Adolescent Exposure to Violence and Adult Violent Victimization and Offending

Abstract

Research on the effects of child abuse and of childhood and adolescent exposure to domestic violence or community violence has generally, with some exceptions, found them to be related to subsequent negative behavioral outcomes, such as crime, delinquency, and substance abuse. This study uses longitudinal self-report data from the National Youth Survey Family Study to investigate how being physically abused by parents, witnessing violence between parents, and exposure to violence in the neighborhood are related to violent victimization and offending in middle adulthood, controlling for prior involvement in the outcome behaviors in adolescence. Physical abuse and witnessing parental violence appear to have little direct impact on adult violent offending and victimization net of the impact of adolescent violent victimization more generally; but adolescent exposure to neighborhood violence does appear to be predictive of adult violent victimization and offending for female respondents.

Keywords

violent behavior family/domestic violence criminal victimization gender and crime/justice quantitative methods

Individuals exposed to or involved in violent behavior in adolescence as victims, perpetrators, and witnesses in the family and community contexts are at risk of adult exposure to violence as both victims and offenders. Rebellon and Van Gundy (2005), using a national sample, found that physical abuse by parents in adolescence was associated with subsequent adolescent involvement in violent and property offending. Widom (1989), Widom and Maxfield (1996), and Zingraff, Leiter, Myers, and Johnsen (1993) found that physical abuse in childhood and adolescence was associated with subsequent arrests for criminal violence and other criminal behavior. Witnessing parental violence has also been examined as a risk factor for subsequent violence, but primarily in the short term, and in relation specifically to intimate partner violence (IPV) rather than violence more generally (Herrenkohl, Sousa, Tajima, Herrenkohl, & Moylan, 2008; Kolbo, Blakely, & Engleman, 1996; Wolfe, Crooks, Lee, McIntyre-Smith, & Jaffe, 2003). The results for witnessing parental violence as a risk factor for subsequent violence tend to be equivocal (Kolbo et al., 1996), with some studies indicating that witnessing parental violence does (Bensley, Van Eenwyk, & Simmons, 2003; Ehrensaft et al., 2003) and other studies indicating that it does not (Bevan & Higgins, 2002; Mihalic & Elliott, 1997a) have a significant direct impact on subsequent IPV including adult IPV. Less equivocal are the results regarding exposure to community violence, which has been found to be associated with increases in later aggressive and violent behavior (Barroso et al., 2008; Boney-McCoy & Finkelhor, 1995; Overstreet, 2000; Tremblay, 2000). Even more generally, not limited to the family and community contexts, adolescent violent victimization in general is predictive of adult violent victimization and offending, and adolescent violent offending is predictive of adult violent offending (Menard, 2002).

The present study examines the long-term impact of (1) being physically abused by parents during adolescence, (2) witnessing violence between parents, and (3) exposure to violence in the neighborhood, on adult violent offending and violent victimization. We are interested in the separate and combined impact of these three risk factors on adult violent victimization and offending. This study extends prior literature in this area by examining the impacts of three risk factors for adult violent victimization and offending together, in a national sample. The age range covered for the predictors allows us to parallel other recent studies that have examined the impact exposure to violence in a previously understudied phase of the life course, from early adolescence and preadolescence (age 11) up to formal adulthood (age 21), on such adult outcomes as socioeconomic status attainment (Covey, Menard, & Franzese, 2013), IPV (Lackey, 2003; Menard, Weiss, Franzese, & Covey, 2014), substance use (Menard, Covey, & Franzese, 2015; Thornberry, Ireland, & Smith, 2001), and physical and mental health problems (Franzese, Covey, Tucker, McCoy, & Menard, 2014; Zona & Milan, 2011). We control for prior violence perpetration and victimization more generally. This allows us to see which (if any) of these risk factors, controlling for the others and also controlling for prior violence perpetration and victimization more generally, has the strongest association with adult violent victimization and perpetration. By examining victimization and perpetration separately, we are better able to differentiate which risk factors are associated with each of the two outcomes, and therefore to identify potential differential needs for intervention.

Specific hypotheses are (1) adolescent physical abuse leads to increased adult violence perpetration and victimization, (2) witnessing parental violence leads to increased adult violence perpetration and victimization, and (3) exposure to neighborhood violence leads to increased adult violence perpetration and victimization. These hypotheses are consistent not only with past research, reviewed below, but also with criminological theories, particularly general strain theory and social learning theory. General strain theory (Agnew, 1985, 1992) predicts that exposure to and/or inability to avoid noxious stimuli, including but not limited to adolescent exposure to violence (hereafter AEV), may result in anger and perpetration of violence, more so for males than for females because males are more likely to engage in externalizing behavior and females in internalizing behavior in response to strain (Broidy & Agnew, 1997; Watts & McNulty, 2013). Social learning theory (Akers, 1985; Bandura, 1977; see also Mihalic & Elliott, 1997a) suggests that violent behavior, like any other behavior, is learned through processes of imitation, modeling, and reinforcement. AEV may thus result in violent victimization as well as violent offending, when individuals exposed to aggressive and violent behavior come to view it as socially acceptable or appropriate, leading them to more readily take on the roles of perpetrators or victims.

Prior Research on AEV and Adult Violence

While there is a very substantial literature on the sequelae of childhood exposure to violence, some of which includes adolescents in the samples, there have been far fewer studies of specifically adolescent exposure to violence. AEV is a term used here, as also in Covey, Menard, and Franzese (2013), Eitle and Turner (2002), and Finkelhor, Turner, Ormrod, Hamby, and Kracke (2009) to encompass direct physical abuse, witnessing parental violence, and perceptions of neighborhood violence as separate and specific forms of exposure to violence in the family and neighborhood contexts. Also of interest here, but separate from AEV as the term has been used in the sources cited above, is more general adolescent involvement in violence as either victims (separately from, e.g., physical abuse by parents) or perpetrators of violence. Kitzmann, Gaylord, Holt, and Kenny (2003) conducted a meta-analysis of 118 studies of childhood and adolescent exposure to domestic violence and found that only 10 utilized adolescent samples. This relative neglect of adolescent, as opposed to childhood, exposure to violence is all the more striking when considered in light of the life-course perspective (Elder, 1994), which suggests that the timing of life changes and stresses may affect their impacts on later behavior, plus the evidence that adolescent exposure may be more significant than childhood exposure in predicting the negative consequences of exposure to violence. Consistent with this perspective, in one of the few studies to compare childhood and adolescent exposure to violence with each other, Ireland, Smith, and Thornberry (2002) and Thornberry, Ireland, and Smith (2001), using data from the Rochester Youth Development Study, found that maltreatment and exposure to violence mattered more in adolescence than at earlier ages, with earlier exposure having little or no impact in the absence of adolescent exposure, but adolescent exposure having an impact regardless of exposure (or its absence) at earlier ages, on outcomes including violent crimes in early and late adolescence, as well as other problem outcomes including other crimes, arrests, and substance use.

