regarding adolescent dating violence, the analyses indicated that, although girls presented higher rates of psychological perpetration and psychological and sexual victimization, as in other previous studies (e.g., Fox et al., 2014), boys presented higher rates of sexual perpetration and physical victimization, which is also consistent with previous research (Lundgren & Amin, 2014). Finally, concerning CPV, the current study shows that both males and females are perpetrators of psychological and physical violence. More specifically, girls scored higher on the child-to-mother violence frequency, which was consistent with the findings obtained in a Spanish study carried out by Calvete, Orue, and Gámez-Guadix (2013). Finally, boys presented with higher rates of aggression against their fathers.

Limitations, Strengths, and Future Direction

This is one of the few studies that examine longitudinal associations between dating violence victimization and perpetration. Longitudinal analyses contribute to understanding the antecedents of aggressive behaviors and the way in which some experiences lead to new problems. Furthermore, to our knowledge, this is the first study that examines associations between dating violence and CPV. Findings suggest that both forms of violence can be concomitant, and that dating violence victimization can predict the increase of aggressions against the mother.

Regarding the limitations, the first one is the exclusive use of self-report inventories as measurement tools because this technique could have contributed to increased associations among variables. Although research has suggested that adolescents can accurately and validly report their own experiences, the use of parental reports would be recommended. However, this suggestion should be examined cautiously as, in some cases, parents may underestimate their children’s exposure to IPV. A second limitation is the short interval between the different measurement occasions. Future studies should have longer intervals and should increase the number of waves to test whether predictive paths are significant over a longer period of time. A third limitation is that we did not assess witnessing mother-to-father IPV or parent-to-sibling aggression. A final limitation is that this study did not include potential mechanisms that explain longitudinal associations among variables. These mechanisms would include violence beliefs (Calvete, 2007), emotion regulation (Siegel, 2013), conflict resolution (Gomez, 2011), trauma and other social and psychological factors (Adams, 2010).

Despite the above-mentioned limitations, the findings obtained in the current study suggest important implications for interventions to reduce adolescent dating violence and child-to-parent aggression rates. First, primary prevention should be carried out during early adolescence to prevent violent episodes from occurring. Results in the current study consider the overlap among several forms of aggression; hence, violence prevention programs should focus on all forms of violence because they often co-occur. Regarding adolescent dating violence, intervention programs should help adolescents improve their communication, emotion regulation, and problem-solving skills to manage conflicts in their romantic relationships and to avoid violent behaviors; for child-to-parent aggression, however, intervention should focus on parent training programs so parents can develop more positive parenting styles.

Conclusion

The results from this study contribute both to the literature and to our understanding of the association between adolescents’ exposure to two types of family violence (witnessing IPV against mothers and direct victimization by parents) and the developing of aggressive behavior problems. The results obtained suggest that exposure to violence at home acts as an antecedent of dating violence in adolescence and CPV. In fact, adolescents who tend to act aggressively toward their adolescent romantic partner often act aggressively toward their parents. Although the general pattern of association was very similar in boys and girls, some paths were significant only in the sample of girls.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was supported by Eusko Jaurlaritza IT 358-10.

Author Biographies

Ainhoa Izaguirre, PhD, is a social worker at the Deusto Stress Research Team at the University of Deusto, Spain. Her research is aimed at understanding IPV’s impact on the children’s wellbeing.

Esther Calvete, PhD, is a professor of psychology at the University of Deusto. She is the principal investigator of Deusto Stress Research Team, which is focused on family violence and psychological disorders.

References

Abramsky

Watts

C. H.

Garcia-Moreno

Devries

Kiss

Ellsberg

. . . Heise

(2011). What factors are associated with recent intimate partner violence? Findings from the WHO multi-country study on women’s health and domestic violence. BMC Public Health, 11, 1-17.

Adams

E. J.

(2010). Healing invisible wounds: Why investing in trauma-informed care for children makes sense. Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute.

Andrews

J. A.

Foster

S. L.

Capaldi

Hops

(2000). Adolescents and family predictors of physical aggression, communication, and satisfaction in young adult couples: A prospective analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, 195-208.

Bandura

(1977). Social learning theory. New York, NY: General Learning Press.

