Exploring Violence Socialization and Approval of Intimate Partner Violence Among University Students in Kosovo

Abstract

Intimate partner violence (IPV) among university students is a prevalent problem in many countries; however, it is not currently recognized in Kosovo as a social issue in terms of research, prevention, and intervention. The aim of this article was to examine the relationship between violence socialization experiences, approval of violence, and IPV perpetration/victimization among university students in Kosovo. The questionnaires were administrated to a convenience sample of 700 students of University of Prishtina who were in relationship for 1 month or longer. The Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS-2) was used for measuring physical, psychological, and sexual violence, whereas for measuring violence socialization and violence approval, scales from Personal and Relationships Profile (PRP) were used. Findings from this study show that there were statistically significant gender differences in terms of socialization and approval of violence among university students. Similarly, perpetrators and victims of IPV (physical, psychological, and sexual violence) showed higher rates of socialization of violence and tolerance toward IPV. Besides, findings indicate that approval of violence mediates the relationship between socialization of violence and IPV perpetration and victimization, for both genders. The implications of the current findings within a cultural context are also discussed.

Keywords

dating violence domestic violence violence exposure intergenerational transmission of trauma

Introduction

Research evidence in the United States documented high rates of intimate partner violence (IPV) among young people, specifically 10% to 50% of students engaged in partner violence (Amar & Gennaro, 2005; Barrick, Krebs, & Lindquist, 2013; Bryant & Spencer, 2003; Kaukinen, Gover, & Hartman, 2012; Straus, 2004, 2008; Straus & Ramirez, 2007), and students’ vulnerability to IPV is explained in terms of younger age (Capaldi, Knoble, Shortt, & Kim, 2012), the first romantic relationship during formative years (Kaukinen, 2014), lack of skills for reaching compromises, and inability to understand others’ boundaries for acceptable behaviors (DeMaris, Benson, Fox, Hill, & Van Wyk, 2003). Researchers following various theoretical perspectives have identified many factors that predispose its occurrence; however, one of the most common risk factors of IPV perpetration/victimization is considered to be the exposure to violence during childhood (Douglas & Straus, 2006; Gover, Kaukinen, & Fox, 2008; Heyman & Smith Slep, 2002), suggesting that violence is modeled in the family and transmitted through generations. Although the majority of individuals exposed to violence did not become violent (Johnson & Ferraro, 2000), research evidence showed that certain types of mediation mechanisms function in the transmission of violence. In this regard, studies conducted by Markowitz (2001) and O’Keefe (1998) documented that the mediating mechanism of tolerant attitudes toward violence developed through exposure to childhood violence increases the likelihood of individuals to engage in partner violence. The current article aims to expand the previous knowledge through the exploration of IPV perpetration and victimization and its relation to violence socialization and attitudes that approve violence among the non-Western sample of 700 students in Kosovo. Evidence from this study aims to provide a better understanding of how this mechanism operates within young adults in Kosovo, and also to provide insight in designing prevention and intervention programs. In addition, findings from the study will test the applicability of intergenerational transmission of violence theory and social learning theory in a distinct cultural setting, while highlighting the similarities and differences that will contribute to diversity in science.

Violence Socialization, Approval of Violence, and IPV: Theoretical Framework and Review of Existing Evidence

The relationship between IPV and childhood experiences or exposure to violence was most widely explored through the lenses of intergenerational transmission of violence theory, which used a social learning theory mechanism of imitation and modeling (Akers & Sellers, 2009; Bandura, 1973; Mihalic & Elliott, 1997). According to both theories, witnessing or experiencing violence during childhood increases the likelihood of IPV perpetration or victimization in future life as adults. Research evidence found considerable support for either witnessing of violence in the family or experiencing child abuse as a strong predictor of IPV. A longitudinal study conducted by Ehrensaft et al. (2003), with 543 children followed through 20 years, showed that child abuse tripled the risk for any violence toward one’s partner; Gover et al. (2008) showed that childhood abuse predicts perpetration of physical violence for both males and females, while only victimization for females, among 2,500 college students in South Korea. Wekerle et al. (2009) showed that childhood emotional abuse predicted physical, psychological, and sexual perpetration for males, and only victimization for females. Similarly, findings from other studies suggested a strong effect for those witnessing parental violence as well (Bernard & Bernard, 1983; Carr & VanDeusen, 2002; Jankowski, Leitenberg, Henning, & Coffey, 1999; O’Keeffe, Brockopp, & Chew, 1986). Furthermore, theories of social learning and intergenerational transmission of violence theorized that many behavioral predispositions and psychological developments emerge as a result of the socialization process within family and may be considered as strong predictors of partner violence (Akers & Jennings, 2009; Akers & Sellers, 2009; Bandura, 1973; Mihalic & Elliott, 1997). The specific emphasis is given to the cultural and social norms acquired through socialization, which highly influence an individual’s attitudes and behaviors, including violent ones. In this regard, corporal punishment and witnessing violence in the family, media, or other settings are believed to contribute to social tolerance of violent behaviors, and violence is regarded as the only method of resolving conflicts or rearing children, increasing the risk factor for all types of interpersonal violence (Krug, Mercy, Dahlberg, & Zwi, 2002). In addition, social learning theory suggested that violence is not transmitted directly through witnessing of violence in the family and/or experiences of violence, but rather through the development of attitudes, which defines what are the appropriate behaviors or not (Akers, 1998). Numerous studies have shown that having more tolerant attitudes toward violence and showing higher acceptance of the norms and practices that support violence are related to IPV (Anderson et al., 2011; Bookwala, Frieze, Smith, & Ryan, 1992; Foshee, Linder, MacDougall, & Bangdiwala, 2001; Nabors & Jasinski, 2009; O’Keefe, 1997). Therefore, according to social learning theory, exposure to violence develops and reinforces tolerant attitudes toward violence and as such increases the likelihood of individuals to engage in partner violence. This assumption was supported by many studies. For example, Markowitz (2001) emphasized the role of attitude as a mechanism that supports and mediates violence experience and engagement in violence in the future, as exposure to childhood violence teaches children that violence is a proper manner of conflict resolution and reinforces tolerant attitudes toward violence; therefore, they engage in violent behavior in later life. Moreover, a study conducted by Douglas (2006) using the data from an international dating violence study in 32 nations (N = 7,371) showed that students who had experienced higher levels of violence socialization were more likely to spank a child or slap a teenager, compared with students with lower levels of violence socialization. Similarly, studies conducted by Riggs and O’Leary (1996) and O’Keefe (1998) showed that exposure to interparental aggression contributes to greater acceptability of violence, thus placing such exposed individuals at risk of entering into an IPV partnership. In addition, findings from a recent study conducted by Kim, Kim, Choi, and Emery (2014) added even more interesting results, showing that neutralizing beliefs related to violence also mediate the relationship between the family of origin violence and dating violence. Overall, these studies suggested a link between witnessing and/or experiencing family of origin violence and IPV through tolerant attitudes toward violence in Western countries (Douglas, 2006; Markowitz, 2001; O’Keefe, 1998) and in Korea (Kim et al., 2014). The current research will expand the work of previous researchers by examining the relationship between violence socialization (within family and nonfamily) and IPV perpetration/victimization, through exploration of the mediational mechanism of attitudes with a student sample of Kosovo. This is an important study because the examination of such a mediational mechanism of attitudes in the relationship between violence socialization and IPV perpetration/victimization was limited to Western countries, and there is a research gap for the IPV perpetration/victimization in diverse national, cultural, and ethnic groups. Furthermore, Kosovo as a postconflict country has experienced higher rates of violence socialization, placing individuals at even greater risk for IPV perpetration/victimization.