In addition to its relative neglect of adolescence, the existing literature on the relationship of AEV with adult violence perpetration and victimization has several other issues. First, sample sizes are frequently small and often limited to clinical samples of individuals with certain types of exposure to violence, or to predominantly urban, minority ethnicity, lower socioeconomic samples without comparison samples that would allow examination of differences between exposed and nonexposed individuals (Gewirtz & Edleson, 2007; Heyman & Slep, 2002; Lynch, 2003; Margolin & Gordis, 2000; Rebellon & Van Gundy, 2005). Second, some studies have failed to distinguish between directly experiencing violence as a victim or perpetrator from broader exposure to violence such as witnessing violence in the family or awareness of violence in the neighborhood (Acosta, Albus, Reynolds, Spriggs, & Weist, 2001; Gewirtz & Edleson, 2007). Third, the need for longitudinal studies in this area, in order to clearly establish causal order, has been noted (Kitzmann, Gaylord, Holt, & Kenny, 2003), and even in existing longitudinal studies, individuals are often followed only into adolescence (e.g., Ehrensaft et al., 2003) or young adulthood (e.g., Menard, 2002; Mihalic & Elliott, 1997a). Fourth, there are issues with which variables are included in the analysis. Analyzing predictors one at a time, instead of examining their effects controlling for one another (and for other possible confounding influences) may lead to overestimation of the effects of a single type of violence on the outcome; and there is evidence that different types of AEV may affect different outcomes (Covey et al., 2013; Fitzpatrick, 1993). Fifth, studies of the impact of exposure to violence in the family or neighborhood context typically do not control for more general prior victimization or offending as risk factors which may have their own impact on adult violent offending and victimization, and which may, if included in the analysis, attenuate the relationship of adolescent or childhood exposure to violence in the family or neighborhood contexts with later adult violence perpetration and victimization (Finkelhor, Ormrod, & Turner, 2007; Lynch, 2003; Rebellon & Van Gundy, 2005). This is particularly important, given the aforementioned evidence that general violent victimization and offending in adolescence are predictive of violent victimization and offending in adulthood (Menard, 2002).

The present study addresses the above weaknesses in past research, first by examining a national probability sample (as opposed to a local or clinical sample). Second, we distinguish among direct victimization (physical abuse) and other forms of exposure to violence (witnessing parental violence and awareness of neighborhood violence). Third, we measure exposure to violence in adolescence and then violence perpetration and victimization in middle adulthood, thus adding to our knowledge of both of these otherwise underrepresented age ranges in this area. Fourth, we analyze the impacts of the different types of AEV in the same analysis, controlling for one another. Fifth, we control for prior violence perpetration and victimization, as well as other potential confounding influences, including gender (by analyzing the data separately for females and males), ethnicity/race, urban–suburban–rural residence, and socioeconomic status. The separate analysis by gender is necessary because past research clearly suggests that females and males may respond differently to exposure to violence (Gewirtz & Edleson, 2007; Herrenkohl et al., 2008; Widom, 1989), with females being more likely to engage in internalizing behaviors such as withdrawal or depression, and males more likely to engage in externalizing behaviors such as aggression. For the dependent variables in the present study, we focus on violence other than IPV (on which we focus in a separate paper). Analysis of the relationship of AEV to IPV requires a different structure to the analysis, in order to account for the fact that AEV may influence not only whether violence occurs in the context of an intimate relationship but also the likelihood of being in an intimate relationship to begin with (Covey et al., 2013) and also because IPV and more general violence are often regarded as being completely separate by respondents, and results of analysis of one may produce results distinctly different from the analysis of the other (Mihalic & Elliott, 1997b).

Method

Sample

Data for this study are taken from the National Youth Survey Family Study (NYSFS). The NYSFS design, described briefly here and in more detail in Covey et al. (2013; see also Elliott, Huizinga, & Menard, 1989), involves 12 waves of data (11 for the focal respondents in the present study) over a 27-year period, based on a probability sample of households in the continental United States selected in 1976 using a multistage, cluster sampling design. The sample consisted of an estimated 2,360 eligible youth respondents aged 11–17 at the time of the initial interview, of whom 1,725 (73%) agreed to participate in the study, signed informed consents, and completed interviews in the initial survey. Overall completion rates over Waves 2–4 (collected 1977–80) were above 94% of the original sample; 87% for Wave 5 (1981); 87% for Wave 6 (1984), 80% for Wave 7 (1987); 83% for Wave 8 (1990); 78% for Wave 9 (1993); and, of the surviving respondents, 75% for Wave 10 (2002) and 70% for Wave 11 (2003). There appears to be no systematic initial nonparticipation or sample loss over time based on demographic characteristics (Covey et al., 2013; Elliott et al., 1989), and analyses of the effects of sample attrition in the NYSFS suggest that it has little or no impact on substantive findings (Bosick, 2009; Brame & Paternoster, 2003; Elliott et al., 1989; Jang, 1999; Lackey, 2003; Menard & Elliott, 1993).

Measurement

The dependent variables are prevalence of violent offending and prevalence of violent victimization in adulthood (Waves 10 and 11). We focus on behaviors that are sufficiently serious to potentially warrant attention from the criminal or juvenile justice system, to the exclusion of less severe behaviors. (1) Prevalence of violent offending is measured as whether in the past year the respondent has committed sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, or battery, including attempts. (2) Prevalence of violent victimization measures whether in the past year the respondent has been a victim of sexual assault, robbery, attack with a weapon (including gun, knife, bottle, or chair), or battery, including attempts. We also consider frequency of violent offending and violent victimization as outcomes, but for reasons which will become apparent in the Results section, findings for frequency are not presented in detail here.

For the focal predictors in this study, described briefly here (for further detail, see Covey et al., 2013), we use multiple waves of a single measure for each of being physically abused by parents, witnessing parental violence, and exposure to neighborhood violence. (3) For being physically abused by parents, like Rebellon and Van Gundy (2005), we use five waves of data for a single item asking whether (yes or no) the respondent was beaten up by a parent in the previous year, measured at Waves 1–5 (ages 11–17 to 15–21). From this we obtain a measure of cumulative prevalence (0 = no, 1 = yes) of being beaten up by a parent at least once for Waves 1–5. The age span for measurement of the focal predictors thus encompasses preadolescence to very late adolescence/early adulthood, paralleling other recent work on the impact of AEV on (other) adult outcomes (Covey et al., 2013; Franzese et al., 2014; Menard et al., 2014, 2015; Rebellon & van Gundy, 2005).

