Risk and Protective Factors of Child-to-Parent Violence: A Comparison Between Physical and Verbal Aggression

Abstract

Child-to-parent violence (CPV) is a social problem that remains vastly understudied compared with other forms of family violence. The aim of this study is to identify family and child risk and protective factors of CPV, and to investigate whether they differentially predict physical and verbal parent-directed violence among boys and girls. Predictors include parenting behavior during childhood (physical and verbal violence, warmth, monitoring) and respondents’ individual characteristics (suicidal ideation, self-control, problematic substance use). Data were examined from a large representative sample of ninth graders (N = 6,444) in Lower Saxony, Germany. Bivariate analyses showed that female adolescents were more likely to aggress verbally, while no gender differences were found for physical CPV. Multilevel logistic regression models revealed that direct experiences of parental physical and verbal violence during childhood were among the strongest predictors of physical and verbal CPV, both among males and females. While parental monitoring was not significantly associated with CPV, parental warmth protected girls from physical parent-directed aggression. Furthermore, high self-control was protective against verbal CPV as well as boys’ physical CPV, while problematic substance use predicted physical violence toward parents in both sexes but only boys’ verbal CPV. Suicidal ideation was a risk factor of aggression in males only. Except for parental warmth, the importance of risk and protective factors did not substantially vary across child gender. These findings broaden our understanding of different family and child-related factors that either promote or prevent CPV. Specifically, they point to the importance of the parenting context and especially harsh discipline practices for the occurrence of both physical and verbal CPV.

Keywords

child abuse domestic violence family issues and mediators physical abuse

Despite a relatively high rate of occurrence and increasing prevalence in many societies across the globe (see, for example, Calvete, Orue, & Gamez-Guadix, 2013), child-to-parent violence (CPV) is a phenomenon that is vastly understudied compared with other types of family aggression. While most research has focused on intimate partner violence (Gomez, 2011), parent-to-child abuse (Gershoff, 2002; Lansford et al., 2007), or elder abuse perpetrated by adult children (Oh, Kim, Martins, & Kim, 2006), there exists only a paucity of studies that have examined the causes and correlates of CPV among adolescents (Margolin & Baucom, 2014; Walsh & Krienert, 2007). CPV can be defined as “any act of a child that is intended to cause physical, psychological or financial damage to gain power and control over a parent” (Cottrell, 2001, p. 3). These acts include assault with or without a weapon, emotional manipulation, verbal abuse, and stealing. In the United States, prevalence rates of physical aggression toward parents have been found to range between 7% and 29% (Kennair & Mellor, 2007). Within the European context, a series of recent studies conducted in Spain reveal prevalence rates between 5% and 21% for physical abuse (Calvete, Orue, et al., 2014; Ibabe & Bentler, 2016; Ibabe, Jaureguizar, & Bentler, 2013), and rates between 33% and approximately 93% for verbal abuse (Calvete, Gamez-Guadix, et al., 2013; Calvete, Orue, & Gamez-Guadix, 2013; Ibabe & Bentler, 2016; Ibabe et al., 2013).

Previous research on CPV has mainly focused on family and individual correlates of CPV (Routt & Anderson, 2011). Despite some important insights, however, the data are often sparse and contradictory (Walsh & Krienert, 2007). The majority of studies conducted so far has explored CPV in the United States (Margolin & Baucom, 2014; Nock & Kazdin, 2002; Walsh & Krienert, 2007), in Canada (Cottrell & Monk, 2004; Pagani, Larocque, Vitaro, & Tremblay, 2003; Pagani et al., 2004, 2009), or in Spain (Contreras & Cano, 2014; Contreras & del Carmen Cano, 2016; Ibabe & Bentler, 2016; Ibabe & Jaureguizar, 2010; Izaguirre & Calvete, 2016). To detect which components and predictors of CPV are universal and which are culture-specific, it seems however necessary to reveal components of CPV in other national contexts as well (Calvete, Orue, & Gamez-Guadix, 2013). Looking at Germany is specifically interesting because cultural normativeness concerning parenting behavior and the use of physical violence in particular differs from other cultural contexts, such as the United States, Canada, or Spain. While in these countries, social acceptance of parent-to-child violence is relatively high, the right of corporal punishment has been abolished in Germany since the year 2000. This may reflect a cultural understanding of parenting that more strongly favors positive parenting strategies, which, in turn, might lead to lower levels of family violence in general. Consequently, aggressive behavior of adolescents in Germany is expected to occur at a lower rate, compared with other cultural settings.