IPV Within the Kosovo Context

Kosovo as a postwar society is portrayed by poverty, unemployment, impoverished quality of life, and prevalent discrimination (World Bank, 2012). Research evidence shows that all these circumstances increase the risk for IPV (Abramsky et al., 2011). Furthermore, the newly created postconflict conditions in Kosovo contribute to macro-level changes, related to political and economic circumstances, which are also reflected in the micro level of everyday life for women and men in our society. Therefore, in these new and rapidly changing circumstances in postwar Kosovo, it is considered important to examine the impact of childhood experiences of violence and its association with attitudes that approve violence in IPV perpetration and victimization among Kosovar university students. In addition, understanding the mechanism of attitudes mediating the relationship between childhood experiences and IPV perpetration and victimization permits the possibility of applying and assessing social learning theory and intergenerational transmission of violence theory in a cultural context, which is not present in the previous studies, and, as such, contributing to science diversity. Similar to other postconflict societies, the high prevalence of domestic violence has remained a concern in Kosovo since the aftermath of the 1999 war. Findings from a recent cross-sectional study conducted by Kosovo Women’s Network in a representative sample of the general population (N = 1,315), aiming to measure awareness, attitudes, and incidence of domestic violence, show that 31% of Kosovars (41% of woman and 20% of men) experienced some form of domestic violence, including physical, psychological, and economic violence (Farnsworth, Qosaj-Mustafa, Banjska, Berisha, & Morina, 2015). In comparison with findings from a similar study conducted in 2008 (N = 1,256), a decrease can be noticed in incidence of violence, where approximately 43% of all respondents had experienced domestic violence (physical, psychological, sexual, and economic) during their lifetime. More specifically, this number included 46.4% of all women and 39.6% of all men (Farnsworth & Qosaj-Mustafa, 2008). However, despite these improvements, findings from the same study showed that the Kosovo population still has tolerant attitudes toward violence (e.g., 21% believes that “sometimes it is okay for a husband to hit his wife” (Farnsworth et al., 2015). Similarly, studies with younger populations also showed disturbing results in terms of tolerant attitudes toward IPV in their romantic relationships (Kadriu, 2012; United Nations Children’s Fund [UNICEF], 2014). Preliminary findings from the survey on IPV among university students showed that students reported having perpetrated high rates of IPV (physical, psychological, and sexual violence) against their partners, including both minor and severe acts, where the majority of acts were minor, and statistically significant gender differences were noted only for sexual violence perpetration, where males showed higher rates (Kelmendi & Baumgartner, 2014). As previously noted, the Kosovo context is characterized by high rates of domestic violence and tolerant attitudes toward violence; however, no studies have explored this relationship yet. As such, the present study tries to add to the current literature by investigating the relationship among IPV perpetration/victimization, violent experiences, and attitudes that approve violence among university students in Kosovo. These previously studied constructs are regarded as significant in the literature (Markowitz, 2001; O’Keefe, 1998). In particular, this work addresses the following research hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: Students who reported higher rates of violence socialization will show high rates of IPV perpetration/victimization.

Hypothesis 1a: Males will report higher rates of violence socialization in comparison with females.

Hypothesis 2: Students who reported more tolerant attitudes toward violence will also show higher rates of IPV perpetration/victimization.

Hypothesis 2a: Males will report higher rates of tolerant attitudes toward violence in comparison with females.

Hypothesis 3: Violence approval acts as a mediator between violence socialization experiences and IPV (physical, psychological, and sexual) perpetration and/or victimization.

Method

Sample and Procedure

The target population of the study was active students of the University of Prishtina enrolled for the academic year 2012-2013. The University of Prishtina is the largest public university in Kosovo and has 17 faculties, mainly located in Prishtina, with some branches in Peja, Mitrovica, Prizren, and Ferizaj. According to the latest report from the Statistical Agency of Kosovo, conducted for the academic year 2012-2013, the University of Prishtina has approximately 47,000 students with 54% females, whereas the number of active students is 34,930 with 55% females. In total, 832 students completed the questionnaire that yielded a response rate of 88% (a total of 950 questionnaires were distributed). One hundred thirty-two cases were removed before the analysis was conducted due to disputable responses, including (a) did not completely respond in more than 50% of responses, (b) stopped after completion of the demographic part of the questionnaire, (c) had more than 5% of responses missing in the variables, and (d) one of the respondents was removed, being the only one with a PhD title. In cases with less than 5% of missing values, the author replaced the missing values with the mean of the response on the specific question. The final sample consisted of 700 respondents, of which 50.70% were males (n = 355) and 49.30% were females (n = 345). The average age of students was 21 years (M = 22.77;SD = 3.05), and most of the students were in the second year of studies (see Table 1 for respondents’ characteristics).

Table 1.

Respondents’ Characteristics.

	M/%	SD	Minimum	Maximum
Gender (1 = female)	49.30%	—	0	1
Mean age (in years)	21.66	3.05	18	44
Years of studies	2.26	−0.99	1	5
Parental education
Mother education	11.22	3.44	0	16
Father education	13.51	2.78	0	0-16
Physical violence perpetration	9.39	22.91	0	197
Physical violence victimization	8.79	21.75	0	154
Psychological violence perpetration	10.28	17.26	0	125
Psychological violence victimization	9.90	18.49	0	143
Sexual violence perpetration	6.46	14.59	0	150
Sexual violence victimization	6.90	15.98	0	150
Violence socialization	1.88	0.43	1	4
Approval of violence	2.07	0.4	1	4

Procedure

After permission for using the measures was granted, translation (to Albanian) and back-translation (Albanian–English) by three different professionals, including the author, a psychologist, and professional translator, were conducted to receive an adequate version in the Albanian language, without changing the items’ meaning. After completing the final version of the questionnaires, they were administered to a convenient sample of students in the Faculties of Philosophy, Economics, Education, Medicine, and Law, which had the highest numbers of students. The eligibility criteria were (a) being active full-time students at the University of Prishtina, (b) being at least 18 years old, and (c) having been in a romantic or dating relationship for at least 1 month in the past 12 months. Participation was confidential, voluntary, and without compensation, and they could stop participating at any time. Students were recruited in settings such as libraries, faculties’ halls, and faculty surroundings. The assessment was conducted by three graduate students of psychology who had been trained beforehand by the researcher on the questionnaire’s content. In addition, interviewers were provided with guidelines on how to approach the participants when administering the questionnaire. Taking into account that the research may provoke intense and negative feelings, the respondents were provided with an information sheet on psychosocial and other services (health, social, and legal) in case they needed to consult them.

Measures

Dependent variables

This study investigated the perpetration of three types of dating violence: physical, psychological, and sexual, as measured by the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS-2; Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996). Six dependent variables were examined: (a) physical violence perpetration and victimization, (b) psychological violence perpetration and victimization, and (c) sexual violence perpetration and victimization. Physical violence was measured by items such as threw something that could hurt, grabbed, slapped, punched, choked, and slammed. Psychological violence was measured with items such as insulted or swore, shouted or yelled, called my partner fat or ugly, destroyed something, and threatened to hit or throw. Sexual violence was measured with items such as made my partner have sex without a condom, insisted on sex when my partner did not want to, used force (e.g., hitting, holding down, or using a weapon) to make my partner have oral or anal sex, used threats to make my partner have oral or anal sex, and used threats to make my partner have sex. The reliability coefficients for the perpetration scale were .86 for physical violence, .798 for psychological violence, and .785 for sexual violence; for the victimization scale, they were .88 for physical violence, .69 for psychological violence, and .76 for sexual violence. The CTS-2 scale also measured how often the respondents committed the acts against their partner and how often their partners committed the acts against them in the past year. The responses included 1 (once in the past year), 2 (twice in the past year), 3 (3-5 times in the past year), 4 (6-10 times in the past year), 5 (11-20 times in the past year), 6 (more than 20 times in the past year), 7 (not in the past year, but it did happen before), and 0 (this has never happened). The frequencies of physical violence were calculated by the number of acts perpetrated and received in the previous year, on each of the subscales. According to Straus et al. (1996), to obtain an approximate count of the number of times each act was committed in the previous year, midpoint values were imposed on the raw scores with the following scale: 0 = 0 acts in the previous year, 1 = 1 act in the previous year, 2 = 2 acts in the previous year, 3 = 4 acts in the previous year, 4 = 8 acts in the previous year, 5 = 16 acts in the previous year, and 6 = 25 acts in the previous year. However, it is important to note that, despite its wide usage, the scale has been criticized for not taking into account context, meaning, and motive for the violent acts (DeKeseredy & Schwartz, 1998).

Independent variables

Scales from the Personal and Relationships Profile (PRP) were used to measure violence socialization and violence approval (Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1999). Violence socialization was measured by the extent of experiencing and witnessing violence and of receiving proviolence advice during childhood from family and nonfamily individuals (α = .702). Violence approval was measured by the extent to which the use of physical force was acceptable in a variety of situations (α = .689). The respondents of the PRP scales were asked to indicate whether they agreed or disagreed that the statement described themselves, by using the following response categories: 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). The data from the PRP scales were analyzed through mean scores, as suggested by Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, and Sugarman (1999). The highest agreement on the violence socialization scale was noticed for the following items: “When I was a kid, I often saw kids who were not in my family get into fights and hit each other” (72% agreed or strongly agreed) and “When I was a kid, people (adults or kids) who were not part of my family told me to hit back if someone hit me or insulted me” (31% agreed and strongly agreed). Similarly, the highest agreement for the violence approval scale was noticed for the following items: “Once sex gets past a certain point, a man can’t stop himself until he is satisfied” (43% agreed and strongly agreed) and “It is sometimes necessary for parents to slap a teen who talks back or is getting into . . .” (46% agreed and strongly agreed).

Control variables

The control variable are age at the time of the interview (measured in years), year of studies (measured in years that students were studying), and parents’ educational level (measured in years of educational attainment; see Table 1).

Data Analysis

In the first part, the Mann–Whitney U test was used to analyze differences in perpetration and victimization of IPV (physical, psychological, and sexual violence), based on violence socialization experiences and approval of violence due to the nonlinear distribution of data, separately for males and females. The Mann–Whitney U test is used as an alternative to the t test when data are not normally distributed (Hart, 2001). Then, approval of violence as a mediator of the relationship between violence socialization and IPV perpetration was examined. For the purpose of this analysis, the new variable of IPV (physical, psychological, and sexual violence) was created, because research evidence shows that IPV does not happen in isolation but rather coexists with other forms of violence (World Health Organization [WHO], 2012). However, separate models for each type of violence (physical, psychological, and sexual violence) and severity types (minor and severe for each type of violence) were examined as well. To test this assumption, the SPSS macros for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models, as proposed by Preacher and Hayes (2004), were used.

Results

Gender Differences in IPV (Physical, Psychological, and Sexual Violence) Perpetration and Victimization

Males consistently reported higher rates of perpetration for each type of IPV (physical violence: males [43.40%] vs. females [40.60%], psychological violence: males [68.50%] vs. females [64.30%], and sexual violence: males [46.50%] vs. females [22.30%]). The majority of acts were minor, and a statistically significant difference was noticed only for sexual violence perpetration, where males reported higher rates. If we analyze specific acts that were perpetrated the most, physical violence perpetration involved the following: Males reported higher rates of throwing something at the partner, twisting the partner’s arms, and pushing or shoving her; females showed higher rates of slapping the partner, pushing, and twisting his arms. With reference to psychological perpetration for both males and females, the most common acts were shouting or yelling at the partner, insulting or swearing at the partner, and stomping out of the room during a fight with the partner. Regarding sexual violence, males reported higher rates regarding both scales (perpetration and victimization) for insisting to have sex without a condom, insisting to have sex, and insisting to have oral/anal sex with the partner. The most prevalent acts for females concerning both scales were insisting on having sex without a condom and insisting on having sex with the partner. Regarding the victimization scale, the following findings were obtained for male students: physical violence (36.30%), psychological violence (63.40%), and sexual violence (43.90%). Concerning specific acts, males reported higher rates of “partner threw something at me,” “partner twisted my arm,” and “partner pushed and shoved me” (physical violence); and “partner shouted or yelled at me,” “partner did something spiteful to me,” “partner insulted or swore at me,” and “stomped out of the room during a fight” (psychological violence). For female victimization, as shown in Kelmendi and Baumgartner (2016), the following findings were obtained: physical violence rates (34.32%), psychological violence (56.80%), and sexual violence (30.40%); in terms of specific acts, females showed higher rates of “twisting my arm,” “being pushed by the partner,” and “partner threw something at me” (physical violence); and “shouted and yelled at me,” “did something spiteful to me,” and “insulted or swore at me” (psychological violence).

Gender Differences in Violence Socialization and Approval of Violence

As expected, the findings of this study show that, compared with females, males experience and witness more violence during childhood and have significantly more tolerant attitudes toward the use of violence in intimate relationships. A higher average rank for violence socialization was found in males compared with females (370.37 and 330.05, respectively); the difference was significant according to the Mann–Whitney U test (z = −2.65; p < .001). Similarly, male students showed higher average ranks for approval of violence (373.52) compared with females (326.32), and the difference was significant (z = −3.06; p < .002).

Differences in Perpetration and Victimization of IPV (Physical, Psychological, and Sexual Violence) Based on Violence Socialization Experiences

The findings indicate that students who had perpetrated or had been victims of physical, psychological, or sexual violence also experienced higher levels of violence socialization in comparison with those who did not perpetrate or experience any IPV (see Table 2). Besides, males who had been either perpetrators or victims of IPV (physical, psychological, and sexual violence) showed higher rates of violence socialization in comparison with females (see Table 3).

Table 2.

Violence Socialization and Violence Approval Scores for IPV Perpetration and Victimization.

Perpetration Scale	Violence Socialization	Violence Approval	Victimization Scale	Violence Socialization	Violence Approval
Physical violence			Physical violence
Yes	382.80	382. 23	Yes	398.28	395.41
No	326.81	327.39	No	324.28	326.01
Mann–Whitney U test	z = −3.62, p < .01	z = −3.55, p < .01	Mann–Whitney U test	z = −4.66, p < .01	z = −4.35, p < .01
Psychological violence			Psychological violence
Yes	365.31	372.31	Yes	371.72	373.2
No	321.20	307.35	No	318.72	316.25
Mann–Whitney U test	z = −2.73, p < .01	z = −4.02, p < .01	Mann–Whitney U test	z = −3.39, p < .01	z = −3.65, p < .01
Sexual violence			Sexual violence
Yes	382.39	403.90	Yes	375.42	395.19
No	333.65	322.28	No	335.69	323.93
Mann–Whitney U test	z = −3.04, p < .01	z = −5.09, p < .01	Mann–Whitney U test	z = −2.52, p < .01	z = −4.52, p < .01

Note. IPV = intimate partner violence.

Table 3.

Differences Between Males and Females on Violence Socialization and Violence Approval for IPV Perpetration/Victimization.

Perpetration Scale	Violence Socialization	Violence Approval	Victimization Scale	Violence Socialization	Violence Approval
Physical violence			Physical violence
Males	251.63	253.87	Males	224.14	225.3
Females	212.61	210.15	Females	195.92	194.6
Mann–Whitney U test	z = −3.12, p < .01	z = −3.51, p < .01	Mann–Whitney U test	z = −2.38, p < .05	z = −2.58, p < .01
Psychological violence			Psychological violence
Yes	251.63	253.87	Yes	224.14	225.27
No	212.61	210.15	No	195.92	194.621
Mann–Whitney U test	z = −3.13, p < .01	z = −3.51, p < .01	Mann–Whitney U test	z = −2.38, p < .05	z = −2.58, p < .01
Sexual violence			Sexual violence
Yes	127.83	128.29	Yes	138.53	139.93
No	107.94	106.94	No	119.82	117.73
Mann–Whitney U test	z = −2.06, p < .05	z = −2.21, p < .01	Mann–Whitney U test	z = −1.97, p < .05	z = −2.33, p < .05

Note. IPV = intimate partner violence.

Differences in Perpetration and Victimization of IPV (Physical, Psychological, and Sexual Violence) Based on Violence Approval Attitudes

Similarly, there were statistically significant differences in the average rank for violence approval between those students who had perpetrated or experienced physical, psychological, and sexual violence and those who had not perpetrated or experienced any IPV (see Table 2), indicating that those who had perpetrated or experienced any IPV had more tolerant attitudes toward violence. Males who had been either perpetrators or victims of any IPV showed higher rates of violence approval in comparison with females (see Table 3).

Mediation Models

The study also examined whether violence approval mediates the relationship between IPV perpetration (physical, psychological, and sexual) and violence socialization experiences, separately for gender. For this analysis, a new total IPV variable combining physical, psychological, and sexual violence was computed for the perpetration/victimization scale. The model tested the hypothesis that violence approval acts as a mediator between violence socialization and IPV perpetration (see Table 4), while controlling for age, year of studies, and parents’ educational level. Results found partial mediation for both males (z = 1.63; p < .05) and females (z = 2.01; p < .05). The indirect effect (IE) was significantly different from zero, meaning that mediation among the three variables was likely to have occurred. The bootstrapped IE for males was 2.21, with an estimated standard error (SE) of 1.35 (p < .05; 95% confidence interval [CI] = [0.49, 5.33]), and for females, it was 1.62 (SE = 0.79; p < .05; 95% CI = [0.22, 3.37]). The model explained 8% of the variance (R²) of the Dependent variable (DV) (IPV perpetration), F(1, 345) = 5.046; p < .001, for males and 4% of the variance (R²) of the DV (IPV perpetration), F(1, 399) = 1.76; p < .05, for females. When the same analysis was conducted separately for each type of violence on the perpetration scale (physical, psychological, and sexual violence) for males and females (see Table 4), it was noted that tolerant attitudes toward violence mediated only the relationship between violence socialization and sexual violence perpetration for males, while none of the models was significant for females. Specifically, full mediation was found in the model for sexual violence perpetrated by males (z = 2.64; p < .001). The bootstrapped IE was 2.16 (SD = 0.81; p < .001; 95% CI = [0.55, 4.20]), explaining 5% of the variance (R²) of the DV (sexual violence perpetration) for male students. Furthermore, the same analysis was conducted for severity types (minor and severe) of IPV (physical, psychological, and sexual violence) separately for male and female students, and it could be noticed that tolerant attitudes toward violence mediated only relationship between violence socialization and minor sexual violence perpetration for both male and female students (see Table 6). Specifically, full mediation was found for minor sexual violence perpetration (males: z = 1.75; p < .08 and females: z = 2.15 p < .05). For males, the bootstrapped IE was 1.31 (SE = 0.74; p < .08; 95% CI = [−0.11, 3.36]), explaining 6.70% of the variance (R²) for minor sexual violence perpetration for male students, whereas for females, the bootstrapped IE was 1.77 (SE = 0.59; p < .05; 95% CI = [0.04, 3.01]), explaining 4.20% of the variance for minor physical violence perpetration.

Table 4.

Regression Coeffcients: Male and Female Models for Mediation Analysis for Physical, Psychological, Sexual, and Total IPV Perpetration.

	Perpetration
	Physical Violence		Psychological Violence		Sexual Violence		Total IPV
	DE	IE	DE	IE	DE	IE	DE	IE
Male models
Predictors
Socialization of violence	9.05** [3.64, 14.46]	8.64* [2.59, 14.70]	5.69** [1.87, 9.52]	4.67** [0.40, 8.94]	5.14** [2.03, 8.24]	2.98^† [−0.47, 6.43]	11.06** [5.85, 16.28]	8.85** [3.02, 14.67]
Approval of violence		1.13 [−6.45, 8.72]		2.88 [−2.46, 8.22]		6.09** [1.78, 10.33]		6.20^† [1.22, 13.31]
Controls
Age	−0.45 [−1.55, 0.64]	−0.44 [−1.55, 0.65]	−0.73 [−1.51, 0.43]	−0.71 [−1.49, 0.06]	−0.39 [−1.02, 0.24]	−0.35 [−0.98, 0.22]	−0.71 [−1.77, 0.34]	−0.67 [−1.73, 0.38]
Year of studies	−3.33 [−13.78, 7.10]	−3.27 [−13.73, 7.19]	−2.09 [−9.46, 5.27]	−1.92 [−9.30, 5.45]	−3.09 [−9.08, 2.80]	−2.74 [−8.67, 3.11]	−6.21 [−16.27, 3.85]	−5.86 [−15.90, 4.81]
Mother’s education	0.25 [−0.33, 1.98]	0.24 [−0.67, 1.16]	−0.14 [−0.79, 0.49]	−0.16 [−0.81, 0.48]	−0.03 [−0.55, 0.46]	−0.06 [−0.58, 0.42]	−0.39 [−1.28, 0.48]	−0.42 [−1.30, 0.45]
Father’s education	0.82 [−0.66, 1.66]	0.82 [−0.67, 1.99]	0.55 [−0.26, 1.37]	0.54 [−0.27, 1.37]	0.53 [−0.55, 0.42]	0.53 [−0.12, 1.12]	1.02^† [0.09, 2.14]	1.01 [−0.00, 2.13]
Female models
Predictors
Socialization of violence	4.16^† [0.01, 8.13]	3.64^† [−0.87, 8.16]	2.56 [−0.99, 6.11]	1.83 [−1.06, 0.39]	0.71 [−3.73, 2.19]	1.81 [−5.03, 1.40]	3.43^† [0.10, 7.04]	1.83 [−2.01, 5.67]
Approval of violence		1.53 [−3.80, 6.88]		1.86 [−2.71, 6.44]		3.13 [−0.67, 6.94]		4.84^† [0.29, 9.39]
Controls
Age	−0.43 [−1.07, 0.21]	−0.42 [−1.06, 0.22]	−0.52 [−1.07, 0.02]	−0.52 [−1.06, 0.03]	0.41 [−0.04, 0.87]	0.43 [−0.01, 0.89]	−0.04 [−0.59, 0.50]	−0.01 [−0.55, 0.53]
Year of studies	1.54 [−5.09, 8.10]	1.69 [−4.97, 8.53]	1.62 [−4.06, 7.32]	1.80 [−3.91, 7.54]	−1.54 [−6.29, 3.19]	−1.25 [−5.99, 3.49]	−0.54 [−6.23, 5.13]	−0.92 [−5.76, 5.57]
Mother’s education	0.10 [−0.53, 0.74]	0.11 [−0.52, 0.76]	0.09 [−0.45, 0.64]	0.11 [−0.43, 0.66]	0.41 [−0.04, 0.87]	0.44 [−0.01, 0.89]	0.41 [−0.59, 0.50]	0.46 [−0.08, 1.08]
Father’s education	0.62 [−0.32, 1.57]	0.62 [−0.32, 1.57]	0.27 [−0.53, 1.09]	0.27 [−0.54, 1.09]	−0.36 [−1.04, 0.31]	−0.36 [−1.04, 0.30]	−0.02 [−1.01, 0.60]	−0.20 [−1.01, 0.60]

Note. IPV = intimate partner violence; DE = direct effect; IE = indirect effect.

†

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

Furthermore, the indirect mediation effect of violence approval in the relationship between violence socialization and IPV victimization was assessed (see Table 5), given that perpetration and victimization are considered as separate experiences, and the impact of these factors should be tested independently. Results show partial mediation in the model for males (z = 1.87; p < .05) and females (z = 2.27, p < .05). The IE was significantly different from zero, meaning that mediation among the three variables was likely to have occurred. The bootstrapped IE for males was 2.59 (SE = 1.33; p < .05; 95% CI = [0.09, 5.79]), and for females, it was 1.93 (SE = 0.84; p < .05; 95% CI = [0.62, 3.72]). The model explained 6% of the variance (R²) of the DV (IPV victimization) for males and 3% of variance for females. When the same analysis was conducted separately for each type of victimization scale (physical, psychological, and sexual violence) for males and females (see Table 5), it could be noticed that tolerant attitudes toward violence mediated only the relationship between violence socialization and psychological violence victimization for females, while none of the other models was found for males. Specifically, full mediation was found in the female model (z = 2.26; p < .05). The bootstrapped IE was 1.18 (SE = 0.83; p < .001; 95% CI = [0.31, 3.87]), explaining 3% of the variance (R²) of the DV (psychological violence victimization) for female students. The same analysis was conducted for severity types (minor and severe) of IPV victimization (physical, psychological, and sexual violence), separately for male and female students (see Table 6), and it could be seen that tolerant attitudes toward violence mediated only the relationship between violence socialization and minor psychological and sexual victimization for females. Specifically, full mediation was found for female minor psychological victimization (z = 1.97; p < .05) and sexual violence victimization (z = 1.82; p < .06). The bootstrapped IE was 1.73 (SE = 0.77; p < .05; 95% CI = [0.21, 4.57]) and minor sexual violence victimization IE was 1.04 (SE = 0.57; p < .05; 95% CI = [0.21, 2.33]), explaining 3.5% of the variance for minor physical violence perpetration and 6.33% of the variance (R²) for minor psychological violence victimization and 4.59% of minor sexual violence victimization for female students.

Table 5.

Regression Coeffcients: Male and Female Models for Mediation Analysis for Physical, Psychological, Sexual, and Total IPV Victimization.

	Victimization
	Physical Violence		Psychological Violence		Sexual Violence		Total IPV
	DE	IE	DE	IE	DE	IE	DE	IE
Male models
Predictors
Socialization of violence	8.91** [3.79, 14.02]	7.83^† [2.11, 13.55]	7.02** [2.82, 11.22]	5.80** [1.10, 10.49]	5.04** [1.72, 8.38]	3.57^† [−0.12, 7.24]	9.78** [4.42, 15.14]	7.18** [1.22, 13.17]
Approval of violence		3.02 [−4.135, 10.18]		3.44 [−2.43, 9.32]		4.14 [−0.49, 8.72]		7.30^† [1.22, 13.31]
Controls
Age	−0.12 [−1.16, 0.91]	−0.10 [−1.14, 0.93]	−0.72 [−1.57, 0.13]	−0.70 [−1.55, 0.15]	0.12 [−0.55, 0.80]	0.14 [−0.52, 0.85]	−0.54 [−1.63, 0.54]	−0.50 [−1.59, 0.58]
Year of studies	−6.57 [−16.44, 3.28]	−6.39 [−16.29, 3.47]	−2.21 [−10.32, 5.89]	−2.01 [−10.12, 6.09]	−1.30 [−7.72, 5.10]	−1.05 [−7.46, 5.31]	−5.48 [−15.78, 4.82]	−5.86 [−15.90, 4.81]
Mother’s education	0.31 [−0.54, 1.18]	0.30 [−0.56, 1.16]	0.04 [−0.66, 0.75]	0.02 [−0.68, 0.73]	0.14 [−0.42, 0.73]	0.11 [−0.44, 0.62]	−0.11 [−1.02, 0.74]	−0.45 [−1.05, 0.75]
Father’s education	0.66 [−0.43, 1.76]	0.66 [−0.43, 1.76]	0.61 [−0.28, 1.51]	0.61 [−0.28, 1.51]	0.71^† [0.03, 1.42]	0.71^† [0.03, 1.43]	1.0^† [−0.14, 2.14]	1.01 [−0.14, 2.14]
Female models
Predictors
Socialization of violence	5.19** [1.25, 9.13]	4.34^† [0.08, 8.66]	1.17^† [0.46, 4.80]	−0.71 [−4.64, 3.22]	2.11 [−1.72, 7.36]	3.43 [−1.21, 8.08]	3.50^† [0.20, 7.12]	1.57 [−2.43, 5.58]
Approval of violence		2.45 [−2.61, 7.52]		5.62** [0.97, 10.27]		0.96 [−2.96, 4.90]		5.77** [1.03, 10.51]
Controls
Age	−0.56 [−1.17, 0.04]	−0.55 [−1.16, 0.06]	−0.42 [−0.98, 0.13]	−0.38 [−0.98, 0.17]	0.21 [−0.35, 0.77]	0.23 [−0.32, 0.79]	−0.15 [−0.72, 0.42]	−0.11 [−0.68, 0.45]
Year of studies	2.55 [−3.74, 8.86]	2.78 [−3.53, 9.11]	−0.09 [−5.91, 5.72]	0.43 [−5.36, 6.23]	−1.20 [−4.58, 6.90]	1.52 [−4.72, 7.32]	1.00 [−4.93, 6.94]	1.54 [−4.36, 7.45]
Mother’s education	0.07 [−0.53, 0.67]	0.90 [−0.51, 0.70]	−0.25 [−0.81, 0.31]	−0.19 [−0.75, 0.36]	0.02 [−0.53, 0.58]	0.05 [−0.50, 0.61]	0.11 [−0.46, 0.68]	0.17 [−0.40, 0.74]
Father’s education	0.64 [−0.25, 1.54]	0.64 [−0.25, 1.54]	0.34 [−0.49, 1.17]	0.33 [−0.49, 1.16]	0.17 [−0.65, 1.00]	0.17^† [−0.65, 1.00]	0.13 [−0.71, 0.98]	0.12 [−0.71, 0.97]

Note. IPV = intimate partner violence; DE = direct effect; IE = indirect effect.

†

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

Table 6.

Regression Coeffcients: Male and Female Models for Mediation Analysis for Severity Types of IPV (Only Statistically Significant Models Presented).

Perpetration Scale	Males		Females
	Minor Sexual Violence		Minor Sexual Violence
	DE	IE	DE	IE
Predictors
Socialization of violence	4.60** [0.81, 3.71]	3.29 [−0.01, 6.60]	−0.83 [−3.38, 1.73]	−2.10 [−4.82, 0.62]
Approval of violence		3.75* [−0.27, 7.78]		3.88** [0.69, 6.26]
Controls
Age	0.40 [−1.12, 0.31]	−0.39 [−1.12, 0.33]	0.12 [−0.43, 0.68]	0.14 [−0.40, 0.69]
Year of studies	−0.49 [−2.48, 1.49]	−0.45 [−2.43, 1.52]	−0.38 [−2.02, 1.27]	−0.24 [−1.82, 1.37]
Mother’s education	0.51 [−0.64, 1.67]	0.46 [−0.68, 1.62]	0.30 [−0.59, 1.18]	0.38 [−0.49, 1.26]
Father’s education	0.21 [−1.22, 1.65]	0.28 [−1.14, 1.71]	−0.33 [−1.63, 0 98]	−0.30 [−1.60, 0.97]
Victimization Scale	Females
	Minor Psychological Violence		Minor Sexual Violence
	DE	IE	DE	IE
Predictors
Socialization of violence	1.24 [−2.90, 5.40]	−0.63 [−5.08, 3.81]	−0.85 [−3.37, 1.65]	−1.90 [−4.60, 0.80]
Approval of violence		5.70^† [0.51, 10.93]		3.17^† [0.00, 6.32]
Controls
Age	−0.05 [−0.97, 0.85]	−0.02 [−0.92, 0.87]	−0.10 [−0.64, 0.45]	−0.08 [−0.62, 0.46]
Year of studies	−0.83 [−3.50, 1.85]	−0.61 [−3.26, 2.02]	0.73 [−0.89, 2.43]	0.84 [−0.62, 0.46]
Mother’s education	−0.70 [−2.14, 0.70]	−0.56 [−1.99, 0.88]	−0.98 [−1.86, −0.10]	−0.90 [−1.77, −0.03]
Father’s education	0.07 [−2.04, 2.19]	0.10 [−1.99, 2.20]	0.46 [−0.81, 1.75]	0.48 [−0.78, 1.75]

Note. IPV = intimate partner violence; DE = direct effect; IE = indirect effect.

†

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

Discussion

This study provides further evidence that male and female students reported high prevalence rates of physical IPV perpetration and victimization, in accordance with previous research evidence, where perpetration of physical violence ranged from 20% to 50% (Allen, Swan, & Raghavan, 2009; Bryant & Spencer, 2003; Straus, 2004; Straus & Ramirez, 2007). Males reported slightly higher rates of perpetration and victimization compared with females for any type of IPV, although statistically significant differences were found only for sexual violence perpetration/victimization. Findings concerning perpetration are not consistent with findings of a large international study on dating violence (Straus, 2004, 2008) where women reported higher rates of physical IPV. However, these findings reflect the cultural context from which they were obtained, indicating that patriarchal structure, rigid gender roles, gender inequality, and tolerant attitudes toward violence against women (Kelmendi, 2015) might influence still higher rates of perpetration by males. Besides, these findings provided new and not previously obtained evidence, showing that female students are perpetrators of IPV as well, in contrast to many other studies that have been conducted in Kosovo (Farnsworth & Qosaj-Mustafa, 2008; UNICEF, 2014). However, when reviewing the data from previous studies conducted in Kosovo, it is interesting to observe that in all of the studies, women were considered as victims of IPV and/or domestic violence and were not asked about the perpetration of IPV. Aside from this, this is the first study in Kosovo that collected data on male and female rates of both IPV perpetration and victimization. Apparently, findings regarding perpetration of physical, psychological, and sexual violence by female students happened in self-defense, taking into account the high rates of male perpetration of any IPV by males. On the contrary, societal change that occurred in Kosovo after the war specifically correlates with the educational level of this study sample and women’s educational, economic, and legal empowerment after the war in Kosovo. As emphasized by Archer (2006), this could have affected women’s awareness of their rights and the right to self-defense, increasing the rates of female violence perpetration. Conversely, an unexpected finding related to higher rates of male physical and sexual victimization, when considering the context as mentioned above. Hines and Saudino (2003) arrived at similar findings; one of their explanations was that males might have biasedly reported more severe physical victimization, just as they reported more severe types of violence perpetration, which seems to be the case in this study as well. In addition, according to Archer (1999), in a sample where couples are unmatched, there is a tendency that males report higher rates of victimization and females report higher rates of perpetration, which could be the case for this study as well, taking into account that these were mismatched couples.

The current study examined the mediating role of violence approval in the relationship between violence socialization experiences and IPV perpetration/victimization as a total scale, and also separately for each type of violence (physical, psychological, and sexual), including severity analysis. Given the propositions of social learning theory and intergenerational transmission of violence theory, it was hypothesized that experiencing or witnessing violence in the family of origin would be associated with IPV perpetration/victimization. Besides, according to previous studies conducted by O’Keefe (1998) and Markowitz (2001), it was also hypothesized that witnessing and/or experiencing violence during childhood would influence the development of a more tolerant attitude, which would serve as a mediator in the relationship between violence socialization and IPV perpetration/victimization. Using the sample of Kosovo students, the results of this study provide support for the aforementioned hypothesis. Consistent with intergenerational and social learning theory (Akers & Sellers, 2009; Bandura, 1973) and earlier research studies (Coffey, Leitenberg, Henning, Bennett, & Jankowski, 1996; Gover et al., 2008; Gover, Park, Tomsich, & Jennings, 2010; Laner & Thompson, 1982; Marshall & Rose, 1988; O’Keefe, 1997), this study found that individuals who had experienced/witnessed high rates of violence socialization and expressed more tolerant attitudes toward violence also showed high rates of IPV perpetration and victimization. These findings are consistent with other studies conducted in various populations in Kosovo (e.g., general population, high school students, and sheltered women), which showed that tolerant attitudes toward violence were significantly related to IPV perpetration (Kadriu, 2012; Kelmendi, 2015; UNICEF, 2014). Males were also expected to show higher rates of violence socialization and tolerant attitudes toward violence compared with females. These findings were consistent with previous studies done in Western countries (e.g., Foshee et al., 2001; Mattingly & Straus, 2007; Ryle, 2012) and several studies that were conducted in Kosovo (Farnsworth & Qosaj-Mustafa, 2008; Kadriu, 2012; UNICEF, 2014).

Furthermore, the findings of the present study show that attitudes approving of violence mediate the relationship between violence socialization and IPV perpetration/victimization for both males and females, when IPV was measured as a total scale including physical, psychological, and sexual violence. These results are similar to those of previous studies (Ali, Swahn, & Hamburger, 2011; Clarey, Hokoda, & Ulloa, 2010; Gover et al., 2008; O’Keefe, 1997; Riggs & O’Leary, 1996). These findings also indicate an overlap of risk factors related to IPV perpetration/victimization and dating violence, consistent with the findings of previous meta-analytic reviews (Gover et al., 2010; Jennings, Higgins, Tewksbury, Gover, & Piquero, 2010; Jennings, Piquero, & Reingle, 2012; Stith, Smith, Penn, Ward, & Tritt, 2004). Overall, findings from this study show that there are more similarities than differences concerning IPV experiences and the mediating mechanism of violence socialization and attitudes that approve violence among Kosovar students and non-Kosovar students. However, although the experiences of IPV and mediation mechanisms may be similar to those in other countries, it is important to investigate the IPV and dynamics in context of a group’s situation in our society. As shown, variations in the mediation mechanism were found when any IPV was further examined separately, based on type and severity. Findings from this study indicate that the approval of violence mediates the relationship between violence socialization and sexual violence perpetration for males (when measured as a total scale), and between minor sexual violence perpetration and violence socialization for both males and females. Apparently, tolerant attitudes play a mediating role in the perpetration of sexual violence by both males and females, as sexual violence is rarely visible in our culture and sex-related issues are very rarely discussed and highly stigmatized. It seems that there is a need for a supplementary strategy to help individuals justify the perpetration of sexual violence in their intimate relationships. Nevertheless, evidence from previous research shows that gender-specific norms and expectations about gender roles ascribed through the socialization process are highly influential in the intimate relationship through beliefs, attitudes, and values (Flood & Pease, 2009). As such, males in our society are raised to believe that males have uncontrolled sexual urges, and marriage or intimate relationship is their guarantee for sexual consent. Therefore, any refusal of intimate sexual relations is interpreted as an offense or threat to their masculinity, and tolerant attitudes toward violence increase the risk for perpetration of minor sexual violence. Interestingly, the tolerant attitudes toward violence were also mediators between the socialization of violence and minor sexual violence perpetration for females. Although these findings are similar to those obtained from the study conducted by Gover et al. (2010), it is important to mention that violence perpetrated by females in Kosovo happened in a distinctive context and supposedly in self-defense. This assumption is based on previous evidence of domestic violence, which showed that the majority of cases of domestic violence in Kosovo are perpetrated by males (Farnsworth et al., 2015). Therefore, it could be anticipated that females through witnessing violence perpetrated by their male parent developed tolerant attitudes concerning the use of violence but only in the context of self-defense, and later on, these beliefs increased the likelihood for perpetration of any type of IPV. In some way, younger females created the self-defense mechanism, which allowed them to use violence when they sensed being victimized. Moreover, this finding contradicts findings from the study conducted by Jankowski et al. (1999), which documents that children tended more to imitate the violent behaviors of same-sex relationships. In the Kosovo context, while witnessing violence perpetrated by male figures and its consequences, females were less likely to identify with female victimization and developed tolerant attitudes toward the usage of violence to protect themselves and other female figures in their family context. However, these findings could also be influenced by societal changes after the war in Kosovo, with the specific focus on empowering the female position in society and increasing awareness about their rights. Correspondingly, the mediating effect between violence socialization and approval of violence for the victimization scale was noticed as well. Specifically for the female student, attitudes that approve violence mediate minor psychological and minor sexual victimization. Psychological violence is less visible or not visible at all, and is rather treated as a normal condition in a traditional and conservative society; as such, people do not react to it, and these conditions increase the likelihood of victimization for females. Instead, due to cultural and patriarchal practices in Kosovo about intimate sexual relations, females are at greater risk for experiencing minor sexual victimization due to the feeling that they are obliged to fulfill their partner’s sexual needs. Instead, a direct effect was noticed for physical and psychological violence perpetration/victimization in males and physical violence perpetration for females, which shows that attitude does not always predict behavior, and suggests another risk factor for IPV perpetration/victimization, although modeling or limitations happen directly.

The current study contributes to existing literature on IPV in several ways. For one, the investigation was carried out among non-U.S. students, thus providing data for cross-cultural comparisons. This research is the first that examines IPV among Kosovar university students and as such provides important findings for this age group, which represents approximately half of the country’s population, specifically when considering that dating violence is a strong predictor of marital violence. Moreover, this study examines the relationship between violence socialization and approval of violence for three types of violence: physical, psychological, and sexual, including severity types. Most previous studies have focused mainly on physical violence. As such, results of the current study provide vital data for psychological and sexual types of violence that were not explored previously for this age group in Kosovo. Another contribution is related to examining these concepts of victimization and perpetration, while taking into account that not all types of violent relationships are mutual, and independent effects of factors related to both perpetration and victimization are important to examine. Finally, findings from this study provide the foundation for prevention and intervention programs that address experiences of violence socialization within the family and nonfamily context, specifically toward changing and modifying attitudes that tolerate violence. The identification of a mediation mechanism in this study is ultimate, because intervening with the mediator will help to diminish the negative results of IPV. This is very important when considering that Kosovo society is mainly described as patriarchal and having tolerant attitudes toward IPV. Despite these contributions, the findings of this study should be considered with caution in view of the following limitations: First, the measures used in the present study were self-reported and thus influenced by recall bias; second, approval of violence as a mediator between violence socialization and IPV perpetration and victimization was only examined, controlling for only a few variables; moreover, the model explained a small percentage of variance, similar to findings from other studies (Ehrensaft et al., 2003; Stith et al., 2000). In addition, findings from this study show that the attitude-mediation mechanism is only applicable to the relationship between violence socialization and minor types of IPV (physical and sexual violence). Supposedly, many other mediators of this relationship related to either individual-level correlates (e.g., posttraumatic stress, low self-esteem, insecure attachment, substance use, self-control in this relationship, and anger management) or contextual correlates (poverty, unemployment) were not examined because they were beyond the scope of this study. This explains a larger percentage of variance on IPV and explains mediation mechanisms which function in severe types of IPV. Another limitation of the study is related to cross-sectional design and as such does not allow inferences regarding causality. In addition, this study was conducted in a homogeneous sample of students, and findings cannot be generalized to nonstudent populations. In summary, the findings of the current study highlight the importance of examining the role of attitudes in IPV perpetration/victimization for young adults in Kosovo. This provides support for designing prevention programs which tackle tolerant attitudes toward violence and as such aid social learning theory in a cross-cultural context. However, it is important to note that inconsistencies in terms of mediation mechanisms for attitudes in each type of violence separately, supposedly reflect the diverse nature of each type of violence, and inclusion of other mediation mechanisms in future studies (anger management, self-control, dominance, and hostile attitudes toward partner) should be considered. Furthermore, future studies when measuring violence socialization are important for examining whether childhood violence exposure or experience was perpetrated by the father, mother, or both parents, as it will provide a better understanding how these processes operate in the development of attitudes, and what is their relationship with IPV perpetration/victimization.

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

Kaltrina Kelmendi is a senior assistant at the Department of Psychology, University of Prishtina, in Kosovo. Recently, she finished her PhD studies in social psychology at the Masaryk University in Brno Czech Republic. Her research interests are related to social issues, especially gender issues, domestic violence, interpersonal violence, and other related socio-psychological phenomena.

František Baumgartner is an associate professor at the Department of Psychology, Faculty of Arts, University of Ostrava, in Czech Republic. He lectures on social psychology and research methods. His research interests are related to emotion regulation, coping processes and also to study of interpersonal aggression.

References

Abramsky

Watts

C. H.

Garcia-Moreno

Devries

Kiss

Ellsberg

Heise

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

Akers

R. L

. (1998). Social structure and social learning. Los Angeles: Roxbury.

Akers

R. L.

Jennings

W. G

. (2009). The social learning theory of crime and deviance. In Krohn

M. D.

Lizotte

A. J.

Hall

G. P.

(Eds.), Handbook on crime and deviance (pp. 103-120). New York, NY: Springer.

Akers

R. L.

Sellers

C. S.

(2009). Criminological theories: Introduction, evaluation, and application (5th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Ali

Swahn

Hamburger

(2011). Attitudes affecting physical dating violence perpetration and victimization: Findings from adolescents in a high-risk urban community. Violence and Victims, 26, 669-683.

Allen

C. T.

Swan

S. C.

Raghavan

(2009). Gender symmetry, sexism, and intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24, 1816-1834.

Amar

A. F.

Gennaro

(2005). Dating violence in college women: Associated physical injury, healthcare usage, and mental health symptoms. Nursing Research, 54, 235-242.

Anderson

J. R.

Chen

W. C.

Johnson

M. D.

Lyon

S. E.

Lee

C. Y. S.

Zheng

Peterson

F. R.

(2011). Attitudes toward dating violence among college students in mainland China: An exploratory study. Violence and Victims, 26, 631-647.

Archer

(1999). Assessment of the reliability of the Conflict Tactics Scales: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14, 1263-1289.

10.

Archer

(2006). Cross-cultural differences in physical aggression between partners: A social-role analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 133-153.

11.

Bandura

(1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

12.

Barrick

Krebs

C. P.

Lindquist

C. H.

(2013). Intimate partner violence victimization among undergraduate women at historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs). Violence Against Women, 19, 1014-1033.

13.

Bernard

M. L.

Bernard

J. L.

(1983). The family as a model for love relationships. Family Relations, 32, 283-286.

14.

Bookwala

Frieze

I. H.

Smith

Ryan

(1992). Predictors of dating violence: A multivariate analysis. Violence and Victims, 7, 297-311.

15.

Bryant

S. A.

Spencer

G. A.

(2003). University students’ attitudes about attributing blame in domestic violence. Journal of Family Violence, 18, 369-376.

16.

Capaldi

D. M.

Knoble

N. B.

Shortt

J. W.

Kim

H. K.

(2012). A systematic review of risk factors for intimate partner violence. Partner Abuse, 3, 231-280.

17.

Carr

J. L.

VanDeusen

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

18.

Clarey

Hokoda

Ulloa

E. C.

(2010). Anger control and acceptance of violence as mediators in the relationship between exposure to interparental conflict and dating violence perpetration in Mexican adolescents. Journal of Family Violence, 25, 619-625.

19.

Coffey

Leitenberg

Henning

Bennett

Jankowski

(1996). Dating violence: The association between methods of coping and women’s psychological adjustment. Violence and Victims, 11, 227-238.

20.