Boxer

Gullan

R. L.

Mahoney

(2009). Adolescents’ physical aggression toward parents in a clinic-referred sample. Journal of Clinical & Adolescent Psychology, 38, 106-116.

Byrne

B. M.

(2006). Structural equation modeling with EQS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Calvete

(2007). Justification of violence beliefs and social problem-solving as mediators between maltreatment and behavior problems in adolescents. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 10, 131-140.

Calvete

Gámez-Guadix

Orue

(2010). Versión española del Inventario de Dimensiones de Disciplina para adolescentes y estudio de las prácticas de disciplina desde una perspectiva de género [The dimensions of discipline inventory (DDI) child and adolescent version: Analysis of the parental discipline from a gender perspective]. Anales de Psicología, 26, 410-418.

Calvete

Gámez-Guadix

Orue

González-Diez

López

Arroyabe

Sampedro

. . . Borrajo

(2013). Brief report: The Adolescent Child-to-Parent Aggression Questionnaire: An examination of aggression against parents in Spanish Adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 36, 1077-1081.

10.

Calvete

Orue

(2012). The role of emotion regulation in the predictive association between social information processing and aggressive behavior in adolescents. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 36, 338-347.

11.

Calvete

Orue

(2013). Cognitive mechanisms of the transmission of violence: Exploring gender differences among adolescents exposed to family violence. Journal of Family Violence, 28, 73-84.

12.

Calvete

Orue

Gámez-Guadix

(2013). Child-to-parent violence: Emotional and behavioral predictors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28, 754-771.

13.

Calvete

Orue

Gámez-Guadix

Bushman

B. J.

(2015). Predictors of child-to-parent aggression: A 3-year longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 51, 663-676.

14.

Calvete

Orue

Gámez-Guadix

Hoyo-Bilbao

J. D.

de Arroyabe

E. L.

(2015). Child-to-parent violence: An exploratory study of the roles of family violence and parental discipline through the stories told by Spanish children and their parents. Violence and Victims, 30, 935-947.

15.

Cercone

J. J.

Beach

S. R. H.

Arias

(2005). Gender symmetry in dating intimate partner violence: Does similar behavior imply similar constructs? Violence and Victims, 20, 207-218.

16.

Cochran

J. K.

Sellers

C. S.

Wiesbrock

Palacios

(2011). Repetitive intimate partner victimization: An exploratory application of social learning theory. Deviant Behavior, 32, 790-817.

17.

Cottrell

(2001). Parent abuse: The abuse of parents by their teenage children. Retrieved from http://canadiancrc.com/PDFs/Parent_Abuse-Abuse_of_Parents_by_Their_Teenage_Children_2001.pdf

18.

Doumas

Margolin

John

(1994).The intergenerational transmission of aggression across three generations. Journal of Family Violence, 9, 157-175.

19.

Fernández-Fuertes

A. A.

Fuertes Martín

Pulido

R. F.

(2006). Evaluación de la violencia en las relaciones de pareja de los adolescentes. Validación del Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory (CADRI) – versión española [Evaluation of aggressive behaviors in adolescent romantic relationships. Validation of the Spanish version of the conflict in adolescent dating relationships inventory (CADRI)]. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 6, 339-358.

20.

Foshee

V. A.

Bauman

K. E.

Linder

G. F.

(1999). Family violence and the perpetration of adolescent dating violence: Examining social learning and social control processes. Journal of Marriage and Family, 61, 331-342.

21.

Foshee

V. A.

Linder

MacDougall

J. E.

Bangdiwala

(2001). Gender differences in the longitudinal predictors of adolescent dating violence. Preventive Medicine, 32, 128-141.

22.

Fox

C. L.

Corr

M. L.

Gadd

Butler

(2014). Young teenagers’ experiences of domestic abuse. Journal of Youth Studies, 17, 510-526.

23.

Gámez-Guadix

Calvete

(2012). Child-to-parent violence and its association with exposure to marital violence and parent-to-child violence. Psicothema, 24, 177-228.

24.

Gomez

A. M.

(2011). Testing the cycle of violence hypothesis: Child abuse and adolescent dating violence as predictors of intimate partner violence in young adulthood. Youth & Society, 43, 171-192.

25.