Furthermore, in analyzing correlates and risk factors of CPV aggression, much of the past work is limited by small sample size. Previous studies are predominantly based on samples comprising less than a thousand participants (Boxer, Gullan, & Mahoney, 2009; Contreras & Cano, 2014; Ibabe et al., 2013; Kennedy, Edmonds, Dann, & Burnett, 2010; McCloskey & Lichter, 2003; Nock & Kazdin, 2002), and relatively few rely on representative samples of adolescents (Coogan, 2011). In addition, most of the existing literature has focused on physical aggression toward parents (Agnew & Huguley, 1989; Brezina, 1999; Cornell & Gelles, 1982). Only recently, researchers have turned to study child- and adolescent-initiated violence within families in a more nuanced way by additionally covering psychological or verbal acts of violence (Calvete, Orue, & Gamez-Guadix, 2013; Ibabe & Bentler, 2016; Ibabe et al., 2013; Izaguirre & Calvete, 2016). In the current study, we use a large representative student sample to determine the extent to which family and child characteristics predict different forms of CPV among German adolescents. By taking into account the sex of the perpetrator, we also address the gender-specific relevance of the different risk and protective factors under study.

Family Risk and Protective Factors Associated With CPV

The characteristics of the families in which CPV occurs have been a major focus of the studies published so far (Calvete, Orue, & Gamez-Guadix, 2013). Most importantly, CPV has been associated with parenting styles and practices that involve disciplinary acts, such as the use of corporal punishment (Boxer et al., 2009; Gámez-Guadix & Calvete, 2012; Margolin & Baucom, 2014), and, to a lesser extent, verbal aggression (Pagani et al., 2004, 2009) or emotional deprivation (Agnew & Huguley, 1989). For example, based on data from a French Canadian population-based longitudinal sample, Pagani et al. (2004, 2009) found an association between parents’ use of physical and verbal punishment to their children and adolescents’ physical and verbal aggression to their parents. These results are consistent with an extensive literature on child physical abuse demonstrating that growing up in a violent family context is associated with later aggressive behavior (Mersky, Topitzes, & Reynolds, 2012). A possible explanation for this link is offered by the theory of intergenerational transmission of violence (Andrews, Foster, Capaldi, & Hops, 2000), which found much of its theoretical impetus from early studies on child aggression conceptualizing violence as a socially learned behavior (Bandura, 1973, 1986). It is believed that through social learning processes such as observational learning, violence is used as an acceptable and habitual way of handling conflicts with others (Black, Sussman, & Unger, 2010). In this context, the hypothesis of bidirectionality of family violence provides an explanation for child-to-parent aggression by stating that those children who abuse their parents are more likely to have been directly exposed to parent-to-child abuse (Kennedy et al., 2010; Ulman & Straus, 2003).

Besides family risk factors, researchers have also identified family-related protective factors of child aggression. In general, positive family relationships characterized by warmth, support, and parental monitoring appear to be important for the development of prosocial behaviors in adolescents (Baumrind, 1991; Laird, Pettit, Bates, & Dodge, 2003). With regard to CPV, only few studies have explicitly analyzed the effect of positive parenting on CPV. Calvete, Gámez-Guadix, and Orue (2014) found that parental behavior based on affection, acceptance, and communication was negatively related to physical CPV. Similarly, Ibabe and Bentler (2016) have documented that family relationships based on affect and communication are related to less violent and more prosocial behaviors of children at home. Results on parental monitoring are less clear-cut. Ibabe and Bentler (2016) note that inductive styles of parental discipline, that is, limit-setting, explaining, or setting up logical explanations, were unrelated to CPV, while medium-level power-assertive discipline and supervision predicted increased rather than decreased levels of violence against parents. Other studies report that parental supervision is inversely associated with violent behavior of adolescents toward their parents (Calvete, Gámez-Guadix, & Orue, 2014; Calvete, Orue, & Sampedro, 2011). The overall discrepancy across studies stresses the need for further research on the effects of positive parenting on CPV. More specifically, the question how childhood experiences of parental warmth and monitoring affect later outcomes of CPV remains an urgent need for research. Concerning the role of sociodemographic family characteristics, data are limited. With regard to family structure, some studies find no significant effects (e.g., Pagani et al., 2004), while others observed that CPV mostly occurs in single-parent families (Cottrell, 2001). According to Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) self-control theory, parents’ monitoring of their children, recognition of inadequate behavior, and correction of such behavior foster children’s self-control abilities. Because the availability of only one parent is likely to be associated with decreased control capabilities meant to deter children from aggressive behavior, CPV should be more common in single-parent families. In line with this argument, Hirschi’s (1969) control theory posits that nonintact family constellations lack the provision of fundamental bonds to significant others who represent applicable norms and values and provide involvement in conventional activity patterns. Concerning parental education, many studies find no significant associations with CPV (Pagani et al., 2004). In their French Canadian population-based longitudinal sample of 6,397 participants, however, Pagani et al. (2009) demonstrated that being a college educated father was associated with a 40% greater chance of experiencing verbal aggression from sons and daughters. The authors conclude that higher educated parents are more likely to have jobs with more responsibility and thus more working hours. Consequently, in situations where there is less parent–child involvement, parents may give up their authority more easily.