(4) Witnessing parental violence consists of retrospective questions asked at Waves 8–11 (ages 24–30 through 37–43) about whether the respondent witnessed either of their parents hurting each other in a fight. No specific time frame was specified for when the parental violence was witnessed. As noted in Covey et al. (2013), given the typical pattern of moving out of the parental home at the end of adolescence, it seems likely that the violence witnessed would have occurred during adolescence, but this is not certain. Some respondents reported witnessing no parental violence; others gave inconsistent reports (answering yes in one wave and no in a subsequent wave); and others gave consistent responses (once they answered yes, they continued to answer yes in any subsequent waves). Setting not witnessing parental violence as the reference category, we have two dummy variables, one for inconsistent and one for consistent reports of witnessing parental violence. As indicated in Covey et al. (2013), this distinction appears to be important with respect to later reported outcomes.

(5) For exposure to neighborhood violence, asking whether assaults and muggings were a problem in the neighborhood, we have only parental reports at Wave 1, and only respondent reports at Wave 5 and subsequently. For individuals with either only parental reports or only self-reports of whether they had witnessed assaults and muggings, the available scale was used. For individuals with both parental and self-reports (the vast majority of the cases), if either the parent or the focal respondents reported neighborhood violence, this variable was coded as indicating the presence of violence in the neighborhood. Note that this is a measure of perceived neighborhood violence, akin in that respect to witnessing parental violence, since parental and neighborhood violence may occur without being witnessed or perceived (as opposed to the direct experience of physical abuse). Based on social learning and strain theory, as described above, and parallel to the hypothesized effect of exposure to delinquent friends on delinquency in that theory (e.g., Menard & Morris, 2012), we would expect perceived parental and neighborhood violence to be more important than so-called objective measures (really, someone else’s perception, as reflected, e.g., in official reports) in their influence on subsequent behavior. If the violence is not perceived, then it should not be a source of either learning or strain; and if violence is perceived, even if the perception is incorrect, it can be expected to be a source of strain and possibly of imitation or modeling the (even incorrectly perceived) behavior.

To control for past offending and victimization, as suggested by Rebellon and Van Gundy (2005), and because Menard (2002) indicates that adolescent violent offending and victimization are predictive of later, adult violent offending and victimization, two variables were constructed, paralleling the dependent variables. (6) Adolescent violent offending consists of the same measures as adult violent offending except that while, in the present data set, adolescents were asked about gang fighting, adults were asked about battery. This minor difference, reflecting age differences in behavior, should not adversely affect the utility of the general measure of adolescent violence perpetration as a control for adult violence perpetration. (7) Adolescent violent victimization includes the same items as adult victimization and excludes being beaten up by parents (since being beaten up by parents is used as a separate predictor and is one of the predictors on which we focus in the present study). These variables help account for the possibility that the impacts of AEV may be short term and that adult violent offending may represent continuity of behavior begun in adolescence rather than a lingering direct effect of AEV. We also include controls for (8) sex/gender (coded 0 = female, 1 = male); (9) race/ethnicity (coded 0 = White/majority, 1 = non-White/minority, the latter including individuals who identify themselves as Latino or Hispanic; consistent with U.S. Census Bureau classifications when the study began in 1976, Latino/Hispanic is not treated as a category separate from race); (10) place of residence (dummy variables for urban and rural, with suburban as the reference category); (11) family structure at Wave 1 (0 = other than a two-parent family, 1 = two-parent family); and (12) socioeconomic status of parents at Wave 1 based on the Hollingshead index of social position (an index that combines parental education and occupational prestige; see Bonjean, Hill, & McLemore, 1967) coded into two dummy variables, upper/middle class and lower class, with working class as the reference category.

Analytical Strategy

We begin with a presentation of descriptive statistics. We then examine the relationship of the dependent variables to the predictors while controlling for the other predictors in the model. Because the dependent variables are dichotomous, logistic regression is used. As suggested by Menard (2011), since all of the predictors in the analysis are also measured on the same dichotomous (0,1) scale, the odds ratio is used to measure the strength of the relationship for individual variables; and R _L ² and λ_p are used to measure the overall strength of the relationship between the dependent variables and the predictors.

Results

Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics, split by gender. Only those cases that have valid values for all of the variables in the analysis (N = 573 for females, N = 547 for males, 65% of the original sample) are included in Table 1. All of the variables are dichotomous with minimum = 0 and maximum = 1, and the mean for each variable is equal to the proportion of cases coded 1 for that variable. As indicated in Table 1, males and females report similar prevalences of physical abuse, inconsistent witnessing of parental violence, neighborhood violence, adult violent offending, being non-White, being upper middle class or being lower class, urban or rural residence, and being in two-parent families at the beginning of the study. Females report higher rates of consistent witnessing of parental violence; males report much higher rates of adolescent victimization, and close to twice the rates of females for adult violent victimization and adolescent violent offending. In bivariate correlations (not shown here), adult violent offending was not significantly correlated with any of the AEV variables, but adult violent victimization had the expected positive relationship to physical abuse for females, to consistent witnessing of parental violence for both females and males, and to neighborhood violence for females. By contrast, the AEV variables were significantly related as expected to the more proximate measures of adolescent violent victimization and offending for both females and males, except that neighborhood violence was not significantly related to violent offending for females.

Table 1.
Descriptive Statistics (Male and Female).^a

Variables Mean (Proportion) Standard Deviation

Female/Male Female/Male

Prevalence of adult violent offending .095/.090 .294/.287

Prevalence of adult violent victimization .052/.095 .222/.293

Prevalence of adolescent violent offending .174/.406 .379/.491

Prevalence of adolescent violent victimization other than parental physical abuse .566/.774 .496/.418

Prevalence of parental physical abuse (beaten up by parents) .103/.090 .304/.287

Prevalence of witnessing parental violence (inconsistent) .105/.101 .306/.302

Prevalence of witnessing parental violence (consistent) .169/.133 .375/.340

Prevalence of neighborhood violence .168/.172 .374/.378

Non-White .198/.222 .399/.416

Urban .218/.216 .413/.411

Rural .142/.188 .350/.391

Two-parent family structure .793/.800 .406/.400

Upper/middle class .258/.227 .438/.419

Lower class .423/.464 .494/.499

^aListwise n = 547 for males, 573 for females.

Tables 2 and 3 present the results of the logistic regression analysis of violent offending in adulthood for females and males, respectively. Tolerance levels for the predictors here and for Tables 4 and 5 were all above .6, indicating that collinearity among the predictors is not a problem. Controlling for the other variables in the model, neither physical abuse nor witnessing parental violence is statistically significantly predictive of adult violent offending. Neighborhood violence is also not statistically significant for males, but the odds of perpetration of violence in adulthood are approximately twice as high (and marginally significant) for females who grew up exposed to neighborhood violence as for those who did not. For both males and females, the odds of violent offending are doubled for adolescent victims of violence. This relationship is statistically significant for females but not for males in the present analysis. For males but not for females, adolescent violent offending is predictive of adult violent offending, indicating greater continuity of violent offending for males than for females. Relationships of adult violent offending to other sociodemographic predictors in the model are statistically significant for neither females nor males. Explained variation (R _L ²) is higher and statistically significant for males (R _L ² = .058, p = .027), lower and not statistically significant for females (R _L ² = .048, p = .116), indicating that overall the predictors do better at predicting male than female violent offending in middle adulthood but not very well for either in absolute terms.

Table 2.
Logistic Regression Results for Prevalence of Adult Violent Offending: Females.

Predictor Unstandardized Coefficient (b) Standard Error Confidence Interval: Lower/Upper Statistical Significance (p) Odds Ratio Tolerance

Physical abuse −0.485 .496 −1.457/0.487 .329 0.616 .860

Inconsistent witnessing parental violence −0.307 .507 −1.301/0.687 .546 0.736 .941

Consistent witnessing parental violence 0.460 .375 −0.275/1.195 .220 1.585 .823

Neighborhood violence 0.690 .360 −0.016/1.396 .055 1.993 .937

Prevalence of adolescent violent victimization other than parental physical abuse 0.790 .335 0.133/1.447 .019 2.203 .852

Adolescent prevalence of violent offending 0.384 .354 −0.310/1.078 .279 1.468 .912

Non-White −0.462 .482 −1.407/0.483 .338 0.630 .768

Urban 0.232 .386 −0.525/0.989 .548 1.261 .827

Rural 0.458 .372 −0.271/1.187 .218 1.582 .920

Two-parent family structure 0.161 .404 −0.631/0.953 .691 1.174 .820

Upper/middle class −0.239 .376 −0.976/0.498 .525 0.787 .745

Lower class −0.373 .334 −1.028/0.282 .264 0.689 .726

Constant −2.915 .527 −3.948/−1.882 .000 0.054 NA

Note. $R_{L}^{2}$ = .048, p = .116, NA = Not applicable and λ _p = −.036, p = .992 (two-tailed).

Table 3.
Logistic Regression Results for Prevalence of Adult Violent Offending: Males.

Predictor Unstandardized Coefficient (b) Standard Error Confidence Interval: Lower/Upper Statistical Significance (p) Odds Ratio Tolerance

Physical abuse −0.124 .547 −1.196/0.948 .820 0.883 .928

Inconsistent witnessing parental violence −0.127 .517 −1.140/0.886 .806 0.881 .940

Consistent witnessing parental violence 0.402 .409 −0.400/1.204 .326 1.495 .924

Neighborhood violence −0.220 .484 −1.169/0.729 .649 0.802 .862

Prevalence of adolescent violent victimization other than parental physical abuse 0.810 .547 −0.262/1.882 .139 2.248 .930

Adolescent prevalence of violent offending 0.761 .319 0.136/1.386 .017 2.141 .913

Non-White −0.834 .482 −1.779/0.111 .084 0.434 .795

Urban 0.551 .386 −0.206/1.308 .154 1.735 .866

Rural 0.176 .404 −0.616/0.968 .663 1.193 .910

Two-parent family structure −0.608 .393 −1.378/0.162 .122 0.545 .874

Upper/middle class −0.451 .490 −1.411/0.509 .357 0.637 .697

Lower class 0.238 .335 −0.419/0.895 .503 1.269 .692

Constant −2.935 .691 −4.289/−1.581 .000 0.053 NA

Note. $R_{L}^{2}$ = .058, p = .027 and λ _p = 0, p = 1.000 (two-tailed).

Table 4.
Logistic Regression Results for Prevalence of Adult Violent Victimization: Females.

Predictor Unstandardized Coefficient (b) Standard Error Confidence Interval: Lower/Upper Statistical Significance (p) Odds Ratio Tolerance

Physical abuse 0.452 .532 −0.591/4.495 .396 1.572 .834

Inconsistent witnessing parental violence 0.183 .616 −1.024/1.390 .766 1.201 .953

Consistent witnessing parental violence 0.527 .505 −0.463/1.517 .297 1.694 .836

Neighborhood violence 1.126 .454 0.236/2.016 .013 3.085 .937

Prevalence of adolescent violent victimization other than parental physical abuse 1.316 .582 0.175/2.457 .024 3.728 .825

Adolescent prevalence of violent offending 0.169 .484 −0.780/1.118 .728 1.184 .847

Non-White 1.800 .510 0.800/2.800 .000 6.052 .771

Urban −0.565 .544 −1.631/0.501 .299 0.568 .827

Rural 0.284 .600 −0.892/1.460 .636 1.329 .923

Two-parent family structure 0.137 .486 −0.816/1.090 .778 1.147 .823

Upper/middle class −0.069 .595 −1.235/1.097 .908 0.934 .743

Lower class −0.519 .478 −1.456/0.418 .278 0.595 .719

Constant −4.752 .795 −6.310/−3.194 .000 0.009 NA

Note. $R_{L}^{2}$ = .160, p = .000 and λ_p = −.036, p = .848 (two-tailed).

Table 5.
Logistic Regression Results for Prevalence of Adult Violent Victimization: Males.

Predictor Unstandardized Coefficient (b) Standard Error Confidence Interval: Lower/Upper Statistical Significance (p) Odds Ratio Tolerance

Physical abuse −1.461 .784 −2.998/0.076 .062 0.232 .882

Inconsistent witnessing parental violence −1.542 .757 −3.026/−0.058 .042 0.214 .946

Consistent witnessing parental violence 0.336 .397 −0.442/1.114 .398 1.399 .918

Neighborhood violence 0.433 .394 −0.339/1.205 .271 1.542 .853

Prevalence of adolescent violent victimization other than parental physical abuse 0.764 .500 −0.216/1.744 .127 2.147 .617

Adolescent prevalence of violent offending 0.463 .311 −0.147/1.073 .137 1.588 .606

Non-White 0.585 .379 −0.158/1.328 .122 1.795 .791

Urban 0.290 .361 −0.418/0.998 .421 1.337 .864

Rural −0.432 .473 −1.359/0.495 .362 0.649 .916

Two-parent family structure −0.366 .378 −1.107/0.375 .332 0.693 .863

Upper/middle class −0.687 .479 −1.626/0.252 .151 0.503 .691

Lower class −0.124 .344 −0.798/0.550 .719 0.884 .688

Constant −2.692 .629 −3.925/−1.459 .000 0.068 NA

Note. $R_{L}^{2}$ = .088, p = .001 and λ_p = 0, p = 1.000 (two-tailed).

Tables 4 and 5 present the logistic regression analysis results for adult violent victimization. Physical abuse is not statistically significant for females, and is only marginally so (p = .062) for males. The significant effect of inconsistent reports of witnessing parental violence is unexpectedly negative for males but not statistically significant for females. Neighborhood violence during adolescence is not significantly related to adult violent victimization for males, but it triples the odds of violent victimization in adulthood for females. Being a victim of violence other than parental physical abuse in adolescence nearly quadruples the odds of adult violent victimization for females but is not significant for males. Violent offending in adolescence is not a significant predictor of adult violent victimization for females or males. Being non-White increases the odds of adult violent victimization by a factor of 6. None of the other sociodemographic variables is statistically significantly predictive of adult violent victimization. Explained variation (R _L ²) is statistically significant for both males and females, and for both is higher for victimization than for offending, at 9% for males and a moderately strong 16% for females.

We repeated the analysis for Tables 2–5 using the natural logarithm of the frequency of offending instead of prevalence as the dependent variable in ordinary least squares regression. The use of the natural logarithm reflects our expectation, based on past research on offending and victimization (e.g., Menard, 2012) that relationships are likely to be nonlinear and reasonably well approximated by the natural logarithmic transformation of the dependent variable; that, as indicated in Huizinga and Elliott (1986), differences in estimates of lower frequencies are likely to be more reliable than higher frequencies (and use of the natural logarithm gives greater weight to the differences among lower frequencies than those among higher frequencies); and it also reduces the skewness in the dependent variables. The results are available from the authors upon request, but are not shown in detail here because, with respect to which relationships were statistically significant at the .05 level, and the direction of those relationships, the substantive findings were the same, with two minor exceptions. First, for the logged frequency of adult violent offending, the negative relationship with lower socioeconomic status was statistically significant for males, with p = .05 (but not for females, for whom the relationship is nonsignificant for both prevalence and logged frequency). Second, for the logged frequency of violent victimization, the negative relationship with being upper/middle class was statistically significant for females with p = .031 (but not for males, for whom the relationship was nonsignificant for both prevalence and frequency). In short, the major substantive results appear to be the same regardless of whether we use prevalence or logged frequency of the dependent variables. Use of negative binomial regression similarly produced little difference in substantive results. For females, the negative binomial results suggested no significant impact of adolescent violent victimization on adult violent offending and that consistent witnessing of parental violence had a positive relationship with adult violent victimization. For males, in the negative binomial regression, instead of adult violent victimization being significantly related to inconsistent witnessing of parental violence, prevalence of adolescent violent victimization is significantly and, unexpectedly, negatively related to adult violent victimization.

Discussion

The first hypothesis, that parental physical abuse should be associated with adult violent offending and victimization, is not supported. In the logistic regression analysis, physical abuse is not a significant predictor in any of the four models. There are two important points to make to qualify this finding, however. First, physical abuse does have the expected relationship with adult victimization and offending if we look only at bivariate results (not presented in detail here) of the type presented in some previous research. Second, adolescent violent victimization is predictive of adult violent offending and victimization for females. These results taken together suggest that violent physical victimization in adolescence, in general, across various contexts, rather than limited specifically to the family context, is predictive of adult female violent offending and victimization, but the relationship is nonsignificant for males.

The second hypothesis, that witnessing parental violence should be predictive of higher prevalence of adult violent offending and victimization, is also not supported. Consistent with findings by Bevan and Higgins (2002) and Mihalic and Elliott (1997a), if there is an impact of witnessing parental violence on adult violent offending or victimization, it is probably indirect. Inconsistent reports of witnessing parental violence, in particular, have an anomalously negative relationship with male adult violent victimization in the logistic regression analysis. Consistent reports of witnessing parental violence have no significant effects in the logistic regression analysis. The anomalous finding with respect to inconsistent witnessing of parental violence suggest, following Covey et al. (2013), that consistent and inconsistent reports of having witnessed parental violence need to be treated separately. They also suggest that single-time retrospective measures of witnessing parental violence need to be viewed with caution, as some may represent reports which, with more time periods, would prove to be inconsistent. Further investigation into the dynamics of inconsistency in retrospective reporting of witnessing parental violence would be helpful to understand how these findings occur, and why they produce such anomalous results for adult male violent offending and victimization.

The third hypothesis, that exposure to violence in the neighborhood should be associated with adult violent offending and victimization, receives more support than the other two hypotheses, more strongly for victimization than offending, and more strongly for females than for males. Neighborhood violence in the bivariate analysis is significantly associated with adult violent victimization for both males and females; and the association for females, but not for males, persists in the logistic regression analysis for both offending and victimization.

One possible explanation for this pattern of results is that adolescents are resilient, and the effects of AEV dissipate by middle adulthood. That explanation would be consistent with the finding that AEV is significantly related to adult offending in neither the bivariate correlations nor the logistic regression, but not consistent with the pattern of significant bivariate correlations between AEV and adult violent victimization. An alternative explanation that would be consistent with both the presence of significant bivariate relationships and the absence (at least for physical abuse and witnessing parental violence) of significant multivariate relationships centers on the effects of controlling for prior behavior in adolescence when examining the relationship of AEV in the family and community context to adult violent offending and victimization. Physical abuse and witnessing parental violence may have more short-term effects, increasing adolescent violent offending and victimization, which in turn (particularly adolescent victimization) have the effects predicted by learning theory on adult violent offending and victimization. Neighborhood exposure to violence may operate in the same way, but also have a more enduring and direct effect, at least for females, on adult violent offending and victimization. It appears that it is the learning of norms and roles associated with victimization and offending that promotes continuity from adolescence to adulthood, and then continuity in violent victimization that produce the strains that lead to adult violent offending. Unfortunately, with the present data set, it is not possible to clearly determine the causal ordering, particularly between witnessing parental violence and adolescent violent offending and victimization, but it would be useful in future research to examine whether the finding that physical abuse and witnessing parental violence have no direct effect on adult violent offending and victimization, controlling for adolescent violent victimization and offending, is replicated, and if so, whether the dynamic suggested by strain and learning theories explains the attenuation of the direct relationship of physical abuse and witnessing parental violence on violent offending and victimization.

One interesting aspect of these findings is the broad pattern of differences between significant AEV predictors of adult violent victimization and offending for females and males. For males, the prevalence of adult violent offending appears to represent continuity from adolescence: Of all the AEV and prior violence victimization and offending predictors, only adolescent violent offending is significantly related to adult male violent offending. Adult male violent victimization is significantly related to inconsistent witnessing of parental violence (and, marginally, at p = .062, to physical abuse). For females, however, prevalence of neighborhood violence and prevalence of (general) violent victimization in adolescence are both significantly related to violent victimization and violent offending (marginally, at p = .055 for neighborhood violence) in adulthood. For males, adolescent violent offending begets adult violent offending and adolescent violent victimization (in the form of physical abuse) begets adult violent victimization, while for females, violent victimization and exposure to neighborhood violence both beget both adult violent offending and adult violent victimization. Consistent with prior research cited earlier, the mechanisms leading females and males into adult violent offending and victimization appear to be different, suggesting that it may be appropriate to have a different focus for intervention for females (neighborhood violence and violent victimization for both subsequent victimization and offending) than for males (violent victimization to prevent subsequent victimization, violent offending to prevent subsequent offending). Also of interest is the finding that in adulthood as in adolescence, males report higher rates of violent victimization than females; but there appears to be no significant difference between females and males in the prevalence of violent offending. This latter result parallels the finding by Menard (2012) that the correlation between frequency of offending and gender is statistically significant in adolescence, but declines and becomes nonsignificant in the transition from adolescence to middle adulthood, and also parallels the finding in Menard and Johnson (2015) that the relationship between gender and offending has declined over the historical period (mid-1970s to early 2000s) spanned by the NYSFS data.

Limitations

The present research focuses on adolescent physical abuse, witnessing parental violence, and perceptions of neighborhood violence. Other forms of adolescent maltreatment such as sexual abuse, physical neglect, and emotional abuse, were not available from the NYSFS data set. It would be useful in future research (as in past research; e.g., Herrera & McCloskey, 2001; Widom, 1989) to use data that access a broader range of child maltreatment measures. The single-item indicators used in the present research are different from the multiple-item measures used in other research, but this concern is mitigated by the similarity in rates of AEV presented here and in Finkelhor, Turner, Ormrod, and Hamby (2009). Another potential concern with the variables used in the study is possible misspecification resulting from omitted variables, possibly linked to other theoretical perspectives such as self-control (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990) or routine activities (Cohen & Felson, 1979), theories that have been suggested as explanations for both offending and victimization (Schreck, Stewart, & Fisher, 2006). Examination of these theories over the age range used in the present study is not feasible with the NYSFS data but would be worth exploring in future research. Also desirable would be the use of larger (but still nationally representative) samples, with sufficient cases to allow separate examination of predictors and outcomes with lower prevalence and frequency, such as sexual abuse in adolescence and sexual assault in adulthood, and which also might provide more reliable estimates of relationships more generally. With further regard to representativeness, the NYSFS is, as noted, representative of individuals who were available to interview as adolescents in the mid-1970s, but as population distributions change over time, it would be useful to draw new samples and follow them longitudinally to see whether the same results are found over time as the population changes.

As in any research that relies on self-reported behaviors, there may be concerns with the accuracy of the data. Reliance on self-report data reduces the risk of false negatives (concluding that there was no AEV when in fact there was no officially recorded AEV but there was unrecorded AEV) but also risks some false negatives resulting from recall failure or concealment, and this was evident for the use of long-term recall data on witnessing parental violence in the present study. With regard to the prospective data on victimization and offending, however, both for self-report data generally (Menard, Bowman-Bowen, & Lu, 2016) and for the NYSFS (as one of the data sets most extensively studied for reliability and validity of self-report data; see Elliot et al., 1989), research indicates a high degree of reliability in reporting, especially for more serious behaviors such as violent victimization and violent offending, used in the present study. Still, it would be useful in future research (as has been done in past research) to supplement self-report data with official data. Also not possible in the present study but desirable in future studies would be the examination of both adolescent and earlier childhood exposure to violence, to replicate the research of Ireland et al. (2002) and Thornberry et al. (2001) on the relative impact of adolescent as opposed to earlier childhood exposure to violence.

Implications

AEV appears to be a risk factor for adult violent offending and victimization, more so for general victimization and offending in adolescence than for exposure specifically in the family or neighborhood contexts. Attention to the needs of adolescent victims in general, not limited to adolescent victims of violence in the family or community, may help reduce both violent offending and, particularly for females, violent victimization in adulthood. The most important need is for the prevention of adolescent violent victimization, a point echoing that made in Menard (2002), who documented the pervasive effects of adolescent violent victimization on a range of young adult outcomes. The present research extends that concern to violent offending and victimization in middle age.

Where prevention fails, the focus needs to be on weakening or breaking the link connecting adolescent violent victimization with adolescent and adult violent offending and adult violent victimization, a link observed here and in prior studies of the victimization–offending relationship (see, e.g., the results and reviews in Menard, 2002, 2012). It is important not only to educate victims on how to prevent future victimization but also to eliminate other risky behaviors, to reduce the risk of future victimization, and to cope with the strain of victimization in ways other than violent offending. Based on the results discussed here, consideration of gendered approaches is also important. The presence of programs specifically sensitive to the needs of females exposed to violence, especially in neighborhoods characterized by violence, seems advisable, as neighborhood violence had a direct impact on adult violent victimization only for females. For most individuals, these interventions may be school, community, or family based, but special care is needed when the family is itself the context for victimization. Finally, it would be useful to extend this research to older age groups (not possible with the present data), to see whether the effects particularly of adolescent violent victimization generally (not just in the family context) and exposure to neighborhood violence (here specifically for females) persist even beyond middle age.

Variables	Mean (Proportion)	Standard Deviation
Prevalence of adult violent offending	.095/.090	.294/.287
Prevalence of adult violent victimization	.052/.095	.222/.293
Prevalence of adolescent violent offending	.174/.406	.379/.491
Prevalence of adolescent violent victimization other than parental physical abuse	.566/.774	.496/.418
Prevalence of parental physical abuse (beaten up by parents)	.103/.090	.304/.287
Prevalence of witnessing parental violence (inconsistent)	.105/.101	.306/.302
Prevalence of witnessing parental violence (consistent)	.169/.133	.375/.340
Prevalence of neighborhood violence	.168/.172	.374/.378
Non-White	.198/.222	.399/.416
Urban	.218/.216	.413/.411
Rural	.142/.188	.350/.391
Two-parent family structure	.793/.800	.406/.400
Upper/middle class	.258/.227	.438/.419
Lower class	.423/.464	.494/.499

Predictor	Unstandardized Coefficient (b)	Standard Error	Confidence Interval: Lower/Upper	Statistical Significance (p)	Odds Ratio	Tolerance
Physical abuse	−0.485	.496	−1.457/0.487	.329	0.616	.860
Inconsistent witnessing parental violence	−0.307	.507	−1.301/0.687	.546	0.736	.941
Consistent witnessing parental violence	0.460	.375	−0.275/1.195	.220	1.585	.823
Neighborhood violence	0.690	.360	−0.016/1.396	.055	1.993	.937
Prevalence of adolescent violent victimization other than parental physical abuse	0.790	.335	0.133/1.447	.019	2.203	.852
Adolescent prevalence of violent offending	0.384	.354	−0.310/1.078	.279	1.468	.912
Non-White	−0.462	.482	−1.407/0.483	.338	0.630	.768
Urban	0.232	.386	−0.525/0.989	.548	1.261	.827
Rural	0.458	.372	−0.271/1.187	.218	1.582	.920
Two-parent family structure	0.161	.404	−0.631/0.953	.691	1.174	.820
Upper/middle class	−0.239	.376	−0.976/0.498	.525	0.787	.745
Lower class	−0.373	.334	−1.028/0.282	.264	0.689	.726
Constant	−2.915	.527	−3.948/−1.882	.000	0.054	NA

Predictor	Unstandardized Coefficient (b)	Standard Error	Confidence Interval: Lower/Upper	Statistical Significance (p)	Odds Ratio	Tolerance
Physical abuse	−0.124	.547	−1.196/0.948	.820	0.883	.928
Inconsistent witnessing parental violence	−0.127	.517	−1.140/0.886	.806	0.881	.940
Consistent witnessing parental violence	0.402	.409	−0.400/1.204	.326	1.495	.924
Neighborhood violence	−0.220	.484	−1.169/0.729	.649	0.802	.862
Prevalence of adolescent violent victimization other than parental physical abuse	0.810	.547	−0.262/1.882	.139	2.248	.930
Adolescent prevalence of violent offending	0.761	.319	0.136/1.386	.017	2.141	.913
Non-White	−0.834	.482	−1.779/0.111	.084	0.434	.795
Urban	0.551	.386	−0.206/1.308	.154	1.735	.866
Rural	0.176	.404	−0.616/0.968	.663	1.193	.910
Two-parent family structure	−0.608	.393	−1.378/0.162	.122	0.545	.874
Upper/middle class	−0.451	.490	−1.411/0.509	.357	0.637	.697
Lower class	0.238	.335	−0.419/0.895	.503	1.269	.692
Constant	−2.935	.691	−4.289/−1.581	.000	0.053	NA

Predictor	Unstandardized Coefficient (b)	Standard Error	Confidence Interval: Lower/Upper	Statistical Significance (p)	Odds Ratio	Tolerance
Physical abuse	0.452	.532	−0.591/4.495	.396	1.572	.834
Inconsistent witnessing parental violence	0.183	.616	−1.024/1.390	.766	1.201	.953
Consistent witnessing parental violence	0.527	.505	−0.463/1.517	.297	1.694	.836
Neighborhood violence	1.126	.454	0.236/2.016	.013	3.085	.937
Prevalence of adolescent violent victimization other than parental physical abuse	1.316	.582	0.175/2.457	.024	3.728	.825
Adolescent prevalence of violent offending	0.169	.484	−0.780/1.118	.728	1.184	.847
Non-White	1.800	.510	0.800/2.800	.000	6.052	.771
Urban	−0.565	.544	−1.631/0.501	.299	0.568	.827
Rural	0.284	.600	−0.892/1.460	.636	1.329	.923
Two-parent family structure	0.137	.486	−0.816/1.090	.778	1.147	.823
Upper/middle class	−0.069	.595	−1.235/1.097	.908	0.934	.743
Lower class	−0.519	.478	−1.456/0.418	.278	0.595	.719
Constant	−4.752	.795	−6.310/−3.194	.000	0.009	NA

Predictor	Unstandardized Coefficient (b)	Standard Error	Confidence Interval: Lower/Upper	Statistical Significance (p)	Odds Ratio	Tolerance
Physical abuse	−1.461	.784	−2.998/0.076	.062	0.232	.882
Inconsistent witnessing parental violence	−1.542	.757	−3.026/−0.058	.042	0.214	.946
Consistent witnessing parental violence	0.336	.397	−0.442/1.114	.398	1.399	.918
Neighborhood violence	0.433	.394	−0.339/1.205	.271	1.542	.853
Prevalence of adolescent violent victimization other than parental physical abuse	0.764	.500	−0.216/1.744	.127	2.147	.617
Adolescent prevalence of violent offending	0.463	.311	−0.147/1.073	.137	1.588	.606
Non-White	0.585	.379	−0.158/1.328	.122	1.795	.791
Urban	0.290	.361	−0.418/0.998	.421	1.337	.864
Rural	−0.432	.473	−1.359/0.495	.362	0.649	.916
Two-parent family structure	−0.366	.378	−1.107/0.375	.332	0.693	.863
Upper/middle class	−0.687	.479	−1.626/0.252	.151	0.503	.691
Lower class	−0.124	.344	−0.798/0.550	.719	0.884	.688
Constant	−2.692	.629	−3.925/−1.459	.000	0.068	NA

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Acosta

O. M.

Albus

K. E.

Reynolds

M. W.

Spriggs

Weist

(2001). Assessing the status of research on violence-related problems among youth. Journal of Clinical and Adolescent Psychology, 30, 152–160.

Agnew

(1985). A revised strain theory of delinquency. Social Forces, 64, 151–167.

Agnew

(1992). Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency. Criminology, 30, 47–87.

Akers

R. L.

(1985). Deviant behavior: A social learning approach (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Bandura

(1977). Social learning theory. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Barroso

C. S.

Peters

R. J.

Kelder

Conroy

Murray

Orpinas

(2008). Youth exposure to community violence: Association with aggression, victimization, and risk behaviors. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment, and Trauma, 17, 141–155.

Bensley

Van Eenwyk

Simmons

K. W.

(2003). Childhood family violence history and women’s risk for intimate partner violence and poor health. American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 25, 38–44.

Bevan

Higgins

D. J.

(2002). Is domestic violence learned? The contribution of five forms of child maltreatment to men’s violence and adjustment. Journal of Family Violence, 17, 223–245.

Boney-McCoy

Finkelhor

(1995). Psychological sequelae of violent victimization in a national youth sample. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63, 726–736.

10.

Bonjean

C. M.

Hill

R. J.

McLemore

S. D.

(1967). Sociological measurement: An inventory of scales and indices. San Francisco, CA: Chandler.

11.

Bosick

S. J.

(2009). Operationalizing crime over the life course. Crime and Delinquency, 55, 472–496.

12.

Brame

Paternoster

(2003). Missing data problems in criminological research: Two case studies. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 19, 55–78.

13.

Broidy

Agnew

(1997). Gender and crime: A general strain perspective. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 34, 275–306.

14.

Cohen

Felson

(1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activities approach. American Sociological Review, 44, 588–608.

15.

Covey

H. C.

Menard

Franzese

R. J.

(2013). Effects of adolescent physical abuse, exposure to neighborhood violence, and witnessing parental violence on adult socioeconomic status. Child Maltreatment, 18, 85–97.

16.

Ehrensaft

M. K.

Cohen

Brown

Smailes

Chen

Johnson

J. G.

(2003). Intergenerational transmission of partner violence: A 20-year prospective study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71, 741–752.

17.

Eitle

Turner

R. J.

(2002). Exposure to community violence and young adult crime: The effects of witnessing violence, traumatic victimization, and other stressful life events. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 39, 214–237.

18.

Elder

G. H.

Jr (1994). Time, human agency, and social change: Perspectives on the life course. Social Psychology Quarterly, 57, 4–15.

19.

Elliott

D. S.

Huizinga

Menard

(1989). Multiple problem youth: Delinquency, substance use, and mental health problems. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

20.

Finkelhor

Ormrod

R. K.

Turner

C. W.

(2007). Poly-victimization: A neglected component in child victimization. Child Abuse and Neglect, 31, 7–26.

21.

Finkelhor

Turner

Ormrod

Hamby

Kracke

(2009). Children’s exposure to violence: A comprehensive national survey. Juvenile Justice Bulletin, National Survey of Children’s Exposure to Violence. Washington, DC: OJJDP.

22.

Finkelhor

Turner

Ormrod

Hamby

S. L.

(2009). Violence, abuse, and crime exposure in a national sample of children and youth. Pediatrics, 124, 1411–1423.

23.

Fitzpatrick

K. M.

(1993). Exposure to violence and presence of depression among low-income, African-American youth. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61, 528–531.

24.

Franzese

R. J.

Covey

H. C.

Tucker

A. S.

McCoy

Menard

(2014). Adolescent exposure to violence and adult physical and mental health problems. Child Abuse and Neglect, 38, 1955–1965.

25.

Gewirtz

A. H.

Edleson

J. L.

(2007). Young children’s exposure to intimate partner violence: Towards a development risk and resilience framework for research and intervention. Journal of Family Violence, 22, 151–163.

26.

Gottfredson

Hirschi

(1990). A general theory of crime. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

27.

Herrenkohl

T. I.

Sousa

Tajima

E. A.

Herrenkohl

R. C.

Moylan

C. A.

(2008). Intersection of child abuse and children’s exposure to domestic violence. Trauma, Violence, and Abuse, 9, 84–89.

28.

Herrera

V. M.

McCloskey

L. A.

(2001). Gender differences in the risk for delinquency among youth exposed to family violence. Child Abuse and Neglect, 25, 1037–1051.

29.

Heyman

R. E.

Slep

A. M.

(2002). Do child abuse and interpersonal violence lead to adulthood family violence? Journal of Marriage and the Family, 64, 864–870.

30.

Huizinga

Elliott

D. S.

(1986). Reassessing the reliability and validity of self-report delinquency measures. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 2, 293–327.

31.

Ireland

T. O.

Smith

C. A.

Thornberry

T. P.

(2002). Developmental issues in the impact of child maltreatment on later delinquency and drug use. Criminology, 40, 359–399.

32.

Jang

S. J.

(1999). Different definitions, different modeling decisions, and different interpretations: A rejoinder to Lauritsen. Criminology, 37, 695–703.

33.

Kitzmann

K. M.

Gaylord

N. K.

Holt

A. R.

Kenny

E. D.

(2003). Child witness to domestic violence: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71, 339–352.

34.

Kolbo

J. R.

Blakely

E. H.

Engleman

(1996). Children who witness domestic violence: A review of empirical literature. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 11, 281–293.

35.

Lackey

(2003). Violent family heritage, the transition to adulthood, and later partner violence. Journal of Family Issues, 24, 74–98.

36.

Lynch

(2003). Consequences of children’s exposure to community violence. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 6, 265–274.

37.

Margolin

Gordis

E. B.

(2000). The effects of family and community violence on children. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 445–479.

38.

Menard

(2002). Short- and long-term consequences of adolescent victimization. Youth Violence Research Bulletin. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

39.

Menard

(2011). Logistic regression: From introductory to advanced concepts and applications. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

40.

Menard

(2012). Age, criminal victimization, and offending: Changing relationships from adolescence to middle adulthood. Victims and Offenders, 7, 227–254.

41.

Menard

Bowman-Bowen

L. C.

(2016). Self-reported crime and delinquency. In Huebner

B. M.

Bynum

T. S.

(Eds.), The handbook of measurement issues in criminology and criminal justice (pp. 475–495). Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.

42.

Menard

Covey

H. C.

Franzese

R. J.

(2015). Adolescent exposure to violence and adult illicit drug use. Child Abuse and Neglect, 42, 30–39.

43.

Menard

Elliott

D. S.

(1993). Data set comparability and short-term trends in crime and delinquency. Journal of Criminal Justice, 21, 433–445.

44.

Menard

Johnson

M. C.

(2015). An intergenerational test of integrated theory. Deviant Behavior, 36, 87–100.

45.

Menard

Morris

R. G.

(2012). Integrated theory and crimes of trust. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 28, 365–387.

46.

Menard

Weiss

A. J.

Franzese

R. J.

Covey

H. C.

(2014). Types of adolescent exposure to violence as predictors of adult intimate partner violence. Child Abuse and Neglect, 38, 627–639.

47.

Mihalic

S. W.

Elliott

D. S.

(1997a). A social learning theory model of marital violence. Journal of Family Violence, 12, 21–48.

48.

Mihalic

S. W.

Elliott

D. S.

(1997b). If violence is domestic, does it really count? Journal of Family Violence, 12, 293–311.

49.

Overstreet

(2000). Exposure to community violence: Defining the problem and understanding the consequences. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 9, 7–25.

50.

Rebellon

C. J.

Van Gundy

(2005). Can control theory explain the link between parental physical abuse and delinquency? A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 42, 247–274.

51.

Schreck

C. J.

Stewart

E. A.

Fisher

B. S.

(2006). Self-control, victimization, and their influence on risky lifestyles: A longitudinal analysis using panel data. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 22, 319–340.

52.

Thornberry

T. P.

Ireland

T. O.

Smith

C. A.

(2001). The importance of timing: The varying impact of childhood and adolescent maltreatment on multiple problem outcomes. Development and Psychopathology, 13, 957–979.

53.

Tremblay

(2000). The development of aggressive behavior during childhood: What have we learned in the past century? International Journal of Behavior Development, 24, 129–141.

54.

Watts

S. J.

McNulty

T. L.

(2013). Childhood abuse and criminal behavior: Testing a general strain theory model. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28, 3023–3040.

55.

Widom

C. S.

(1989). Child abuse, neglect, and adult behavior: Research design and findings on criminality, violence, and child abuse. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 59, 355–367.

56.

Widom

C. S.

Maxfield

M. G.

(1996). A prospective examination of risk for violence among abused and neglected children. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 794, 224–237.

57.

Wolfe

D. A.

Crooks

C. V.

Lee

McIntyre-Smith

Jaffe

P. G.

(2003). The effects of children’s exposure to domestic violence: A meta-analysis and critique. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 6, 171–187.

58.

Zingraff

M. T.

Leiter

Myers

K. A.

Johnsen

M. C.

(1993). Child maltreatment and youthful problem behavior. Criminology, 31, 173–202.

59.

Zona

Milan

(2011). Gender differences in the longitudinal impact of exposure to violence on mental health in urban youth. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40, 1674–1690.

Variables	Mean (Proportion)	Standard Deviation
Variables	Female/Male	Female/Male
Prevalence of adult violent offending	.095/.090	.294/.287
Prevalence of adult violent victimization	.052/.095	.222/.293
Prevalence of adolescent violent offending	.174/.406	.379/.491
Prevalence of adolescent violent victimization other than parental physical abuse	.566/.774	.496/.418
Prevalence of parental physical abuse (beaten up by parents)	.103/.090	.304/.287
Prevalence of witnessing parental violence (inconsistent)	.105/.101	.306/.302
Prevalence of witnessing parental violence (consistent)	.169/.133	.375/.340
Prevalence of neighborhood violence	.168/.172	.374/.378
Non-White	.198/.222	.399/.416
Urban	.218/.216	.413/.411
Rural	.142/.188	.350/.391
Two-parent family structure	.793/.800	.406/.400
Upper/middle class	.258/.227	.438/.419
Lower class	.423/.464	.494/.499