González

Santana

J. D.

(2001). La violencia en parejas jóvenes [Violence among young partners]. Psicothema, 13, 127-131.

26.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.

27.

Infocoponline. (2009). Aumentan los casos de violencia de hijos a padres, según el informe anual de la fiscalía [Child-to-parent aggressions in Spain are increasing according to the annual report of the Spanish prosecutor]. Retrieved from http://www.infocop.es/view_article.asp?id=2579&cat=39

28.

Jouriles

E. N.

McDonald

Garrido

Rosenfield

Brown

A. S.

(2005). Assessing aggression in adolescent romantic relationships: Can we do it better? Psychological Assessment, 17, 469-475.

29.

Jouriles

E. N.

Platt

McDonald

(2009). Violence in adolescent dating relationships. Prevention Researcher, 16(1), 3-7.

30.

Laporte

Jiang

Pepler

D. J.

Chamberland

(2011). The relationship between adolescents’ experience of family violence and dating violence. Youth & Society, 43, 3-27.

31.

Lundgren

Amin

(2014). Addressing intimate partner violence and sexual violence among adolescents: Emerging evidence of effectiveness. Journal of Adolescent Health, 56, 42-50.

32.

Milletich

R. J.

Kelley

M. L.

Doane

A. N.

Pearson

M. R.

(2010). Exposure to interparental violence and childhood physical and emotional abuse as related to physical aggression in undergraduate dating relationships. Journal of Family Violence, 25, 627-637.

33.

Moore

Sargenton

K. M.

Ferranti

González-Guarda

R. M.

(2015). Adolescent dating violence: Supports and barriers in accessing services. Journal of Community Health Nursing, 32, 39-52.

34.

Muñoz-Rivas

M. J.

Graña

J. L.

O’Leary

K. D.

González

M. P.

(2007). Aggression in adolescent dating relationships: Prevalence, justification, and health consequences. Journal of Adolescent Health, 40, 298-304.

35.

O’Leary

K. L.

Slep

A. M. S.

(2003). A dyadic longitudinal model of adolescent dating aggression. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 32, 314-327.

36.

Orue

Calvete

(2010). Development and validation of a questionnaire to measure exposure to violence in childhood and adolescence. International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 10, 279-292.

37.

Pagani

Tremblay

R. E.

Nagin

Zoccolillo

Vitaro

McDuff

(2009). Risk factor models for adolescent verbal and psychological aggression toward fathers. Journal of Family Violence, 24, 173-182.

38.

Renner

L. M.

Whitney

S. D.

(2012). Risk factors for unidirectional and bidirectional intimate partner violence among young adults. Child Abuse & Neglect, 36, 40-52.

39.

Siegel

J. P.

(2013). Breaking the links in intergenerational violence: An emotional regulation perspective. Family Process, 52, 163-178.

40.

Simon

T. R.

Miller

Gorman-Smith

Orpinas

Sullivan

(2010). Physical dating violence norms and behavior among sixth-grade students from four U.S. sites. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 30, 395-409.

41.

Spanish Society of Epidemiology and Family and Community Medicine. (2000). Una propuesta de medida de la clase social [A proposed measure of social class]. Atencion Primaria, 25, 350-363.

42.

Stith

S. M.

Smith

D. B.

Penn

C. E.

Ward

D. B.

Tritt

(2004). Intimate partner physical abuse perpetration and victimization risk factors: A meta-analytic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10, 65-98.

43.

Sugarman

D. B.

Hotaling

G. T.

(1989). Dating violence: Prevalence, context and risk markers. In Pirog-Good

A. A.

Stets

J. E.

(Eds.), Violence in dating relationships: Emerging social issues (pp. 3-31). New York, NY: Praeger.

44.

Vézina

Hébert

Poulin

Lavoie

Vitaro

Tremblay

R. E.

(2015). History of family violence, childhood behavior problems, and adolescent high-risk behaviors as predictors of girls’ repeated patterns of dating victimization in two developmental periods. Violence Against Women, 21, 435-459.

45.

Wolfe

D. A.

Scott

Reitzel-Jaffe

Wekerle

Grasley

Pittman

A. L.

(2001). Development and validation of the Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 13, 277-293.

46.

World Health Organization. (2010). Preventing IPSV against women: Taking action and generating evidence. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.