Child Risk and Protective Factors Associated With CPV

Beyond family characteristics, the literature has also identified individual risk factors of CPV, although studied less intensively (Calvete, Orue, & Gamez-Guadix, 2013). With regard to gender, results of previous studies are rather inconclusive. Findings seem to vary depending on the sample and type of aggressive behavior studied. In clinical samples, more male children have been identified as aggressors of CPV (Boxer et al., 2009), while community samples suggest similar rates of CPV for males and females (Gámez-Guadix & Calvete, 2012; Pagani et al., 2004, 2009; Ulman & Straus, 2003). In addition, while there seem to be no gender differences in physical aggression toward parents, studies show that girls tend to be more verbally abusive toward their parents than boys (Calvete, Orue, & Gamez-Guadix, 2013; Margolin & Baucom, 2014). Research on how ethnic background relates to CPV in Germany rests an unresolved research matter. Given the growth of migrant populations in Germany in recent years, gaining more insight into potential differences in CPV according to cultural background is especially warranted. Prior studies indicate that migration background constitutes an important risk factor for physical aggression among adolescents in Germany. Results from a German representative student survey conducted in 2007/2008 reveal that prevalence rates for violent offenses were twice as high among adolescents with migration background, notably among adolescents from Turkey, former Yugoslavia, and Arab and North African countries (Baier, Pfeiffer, Simonson, & Rabold, 2009). Similar relations might also hold for CPV as a special form of aggression within the family.

In addition, some studies demonstrate that youth directing aggressive acts against their parents may have behavioral and emotional difficulties that contribute to CPV (Calvete, Orue, & Gamez-Guadix, 2013; Ibabe, Arnoso, & Elgorriaga, 2014). For example, in both longitudinal and cross-sectional studies, substance use, that is, the use of alcohol and drugs, has been identified as a significant predictor of CPV (Calvete, Orue, et al., 2014; Calvete, Orue, & Gamez-Guadix, 2013; Cottrell & Monk, 2004; Ibabe & Jaureguizar, 2010; Pagani et al., 2004). Explanations establishing a causal order between substance use and CPV point to the disinhibiting effects of the substance, making verbal as well as physical parent–child confrontations more likely (Pagani et al., 2009). This might especially be the case for alcohol use, which has been frequently associated with aggressive behavior (see Kivimäki et al., 2014). Furthermore, Kennedy et al. (2010) reported in a study with 223 juvenile offenders that those having committed CPV were more likely to have been psychiatrically hospitalized and medicated and to have attempted suicide. Other studies have similarly reported feelings of unhappiness and symptoms of depression in adolescents who aggress against their parents (Calvete, Orue, & Gamez-Guadix, 2013; Calvete et al., 2011; Ibabe & Jaureguizar, 2010; Kennedy et al., 2010; Paulson, Coombs, & Landsverk, 1990).

Research on CPV has also found that—at least among adolescents with mental health problems—abusive children display more problems with affect regulation and impulse control, and have increased oppositional behavior (Cottrell & Monk, 2004; Nock & Kazdin, 2002). Related to these behaviors is the concept of self-control, which, following Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) self-control theory, can be understood as a multidimensional personality trait comprising several subdimensions, such as risk seeking, impulsivity, and temperament. While low self-control has been described as an important predictor of aggressive behavior, individuals with high self-control can resist impulses to criminal and antisocial behavior more easily. For example, Tangney, Baumeister, and Boone (2004) show that higher scores on self-control are correlated with better behavioral adjustment, less interpersonal problems, and more optimal emotional responses. We are aware of no study that has considered adolescents’ self-control as a predictor of physical and verbal CPV within the general population.

The Current Study

As described above, available studies yield mixed results with regard to family-related and individual determinants of CPV. The present study contributes to our understanding of this phenomenon by looking at different family and child risk and protective factors of physical and verbal CPV in a large school sample of 6,444 ninth graders. Because prior studies are ambiguous about the relationship between sex and CPV, we also tested gender differences in the relationship between family and child characteristics and CPV. Several studies indicate for example that boys show higher frequency than girls of substance use, while girls have been shown to report more suicidal ideation than boys (McKeown et al., 1998). Thus, the role of these variables as correlates of CPV may differ by child gender. In the following, we expect that childhood exposure to physical and verbal parent-to-child abuse (measured retrospectively with reference to the period when respondents were below 12 years), as well as problematic substance use (measured with reference to the past 12 months), and suicidal ideation are associated with increased CPV, while positive parenting strategies during childhood as well as high self-control are associated with decreased CPV. Prior studies indicate that risk factors are somewhat different for physical and verbal CPV (Pagani et al., 2009). By investigating whether the predictive model linking family and child characteristics to CPV is equivalent for physical and verbal aggression toward parents, and by analyzing gender differences in risk and protective factors, this study makes a further contribution to the understanding of this complex phenomenon.

Method

Data and Participants

The study is based on the combination of two cross-sectional, representative self-report school surveys conducted in Lower Saxony, Germany, in the school years 2012/2013 and 2014/2015. Both were authorized by the state school authorities of Lower Saxony, and sampling was done based on a list of school classes provided by the Statistical Office of the federal state of Lower Saxony. Classes from all types of general education were—stratified by school type—randomly selected in a way that they represent the actual distribution of students in different school types, both in rural and urban areas. Schools as well as parents were contacted beforehand in form of a letter informing about the content and scope of the study. Parents could decline participation of their child. Interviews were carried out only if the school principal and teacher consented to the survey. Answers were given in the form of a written questionnaire, which was filled out anonymously and voluntarily during school in the presence of a teacher and an instructed test leader. Students had the right to refuse full participation or answering single items. From the 639 selected classes in 2013, 485 took part in the study, corresponding to a total of 9,512 students. In the year 2015, 672 classes were selected, from which 545 participated (n = 10,638 students). Students were surveyed on several determinants of delinquent and risk-taking behavior, including psychosocial functioning, individual attitudes, and family characteristics. All measures were deemed suitable for migrant students, to the degree to which they were also able to take part in school lessons. Due to the modular structure of the questionnaire, only one third of all participants were given the questionnaire containing the dependent and independent variables. This limits the analysis sample to 6,444 respondents. Participants were aged between 13 and 19 years (M = 14.9, SD = 0.73), 50.7% were male, and one fourth of all respondents had a migration background (4.38% Turkish, 9.98% former Soviet Union/Eastern Europe, 10.66% other). In 44.4% of all cases, parents had a medium level of education (intermediate secondary school–leaving certificate), 44.0% a high level (Abitur/vocational technical diploma) and 11.6% a low level (no school–leaving certificate/lower secondary school–leaving certificate) of education; 17.4% lived in single-parent households, as defined by only one parent living in the household. Table 1 shows number of nonmissing values, range, percentage, mean, and standard deviation for all included variables.

Table 1.

Sample Characteristics.

Variable	n	Range	M/%	SD
CPV
Physical CPV^a	344	0-1	5.54
Verbal CPV^a	2,813	0-1	45.27
Family characteristics
Parent-to-child physical abuse^b	6,344	1-6	1.65	0.96
Parent-to-child verbal abuse^b	6,360	1-5	1.72	1.07
Parental warmth^b	6,364	1-5	4.04	0.75
Parental monitoring^b	6,361	1-5	4.03	0.73
Child characteristics
Suicidal ideation	6,221	1-4	1.55	0.86
Self-control	6,429	1-4	2.88	0.76
Problematic substance use	1,007	0-1	15.94
Control variables
Gender: Female	3,175	0-1	49.27
Age	6,441	13-19	14.88	0.73
Ethnicity
German	4,719		74.98
Turkish	276		4.38
Former SU/Eastern European	628		9.98
Other	671		10.66
Single-parent household	1,104	0-1	17.37
Parental education	6,190	1-3
Low	716		11.58
Medium	2,748		44.44
High	2,719		43.98
Year of interview: 2015	3,427	0-1	53.18

Note. Regression results are weighted. n = number of valid cases. CPV = child-to-parent violence; SU = Soviet Union.

During last 12 months.

During childhood.

Measures

CPV

To assess CPV, respondents were asked how often they exerted physical and verbal aggression against their mothers and fathers during the last 12 months. The items used are based on a German retrospective short version of the Conflict Tactics Scale 1 (CTS, Straus, 1979). Physical aggression toward parents was assessed via three items asking how often respondents had “pushed, grabbed or shoved” parents, “hit [them] with a fist or kicked [them],” and “hit [them] with something.” Verbal aggression toward parents was measured based on two items in which students were asked how often they “insulted or swore at” their mother and father and how often they “verbally threatened” them. Answers had to be given on a 5-point scale separately for mothers and fathers (1 = never, 2 = once or twice, 3 = three to five times, 4 = six to ten times, 5 = more than ten times). In case there was missing information on one parent if a participant had two parents, we used information on only one parent. Both dependent variables were dichotomized in a way that respondents were coded 0 if they had reported no violent act and 1 if they had reported at least one violent act against either of their parents.

Parent-to-child physical abuse

Childhood experiences of parent-to-child physical abuse were assessed via a German retrospective short version of the Conflict Tactic Scale 1 (Straus, 1979, see also Wetzels, 1997). Students were asked whether they had been “slapped or spanked,” “pushed, grabbed or shoved,” “thrown something at,” “hit with something,” “hit with a fist or kicked,” or “beaten up” by their father or mother during childhood (prior to the age of 12 years) on a 6-point scale (1 = never, 2 = once or twice, 3 = three to twelve times, 4 = several times a month, 5 = once a week, 6 = several times a week). To reduce number of missing values, a new variable based on the maximum value given over both parents was constructed for each item. Then, items were summed up to a scale of parent–child abuse, which takes into account the highest value given (Cronbach’s α = .85). Principal component analysis correspondingly revealed that all items loaded strongly on one single factor (>.70).

Parent-to-child verbal abuse

To assess parent-to-child verbal abuse during childhood (prior to the age of 12 years), students were asked to respond separately for their mothers and fathers how often they were called “stupid, lazy, ugly, fat or some other name like that” and how often their parents said “other hurtful and insulting things” to them. Both items are based on a German short version of the CTS and measured on a 5-point scale (1 = never, 2 = seldom, 3 = sometimes, 4 = often, 5 = very often). Based on the maximum value given for either mother’s or father’s behavior, a scale on verbal abuse was constructed. Cronbach’s α for the scale was .79.

Parental warmth and monitoring

To assess parental warmth and monitoring during childhood, two separate scales that were oriented toward the concept of parenting style by Baumrind (1991) were employed. The dimension of parental warmth was measured by six items ([My mother/father] “praised me, if I did something well,” “really looked after me,” “comforted me when I was sad,” “calmed me when I was scared”; “hugged me,” “undertook something with me”), while parental monitoring was measured by three items ([My mother/father] “precisely knew where I was”; “made sure when I was home in the evening”; “asked who I was friends with”). Students were asked to rate their mother’s and father’s behavior during their childhood (prior to the age of 12 years) on a 5-point scale (1 = never, 2 = seldom, 3 = sometimes, 4 = often, 5 = very often). The two subscales were obtained by averaging the respective items of each subscale across both parents. A Cronbach’s α of .89 for the warmth scale and an alpha of .70 for the monitoring scale indicate acceptable to good internal consistency.

Suicidal ideation

Suicidal ideation, which lies on a continuum of suicidal behavior and may be an important precursor to suicide attempts (Bridge, Goldstein, & Brent, 2006; Turner, Finkelhor, Shattuck, & Hamby, 2012), was used as an indicator for respondents’ emotional difficulty. It was operationalized by asking on a 4-point scale (1 = never, 2 = seldom, 3 = sometimes, 4 = often) whether respondents ever had suicidal thoughts. Although the most common risk factor for suicide-related behavior is depression (Kandel, Raveis, & Davies, 1991), it has to be noted that this measure does not necessarily indicate youth depressiveness, because not all suicidal young people experience symptoms of depression.

Self-control

Self-control was operationalized by the mean score of four items measuring risk-taking behavior of students, derived from Grasmick, