Experience of Domestic Violence During Childhood,Intimate Partner Violence,and the Deterrent Effect of Awareness of Legal Consequences

Abstract

The concept of intergenerational transmission of intimate partner violence (IPV) has been an important topic of research. Experts have contended that this brutal path in which violence is transmitted to subsequent generations may be avoidable. This study examined whether public perceptions of the legal regulation of IPV and the certainty of sanction deter the prevalence of IPV. Data from 3,800 households were obtained from a nationwide survey conducted in South Korea. Due to a skewed distribution of the prevalence of IPV, this study applied a zero-inflated Poisson (ZIP) model, which has been shown to address issues of skewed count variables. In addition, use of a ZIP model allowed us to examine factors associated with the occurrence and frequency of IPV. Results showed that child abuse experience and perceptions of the law were associated with the occurrence of IPV. Individuals who experienced child abuse were more likely to perpetrate IPV, whereas those aware of the law were less likely to perpetrate IPV. Witnessing IPV between parents was associated with an increased frequency of IPV. Results suggest that by increasing awareness of laws against domestic violence, IPV may be reduced or prevented.

Keywords

intergenerational transmission intimate partner violence child abuse victimization criminal justice intervention

Intergenerational transmission of intimate partner violence (IPV) is an important research topic, and efforts to understand the link between experiences of violence during childhood and perpetration of IPV during adulthood continue (Askeland, Evang, & Heir, 2011; Smith, Ireland, Park, Elwyn, & Thornberry, 2011; Watt & Scrandis, 2013). This brutal cycle of violence being transmitted across generations may be avoidable (Choice, Lamke, & Pittman, 1995; Simons, Wu, Johnson, & Conger, 1995; Whiting, Simmons, Havens, Smith, & Oka, 2009). As a formal deterrence mechanism, law enforcement is a critical source of pressure on the perpetration of violence in intimate relationships. Following the women’s movement in the 1970s, IPV was redefined as a crime, and criminal justice interventions for IPV have been developed (Erez, 2002). Enforcement and sanctions may have a deterrent effect and increase public sensitivity toward IPV, thus decreasing the perception that IPV is a private matter. In a society such as South Korea’s, in which IPV has been recently criminalized, it is more likely for the public not to recognize the legal ramifications of IPV. Thus, research examining the perceptions of individuals regarding the certainty of being punished for perpetrating IPV is needed.

Given this background, this study examined the deterrent effect of individual perceptions of legal regulation and IPV in South Korea. More importantly, this study examined this deterrent effect in comparison with the intergenerational transmission framework, which has been widely accepted in previous studies.

Intergenerational Transmission of IPV

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (2010) definition, IPV can be defined as “physical, sexual, or psychological harm by a current or former partner or spouse” (Para. 1). To understand the mechanism of IPV, research has focused on intergenerational transmission of IPV (Askeland et al., 2011; Black, Sussman, & Unger, 2010; Kempe, Silverman, Steele, Droegemueller, & Silver, 1985; Smith et al., 2011; Straus, Gelles, & Steinmetz, 1980; Watt & Scrandis, 2013; Whitfield, Anda, Dube, & Felitti, 2003). Based on social learning theory (Bandura, 1977), it has been hypothesized that children raised in violent families are more likely to be violent and aggressive toward their partners. In their meta-analysis, Stith et al. (2000) identified a relationship between having parents involved in violent marital relationships and being violent toward partners during adulthood.

It is generally accepted that both direct (e.g., child abuse victimization) and indirect (e.g., witnessing and being exposed to IPV among caregivers) violent victimization may increase the risk of engaging in IPV during adulthood (Whitfield et al., 2003). Traditionally, direct violent victimization was studied as a main predictor to explain IPV perpetration during adulthood (Askeland et al., 2011; Kempe et al., 1985; Straus et al., 1980; Whitfield et al., 2003). However, numerous studies indicated that indirect IPV victimization during childhood also could play a key role in IPV during adulthood (Smith et al., 2011; Whitfield et al., 2003).