DeKeseredy

W. S.

Schwartz

M. D

. (1998). Measuring the extent of woman abuse in intimate heterosexual relationships: A critique of the Conflict Tactics Scales. U.S. Department of Justice, Violence Against Women Grants Office Electronic Resources. National Resource Center on Domestic Violence. Retrieved from http://stoprelationshipabuse.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/A-Critique-of-the-Conflict-Tactics-Scales.pdf

21.

DeMaris

Benson

M. L.

Fox

G. L.

Hill

Van Wyk

(2003). Distal and proximal correlates in domestic violence: A test of an integrated model. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 652-667.

22.

Douglas

E. M.

(2006). Familial violence socialization in childhood and later life approval of corporal punishment: A cross-cultural perspective. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 76, 23-30.

23.

Douglas

E. M.

Straus

M. A.

(2006). Assault and injury of dating partners by university students in 19 countries and its relation to corporal punishment experienced as a child. European Journal of Criminology, 3, 293-318.

24.

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, 741-753.

25.

Farnsworth

Qosaj-Mustafa

(2008). Security begins at home: Research to inform the first national strategy and action plan against domestic violence in Kosova. Prishtina: Kosova Women’s Network, Government of Kosova.

26.

Farnsworth

Qosaj-Mustafa

Banjska

Berisha

Morina

(2015). No more excuses: An analysis of attitudes, incidence, and institutional response to domestic violence in Kosovo. Prishtina: Kosova Women’s Network, Government of Kosova. Retrieved from http://www.womensnetwork.org/documents/20151124105025622.pdf

27.

Flood

Pease

. (2009). Factors influencing attitudes to violence against women. Trauma, violence, & abuse, 10(2), 125-142.

28.

Foshee

V. A.

Linder

MacDougall

J. E.

Bangdiwala

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

29.

Gover

A. R.

Kaukinen

Fox

K. A.

(2008). The relationship between violence in the family of origin and dating violence among college students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23, 1667-1693.

30.

Gover

A. R.

Park

Tomsich

E. A.

Jennings

W. G.

(2010). Dating violence perpetration and victimization among South Korean college students: A focus on gender and childhood maltreatment. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 1232-1263.

31.

Hart

. (2001). Mann-Whitney test is not just a test of medians: differences in spread can be important. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 323(7309), 391.

32.

Hines

D. A.

Saudino

K. J

. (2003). Gender differences in psychological, physical, and sexual aggression among college students using the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales. Violence and victims, 18(2), 197-217.

33.

Heyman

R. E.

Smith Slep

A. M.

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

34.

Jankowski

M. K.

Leitenberg

Henning

Coffey

. (1999). Intergenerational transmission of dating aggression as a function of witnessing only same sex parents vs. opposite sex parents vs. both parents as perpetrators of domestic violence. Journal of Family Violence, 14(3), 267-279.

35.

Jennings

W. G.

Higgins

G. E.

Tewksbury

Gover

A. R.

Piquero

A. R.

(2010). A longitudinal assessment of the victim–offender overlap. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 2147-2174.

36.

Jennings

W. G.

Piquero

A. R.

Reingle

J. M.

(2012). On the overlap between victimization and offending: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17, 16-26.

37.

Johnson

M. P.

Ferraro

K. J.

(2000). Research on domestic violence in the 1990s: Making distinctions. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62, 948-963.

38.

Kadriu

(2012). Prevalence of violence in adolescents’ relationships. Prishtina: Kosovo Center for Gender Studies. Retrieved from http://www.unfpakos.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Prevalence-of-violence-ang-finale.pdf

39.

Kaukinen

(2014). Dating violence among college students: The risk and protective factors. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 15, 283-296. doi:10.1177/1524838014521321

40.

Kaukinen

Gover

A. R.

Hartman

J. L.

(2012). College women’s experiences of dating violence in casual and exclusive relationships. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 37, 146-162.

41.

Kelmendi

(2015). Domestic violence against women in Kosovo: A qualitative study of women’s experiences. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30, 680-702. doi:10.1177/0886260514535255

42.

Kelmendi

Baumgartner

(2014). Intimate partner violence among male and female students in Kosovo. Social Scientific Articles, 105-125.

43.

Kelmendi

Baumgartner

(2016). A mixed-method evidence of intimate partner violence victimization among female students in Kosovo and its correlates. Manuscript under review.

44.

Kim

J. Y.

Kim

H. J.

Choi

J. W.

Emery

(2014). Family violence and dating violence in Korea. Journal of Family Violence, 29, 23-33.

45.

Krug

E. G.

Mercy

J. A.

Dahlberg

L. L.

Zwi

A. B.

(2002). The world report on violence and health. The Lancet, 360, 1083-1088.

46.

Laner

M. R.

Thompson

(1982). Abuse and aggression in courting couples. Deviant Behavior: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 3, 229-244.

47.

Markowitz

F. E.

(2001). Attitudes and family violence: Linking intergenerational and cultural theories. Journal of Family Violence, 16, 205-218.

48.

Marshall

L. L.

Rose

(1988). Family of origin violence and courtship abuse. Journal of Counseling and Development, 66, 414-418.

49.

Mattingly

Straus

M. A

. (2007). Violence socialization and approval of violence: A world perspective on gender differences and American violence. Paper presented at American Society of Criminolog, St. Loius.

50.

Mihalic

S. W.

Elliott

(1997). A social learning theory model of marital violence. Journal of Family Violence, 12(1), 21-47.

51.

Nabors

E. L.

Jasinski

J. L.

(2009). Intimate partner violence perpetration among college students: The role of gender role and gendered violence attitudes. Feminist Criminology, 4, 57-82.

52.

O’Keeffe

N. K.

Brockopp

Chew

. (1986). Teen dating violence. Social Work, 31(6), 465-468.

53.

O’Keefe

(1997). Predictors of dating violence among high school students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12, 546-568.

54.

O’Keefe

(1998). Factors mediating the link between witnessing interparental violence and dating violence. Journal of Family Violence, 13, 39-57.

55.

Preacher

K. J.

Hayes

A. F.

(2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 717-731.

56.

Riggs

D. S.

O’Leary

K. D.

(1996). Aggression between heterosexual dating partners: An examination of a causal model of courtship aggression. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 11, 519-540.

57.

Ryle

(2012). Questioning gender: A sociological exploration. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

58.

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.

59.

Stith

S. M.

Smith

D. B.

Penn

C. E.

Ward

D. B.

Tritt

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

60.

Straus

M. A.

(2004). Cross-cultural reliability and validity of the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales: A study of university student dating couples in 17 nations. Cross-Cultural Research, 38, 407-432.

61.

Straus

M. A.

(2008). Dominance and symmetry in partner violence by male and female university students in 32 nations. Children and Youth Services Review, 30, 252-275.

62.

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.

63.

Straus

M. A.

Hamby

S. L.

Boney-McCoy

Sugarman

D. B.

(1999). Manual for the Personal and Relationships Profile (PRP). Durham: Family Research Laboratory, University of New Hampshire.

64.

Straus

M. A.

Ramirez

I. L.

(2007). Gender symmetry in prevalence, severity, and chronicity of physical aggression against dating partners by university students in Mexico and USA. Aggressive Behavior, 33, 281-290.

65.

United Nations Children’s Fund. (2014). Assessment baseline study on different dimensions of domestic violence in three municipalities (Dragash, Gjilan and Gjakova). Unicef: Prishtina.

66.

Wekerle

Leung

Wall

A. M.

MacMillan

Boyle

Trocme

Waechter

(2009). The contribution of childhood emotional abuse to teen dating violence among child protective services-involved youth. Child Abuse & Neglect, 33, 45-58.

67.

World Bank. (2012). Kosovo country program snapshot. Retrieved from http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/kosovo

68.

World Health Organization. (2012). Understanding and addressing violence against women: Intimate partner violence. Retrived from http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/77432/1/WHO_RHR_12.36_eng.pdf