Evidence of intergenerational transmission of IPV also has been consistently supported by cross-cultural studies. Using a sample from urban Thailand, Kerley, Xu, Sirsunyaluck, and Alley (2010) showed that being exposed to family violence during childhood increased the risk of perpetrating IPV during adulthood. Similar results have been observed in previous studies in the Philippines (Fehringer & Hindin, 2009), with Chinese immigrant batterers (Jin, Eagle, & Yoshioka, 2007), and in India (Koenig, Stephenson, Ahmed, Jejeebhoy, & Campbell, 2006). Child maltreatment was a strong predictor of dating violence among South Korean college students (Gover, Park, Tomsich, & Jennings, 2011). Although there is some evidence that the link between abuse victimization during childhood and adulthood IPV is spurious (Jennings, Richards, Tomsich, Gover, & Powers, 2013), intergenerational transmission of IPV is still strongly supported.

Deterrent Effect of Criminal Justice Interventions on IPV

Studies have indicated that the path between childhood IPV experiences and perpetration of IPV during adulthood could be avoided with appropriate intervention (Choice et al., 1995; Simons et al., 1995; Whiting et al., 2009). Some studies focused on the deterrent effect of criminal justice intervention on IPV (Berk, Campbell, Klap, & Western, 1992; Syers & Edleson, 1992; Tolman & Weisz, 1995), whereas other studies focused on psychological and behavioral interventions to reduce IPV perpetration (Browne, Saunders, & Staecker, 1997; Saunders, 1996; Taft, Murphy, King, Musser, & DeDeyn, 2003).

Ever since IPV began to be transformed into a matter of public importance through criminalization, it has been expected that legal regulation would effectively deter both the prevalence and recidivism of IPV. With this expectation, legal regulation of IPV has developed as a strategy to enforce punishment and widen the definition of IPV (Erez, 2002). Previous studies have examined the effectiveness of legal regulation as a deterrent to IPV perpetration. One experimental study evaluated the deterrent effect of mandatory arrest on IPV recidivism (Sherman & Berk, 1984). Results of this study indicated that perpetrators who were arrested showed the greatest reduction in IPV recidivism compared with other groups (e.g., those threatened with arrest or warned and given advice). This representative experimental study was widely replicated in other cities across the United States, but the results of these additional studies were inconsistent (Sherman, Smith, Schmidt, & Rogan, 1992). These inconsistent results may have been caused by varying beliefs regarding the probability of arrest, prosecution, conviction, and punishment (Sloan, Platt, Chepke, & Blevins, 2013).

In criminology, to assess the deterrent effect of a law, the perceived certainty of sanctions and punishment is often more greatly emphasized than the intensity of sanctions (Jacobs, 2010; Pogarsky, 2002). When people perceive that sanctions and punishment follow a crime and believe in the certainty of such punishment, they are less likely to commit a crime (Pogarsky, 2002). Individual perceptions of the legal ramifications of IPV are even more important in countries such as South Korea, where legal regulation of IPV has developed relatively recently. In South Korea, criminalization of IPV began in the late 1990s, approximately 20 years later than in the United States. Despite multiple revisions and updates since the initial law was passed, the legal consequences of IPV in South Korea remain insufficient and are not fully recognized by the public (Ministry of Gender Equality and Family, 2010).

In addition, police response to IPV in South Korea remains passive, and IPV is largely considered a private matter (Ministry of Gender Equality and Family, 2010). Moreover, according to a national report on the prevalence of domestic and sexual violence (Ministry of Gender Equality and Family, 2010), only 30% of the population in South Korea is aware of laws against domestic violence and that violence toward partners is punishable. Some Korean IPV perpetrators in a mandatory batterer intervention program did not recognize that laws against IPV existed; moreover, they did not know they could be arrested and punished for perpetrating IPV (Ko & Lee, 2010). If people do not perceive IPV as a crime or recognize the existence of legal regulation regarding IPV, it is difficult to achieve deterrence through the legal and criminal justice system.

Given this background, this study examined whether public perceptions of the legal consequences of IPV and the certainty of sanctions deter IPV and thus lower the prevalence of IPV. In particular, this study examined the deterrent effect of perceptions of legal regulation of IPV by comparing it with two main variables (child abuse victimization and witnessing interparental IPV) conceptualized in the intergenerational transmission framework.

Method

Study Sample

The study sample featured 2,748 married or cohabitating individuals who participated in a nationwide survey designed to determine the national IPV and sexual violence prevalence rates in South Korea. First, to determine the sample size needed for representative sampling of households of South Korea, the proportions method was used. As a result, 3,800 households—a number slightly greater than the actual calculated sample size through the proportions method (3,673)—were selected via a multistage probability sampling procedure throughout the country using South Korean census data. Sixteen major administrative regions were selected, excluding islands that were not easily accessible.

Considering population distribution across administrative regions, the appropriate number of sampling clusters was calculated in a way that minimized the total number of sampling clusters. As a result, Seoul, where the population was the largest among the administrative regions, had 35 sampling clusters, whereas Jeju Island, with the smallest population, had 4 sampling clusters. The total number of sampling clusters was 200. To select approximately 3,800 households within 200 sampling clusters, at least 19 households should be sampled from each cluster. A systematic sampling procedure was applied to select the final target sample of households within the 200 clusters. The sampling frame of each cluster was derived from 2005 South Korean census data. Each household in each cluster had a unique, randomly assigned identification number. With a selection interval of three, 19 households were selected in each cluster. One individual per household was interviewed. To be eligible to participate, individuals had to be 19 years old or older, able to speak Korean, and have no cognitive impairment that would interfere with their ability to complete an interview. If there were more than two eligible participants in a household, the person whose birthday fell earliest in the year was invited to participate.

Trained interviewers, who completed a 1-day training course, visited all targeted households. Trainees were recruited from social work schools across the country, and one supervisor per region was allocated to oversee the survey procedures. For the safety of interviewers, the interviews were conducted in mixed-gender pairs. If an interviewee in a targeted household declined to participate in the survey, the next household in the sampling frame was selected. Among all participants, 2,748 individuals who were currently married or cohabitating with a partner were included in this study. The survey was conducted between August and October 2010. Interviews took approximately 1.5 hr each to complete. In the final raw data set, gender distribution was unbalanced due to more female interviewees (74%). Thus, sampling weights were calculated to modify this unbalanced gender distribution and applied in all statistical procedures.

Measurement

Physical intimate partner violence

Physical IPV during the previous year was measured using the Conflict Tactics Scale 2 (Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996). Seven items from the scale were used: (a) “I threw something at my partner that could hurt,” (b) “I grabbed my partner,” (c) “I slapped my partner,” (d) “I choked my partner,” (e) “I used a knife or gun on my partner,” (f) “I punched or hit my partner with something that could hurt,” and (g) “I beat up my partner.” Responses were scored following the approach: 0 (never), 1 (1 time), 2 (2 times), 3 (3-5 times), 4 (6-10 times), 5 (11-20 times), and 6 (more than 20 times). Scores were summed to create a violence index with a possible range of 0 to 42. To analyze this measure as a count variable, each item was dichotomized as 0 (never) or 1 (at least once) and then summed. Therefore, the range of overall scores was 0 to 7. Cronbach’s α was .82.

Child abuse victimization

Child abuse victimization at any point during childhood was measured using three items from the parent–child version of the Conflict Tactics Scale (Straus, Hamby, Finkelhor, Moore, & Runyan, 1998): (a) “My parents insulted or swore me”; (b) “My parents hit me on the bottom with something like a belt, hairbrush, a stick, or some other hard object”; and (c) “My parents slapped me on the hand, arm, or leg.” The summed score of the items was dichotomized as 0 (never) or 1 (at least once). Cronbach’s α was .79.

Witnessing interparental IPV

Witnessing IPV during childhood was measured by three items regarding verbal, minor physical, and severe physical violence between parents: (a) “My parents slapped each other on the hand, arm, or leg”; (b) “My parents insulted or swore at each other”; and (c) “My parents punched or hit each other with something that could hurt.” These items were used in previous studies (Kim & Lee, 2010; Kim, Lee, & Yoon, 2011; Kim, Song, & Han, 2010). The summed score of the three items was dichotomized as 0 (never) or 1 (at least once). Cronbach’s α was .91.

Perceptions of legal regulation of IPV

One question was used to measure perceptions of the legality and consequences of IPV: “Do you recognize that IPV is legally banned and could be punished by law?” Despite its brevity, the question measured perceptions of the existence of the law and the certainty of being punished. This item was developed specifically for this study.

Control variables

This study included gender, employment, monthly income, age, stress, and alcohol use as control variables. The Stressful Life Event Scale (Holmes & Rahe, 1967) was used to measure stress. Alcohol use was measured using two questions. Respondents were asked, “How often did you drink during the previous 12 months?” Responses to this item were coded as 1 (less than 1 time per month), 2 (2-3 times per month), 3 (1 or two times per week), 4 (3-4 times per week), or 5 (almost every day). Participants were also asked, “How much do you drink at one time?” (1 = 1 can of beer or 1 cup of soju, 2 = 2 cans of beer or 2-3 cups of soju, 3 = 3 cans of beer or 4-5 cups of soju, 4 = 4 cans of beer or 6-7 cups of soju, 5 = 5 or more cans of beer or more than one bottle of soju). Results of the two variables were multiplied to create an overall score of alcohol use. This multiplication method was used in previous national studies in South Korea (Ministry of Gender Equality and Family, 2007a, 2007b, 2010).

Analytic Plan

This study applied zero-inflated Poisson (ZIP) regression rather than a binary logit model. ZIP is an extended form of Poisson regression and is a powerful tool to analyze count data. The number of acts of physical violence toward a partner is a typical count variable, and previous studies have applied ZIP regression to explore violence issues (Famoye & Singh, 2006). Applying the ZIP method to analyze IPV is appropriate because the distribution of counts of violent acts typically is not normally distributed but rather skewed to due to the high prevalence of no IPV among respondents. Prior research on IPV has typically used ordinary least squares or binary logit regression models (Cohen et al., 2000; Gin, Rucker, Frayne, Cygan, & Hubbell, 1991; McGuigan & Pratt, 2001). The ZIP method allows examination of factors associated with the occurrence of physical violence toward a partner and the frequency of physical violence incidents among perpetrators. Using ZIP regression analyses in STATA 13.0, all parameters were estimated using maximum likelihood and a sampling weight was applied. To test whether a ZIP model is superior to a standard Poisson model in this study, the Vuong test was conducted.

Results

Sample Description

Descriptive statistics for the total sample of survey respondents (N = 2,748) are presented in Table 1. A majority of the sample was female (72.55%), and more than half of respondents were between 36 and 50 years old (41.55%). Most participants were married (90.8%), and almost half of respondents were employed (45.23%). Of all respondents, 16.68% reported perpetrating any type of physical violence toward partners during the previous 12 months. About half of respondents (53.50%) reported they were directly abused during childhood by their caregivers. About one third (28.20%) reported witnessing violence (i.e., verbal, minor physical, or severe physical violence) between their caregivers during childhood. Results showed that 33.36% of respondents were aware of laws intended to punish IPV perpetration. Gender differences among all variables were only found in stress and stress level.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics of the Sample.

	Overall	Female	Male
	% or M (SD)	% or M (SD)	% or M (SD)
Gender
Female	72.55
Male	24.45
Age
19-35	10.82	14.59	6.54
36-50	41.55	50.80	35.14
51-65	29.75	27.52	34.40
65+	18.89	7.09	23.92
Marital status
Married	90.8	99.07	99.01
Cohabitating	9.20	0.93	0.99
Employment
Employed	45.23	38.84	70.46
Unemployed	54.77	61.16	29.54
Stress	1.43 (1.51)	1.41 (1.50)	1.67 (1.58)**
Alcohol use	5.98 (5.44)	4.11 (4.08)	8.87 (6.25)***
Intimate partner violence^a
No	83.32	83.90	82.80
Yes	16.68	16.10	17.20
Child abuse
No	46.50	44.86	41.43
Yes	53.50	55.14	58.57
Witnessed parental IPV in childhood
No	71.80	72.50	70.30
Yes	28.20	27.50	29.30
Awareness of IPV laws
No	66.64	70.00	70.30
Yes	33.36	30.00	29.70

Note. Indicators of significance refer to differences between genders. IPV = intimate partner violence.

The perpetration rate of intimate partner violence was analyzed by recoding the variable as 0 (no violence) and 1 (any violence).

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

ZIP Regression Results

The results of ZIP regression are depicted in Table 2. The ZIP regression model predicting adulthood IPV based on child abuse, witnessing IPV during childhood, and perceptions of laws against IPV was significantly better than the null model (i.e., intercept-only model; p < .01). According to the Vuong test, analyzing the research model using a ZIP model was deemed more appropriate than Poisson logistic regression (z = 4.49, p < .001).

Table 2.

ZIP Regression Analyses Predicting Partner Violence During the Previous Year.

	Zero-Inflated Model		Count Model
	IRR	95% CI	Coefficient	95% CI
Gender (female)	1.59	[0.75, 3.38]	−0.07	[−1.11, 0.97]
Age	1.06	[0.72, 1.57]	1.11	[−0.38, 0.62]
Employed	0.75	[0.42, 1.37]	0.72*	[1.02, 1.97]
Stress	0.81**	[0.69, 0.94]	0.62***	[0.35, 0.89]
Monthly income	0.87	[0.75, 1.01]	−0.04	[−0.22, 0.14]
Alcohol use	1.00	[0.96, 1.05]	0.07	[−0.14, 0.00]
Child abuse	0.49**	[0.52, 0.86]	0.80	[−1.71, 0.09]
Witnessed parental IPV	0.88	[0.49, 1.58]	0.68*	[1.01, 1.12]
Awareness of IPV laws	1.50**	[1.48, 1.90]	−0.15	[−0.64, 0.12]
Log likelihood	−468.19
χ²	58.48***
Vuong test	4.49***

Note. In zero-inflated Poisson regression, a logit (zero-inflated) model is generated for certain zero cases, predicting the likelihood that participants would be in a particular group—in this study, experiencing no IPV during the previous year. ZIP = zero-inflated Poisson; CI = confidence interval; IPV = intimate partner violence; IRR = Incidence Rate Ratio.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Among predictors of excess zeroes, experiencing child abuse and awareness of laws against IPV were statistically significant (see zero-inflated model column). More specifically, in the zero-inflated column, the odds that participants would be in the certain zero group, which indicates individuals who would not perpetrate any violence, increased by 1.50 among individuals who were aware of laws against domestic violence versus people who were not aware of those laws (OR = 1.50, 95% CI = [1.48, 1.90]). In addition, child abuse experience decreased the odds that participants would be in the certain zero group by 51% (OR = 0.49, 95% CI = [0.52, 0.86]).

In the incident count model column, witnessing interparental IPV was marginally statistically significant (p < .05). Individuals who witnessed interparental IPV during childhood were more likely than participants with no such experience to report more frequent acts of physical violence toward an intimate partner, while holding all other variables constant. Participants who experienced more stress in daily life were more likely to report IPV (p < .001), and participants who were employed were less likely to report IPV (p < .05).

Discussion

This study hypothesized that awareness of laws against IPV and the likelihood of being punished for perpetrating IPV would decrease the likelihood of IPV regardless of experiencing child abuse victimization. Results showed that individuals who were aware of laws against IPV were less likely to perpetrate IPV, which indicated that laws against IPV may have a deterrent effect on IPV perpetration. In other words, individuals who were aware of the law against IPV were less likely to engage in any physical IPV toward their partners. However, individuals who experienced child abuse victimization were more likely to perpetrate IPV. In terms of the number (frequency) of incidents of IPV perpetration, only indirect IPV victimization (i.e., witnessing violence between caregivers during childhood) was statistically significant, whereas awareness of anti-IPV laws was not significantly associated with the frequency of IPV.

The results of this study consistently supported previous evidence that child abuse victimization could be a strong predictor of adulthood IPV perpetration. Furthermore, this study’s results indicated that different aspects of experiencing child abuse play a role in predicting the onset and frequency of IPV perpetration during adulthood. When developing interventions to prevent the onset of IPV, considering direct child abuse victimization would be appropriate rather than indirect childhood victimization, which would be more appropriate for individuals who already have perpetrated IPV to decrease or eliminate the frequency of IPV. Previous studies used ordinary least squares or binary logistic regression (Cohen et al., 2000; Gin et al., 1991; McGuigan & Pratt, 2001; Whitfield et al., 2003), making it difficult to detect the distinctive role of child abuse in IPV perpetration by not considering the onset and frequency of IPV distinctively.

Furthermore, results indicated that promoting awareness of laws against IPV among individuals would be effective in deterring the onset of IPV perpetration. Approximately two of three South Koreans surveyed were not aware of laws against IPV. Due to this low rate of awareness, the deterrent effects of the criminal justice system may not work as expected. Increasing awareness would be expected to decrease the onset of IPV perpetration. It should be noted that awareness of laws against IPV did not effectively predict the frequency of IPV perpetration. One possible explanation for this result may be found in the legal consequences of IPV in South Korea. Previous studies showed that enforcing punishment by mandatory arrest reduced IPV recidivism, that is, subsequent incidents after the onset of IPV perpetration (Dugan, 2003; Sherman & Berk, 1984). Perpetrators who experienced meaningful punishment may avoid recidivism as a result. Thus, to reduce the incidence of IPV, enforcing punishment is critical. Nonetheless, from a prevention perspective, the results of this study suggest that increased awareness of laws against IPV should be pursued to dissuade people from perpetrating IPV.

Despite several strengths, this study had some limitations. First, given the limitations of cross-sectional data, it may be difficult to confirm the causal relationships between variables. Second, assessing child abuse among respondents largely relied on the retrospective memories of respondents. However, this approach has been widely used in previous studies (Askeland et al., 2011; Bevan & Higgins, 2002; Carr & VanDeusen, 2002; Doumas, Margolin, & John, 1994; Whitfield et al., 2003). Third, we used a single item to measure awareness of laws against IPV. Although this may have measured whether people were aware of laws designed to punish IPV perpetration, it was difficult to determine their perceptions of the certainty of punishment, which is an important factor in assessing the deterrent effect of laws on crimes (Pogarsky, 2002). Also, the item asked if respondents were aware of the law and the possibility of being punished at the same time. To measure the certainty of punishment, a more valid scale with multiple items should be developed. Finally, the distribution of gender was not balanced. Although the number of women was larger than men, there were no gender differences in the main predictors and outcome variable in this study. In addition, this study applied a sampling weight to account for the unbalanced number of men and women. Despite this limitation and considering the relative lack of studies on the deterrent effect of the legal system against IPV, the results of this study provide guidance for strategies to reduce IPV. Finally, this study was conducted in South Korea. Despite using a representative sample, it is difficult to conclude that findings could be applied to other cultures. This limitation highlights the need for further research on the deterrent effect of laws against IPV in other cultures and countries.

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

Author Biographies

Ahyoung Song has participated in multiple projects addressing interpersonal violence and risky health behaviors among women. Her current research interests are the association between violence victimization and risky health behaviors among impoverished and homeless women, housing, and cross-cultural adaptation of HIV/sexually transmitted disease (STD) prevention intervention. She was previously affiliated with the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA.

Suzanne L. Wenzel has devoted much of her career to understand and address health-related needs of vulnerable populations, particularly individuals experiencing homelessness in urban communities. She serves as the director of the School of Social Work research cluster on Homelessness, Housing, and Social Environment.

Jae Yop Kim has devoted his career to expand knowledge on intimate partner violence and child abuse in South Korea. He has been a leading figure in this field and led multiple national grants as a principal investigator (PI) in South Korea.

Boyoung Nam’s research interests are to understand intimate partner violence and child abuse among immigrant population and the association between cultural adjustment and mental health among the immigrant population.

References

Askeland

I. R.

Evang

Heir

(2011). Association of violence against partner and former victim experiences: A sample of clients voluntarily attending therapy. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 1095-1110. doi:10.1177/0886260510368152

Bandura

(1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Berk

R. A.

Campbell

Klap

Western

(1992). The deterrent effect of arrest in incidents of domestic violence: A Bayesian analysis of four field experiments. American Sociological Review, 57, 698-708. doi:10.2307/2095923

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. doi:10.1023/A:1016053228021

Black

D. S.

Sussman

Unger

J. B.

(2010). A further look at the intergenerational transmission of violence: Witnessing interparental violence in emerging adulthood. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 1022-1042. doi:10.1177/0886260509340539

Browne

K. O.

Saunders

D. G.

Staecker

K. M.

(1997). Process-psychodynamic groups for men who batter: A brief treatment model. Families in Society, 78, 265-271. doi:10.1606/1044-3894.774

Carr

J. L.

VanDeusen

K. M.

(2002). The relationship between family of origin violence and dating violence in college men. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17, 630-646. doi:10.1177/0886260502017006003

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2010). Intimate partner violence: Definitions. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/intimatepartnerviolence/definitions.html

Choice

Lamke

L. K.

Pittman

J. F.

(1995). Conflict resolution strategies and marital distress as mediating factors in the link between witnessing interparental violence and wife battering. Violence and Victims, 10, 107-119.

10.

Cohen

Deamant

Barkan

Richardson

Young

Holman

. . . Melnick

(2000). Domestic violence and childhood sexual abuse in HIV-infected women and women at risk for HIV. American Journal of Public Health, 90, 560-565. doi:10.2105/AJPH.90.4.560

11.

Doumas

Margolin

John

R. S.

(1994). The intergenerational transmission of aggression across three generations. Journal of Family Violence, 9, 157-175. doi:10.1007/BF01531961

12.

Dugan

(2003). Domestic violence legislation: Exploring its impact on the likelihood of domestic violence, police involvement, and arrest. Criminology & Public Policy, 2, 283-312. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9133.2003.tb00126.x

13.

Erez

(2002). Domestic violence and the criminal justice system: An overview. Online Journal of Issues in Nursing, 7. Available from http://www.nursingworld.org

14.

Famoye

Singh

K. P.

(2006). Zero-inflated generalized Poisson regression model with an application to domestic violence data. Journal of Data Science, 4, 117-130.

15.

Fehringer

J. A.

Hindin

M. J.

(2009). Like parent, like child: Intergenerational transmission of partner violence in Cebu, the Philippines. Journal of Adolescent Health, 44, 363-371. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2008.08.012

16.

Gin

N. E.

Rucker

Frayne

Cygan

Hubbell

F. A.

(1991). Prevalence of domestic violence among patients in three ambulatory care internal medicine clinics. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 6, 317-322. doi:10.1007/BF02597429

17.

Gover

A. R.

Park

Tomsich

E. A.

Jennings

W. G.

(2011). Dating violence perpetration and victimization among South Korean college students: A focus on gender and childhood maltreatment. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 1232-1263. doi:10.1177/0886260510368161

18.

Holmes

T. H.

Rahe

R. H.

(1967). The Social Readjustment Rating Scale. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 11, 213-218. doi:10.1016/0022-3999(67)90010-4

19.

Jacobs

B. A.

(2010). Deterrence and deterrability. Criminology, 48, 417-441. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.2010.00191.x

20.

Jennings

W. G.

Richards

T. N.

Tomsich

E. A.

Gover

A. R.

Powers

R. A.

(2013). A critical examination of the causal link between child abuse and adult dating violence perpetration and victimization from a propensity score matching approach. Women & Criminal Justice, 23, 167-184. doi:10.1080/08974454.2013.802271

21.

Jin

Eagle

Yoshioka

(2007). Early exposure to violence in the family of origin and positive attitudes towards marital violence: Chinese immigrant male batterers vs. controls. Journal of Family Violence, 22, 211-222. doi:10.1007/s10896-007-9073-3

22.

Kempe

C. H.

Silverman

F. N.

Steele

B. F.

Droegemueller

Silver

H. K.

(1985). The battered-child syndrome. Child Abuse & Neglect, 9, 143-154. doi:10.1016/0145-2134(85)90005-5

23.

Kerley

K. R.

Sirsunyaluck

Alley

J. M.

(2010). Exposure to family violence in childhood and intimate partner perpetration or victimization in adulthood: Exploring intergenerational transmission in urban Thailand. Journal of Family Violence, 25, 337-347. doi:10.1007/s10896-009-9295-7

24.

Kim

J. Y.

Lee

S. H.

(2010). Impact of witnessing parental violence over school violence perpetration in juveniles and the mediating effect of aggression: Focused on juveniles in Kunsan [in Korean]. Korean Journal of Social Welfare Research, 26, 109-137.

25.

Kim

J. Y.

Lee

S. H.

Yoon

Y. W.

(2011). Pathway from domestic violence to adolescents’ Internet game addiction: Focusing on mediating effect of parental attachment [in Korean]. Korean Journal of Social Welfare, 63, 59-82.

26.

Kim

J. Y.

Song

A. Y.

Han

(2010). An overlapping experience of domestic violence and children’s depression and delinquent behaviors [in Korean]. Korean Journal of Youth Studies, 17, 1-26.

27.

K. S.

Lee

G. O.

(2010). A qualitative study on psychological and social traits of family violence offenders [in Korean]. Victimology, 18, 129-157.

28.

Koenig

M. A.

Stephenson

Ahmed

Jejeebhoy

S. J.

Campbell

(2006). Individual and contextual determinants of domestic violence in North India. American Journal of Public Health, 96, 132-138. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2004.050872

29.

McGuigan

W. M.

Pratt

C. C.

(2001). The predictive impact of domestic violence on three types of child maltreatment. Child Abuse & Neglect, 25, 869-883. doi:10.1016/S0145-2134(01)00244-7

30.

Ministry of Gender Equality and Family. (2007a). The National Evaluation of Batterer Intervention Programs in South Korea. Seoul, South Korea: Author.

31.

Ministry of Gender Equality and Family. (2007b). The 2007 Domestic Violence Survey of South Korea. Seoul, South Korea: Author.

32.

Ministry of Gender Equality and Family. (2010). The 2010 Domestic Violence Survey of South Korea. Seoul, South Korea: Author.

33.

Pogarsky

(2002). Identifying “deterrable” offenders: Implications for research on deterrence. Justice Quarterly, 19, 431-452. doi:10.1080/07418820200095301

34.

Saunders

D. G.

(1996). Feminist-cognitive-behavioral and process-psychodynamic treatments for men who batter: Interaction of abuser traits and treatment models. Violence and Victims, 11, 393-414.

35.

Sherman

L. W.

Berk

R. A.

(1984). The specific deterrent effects of arrest for domestic assault. American Sociological Review, 49, 261-272. doi:10.2307/2095575

36.

Sherman

L. W.

Smith

D. A.

Schmidt

J. D.

Rogan

D. P.

(1992). Crime, punishment, and stake in conformity: Legal and informal control of domestic violence. American Sociological Review, 57, 680-690. doi:10.2307/2095921

37.

Simons

R. L.

C.-I.

Johnson

Conger

R. D.

(1995). A test of various perspectives on the intergenerational transmission of domestic violence. Criminology, 33, 141-172. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.1995.tb01174.x

38.

Sloan

F. A.

Platt

A. C.

Chepke

L. M.

Blevins

C. E.

(2013). Deterring domestic violence: Do criminal sanctions reduce repeat offenses? Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 46, 51-80. doi:10.1007/s11166-012-9159-z

39.

Smith

C. A.

Ireland

T. O.

Park

Elwyn

Thornberry

T. P.

(2011). Intergenerational continuities and discontinuities in intimate partner violence: A two-generational prospective study. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 3720-3752. doi:10.1177/0886260511403751

40.

Stith

S. M.

Rosen

K. H.

Middleton

K. A.

Busch

A. L.

Lundeberg

Carlton

R. P.

(2000). The intergenerational transmission of spouse abuse: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62, 640-654. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00640.x

41.

Straus

M. A.

Gelles

R. J.

Steinmetz

S. K.

(1980). Behind closed doors: Violence in the American family. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press/Doubleday.

42.

Straus

M. A.

Hamby

S. L.

Boney-McCoy

Sugarman

D. B.

(1996). The Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17, 283-316. doi:10.1177/019251396017003001

43.

Straus

M. A.

Hamby

S. L.

Finkelhor

Moore

D. W.

Runyan

(1998). Identification of child maltreatment with the parent-child Conflict Tactics Scales: Development and psychometric data for a national sample of American parents. Child Abuse & Neglect, 22, 249-270. doi:10.1016/S0145-2134(97)00174-9

44.

Syers

Edleson

J. L.

(1992). The combined effects of coordinated criminal justice intervention in woman abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 7, 490-502. doi:10.1177/088626092007004005

45.

Taft

C. T.

Murphy

C. M.

King

D. W.

Musser

P. H.

DeDeyn

J. M.

(2003). Process and treatment adherence factors in group cognitive-behavioral therapy for partner violent men. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71, 812-820. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.71.4.812

46.

Tolman

R. M.

Weisz

(1995). Coordinated community intervention for domestic violence: The effects of arrest and prosecution on recidivism of woman abuse perpetrators. Crime & Delinquency, 41, 481-495. doi:10.1177/0011128795041004007

47.

Watt

M. E.

Scrandis

D. A.

(2013). Traumatic childhood exposures in the lives of male perpetrators of female intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28, 2813-2830. doi:10.1177/0886260513488694

48.

Whitfield

C. L.

Anda

R. F.

Dube

S. R.

Felitti

V. J.

(2003). Violent childhood experiences and the risk of intimate partner violence in adults: Assessment in a large health maintenance organization. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 166-185. doi:10.1177/0886260502238733

49.

Whiting

J. B.

Simmons

L. A.

Havens

J. R.

Smith

D. B.

Oka

(2009). Intergenerational transmission of violence: The influence of self-appraisals, mental disorders and substance abuse. Journal of Family Violence, 24, 639-648. doi:10.1007/s10896-009-9262-3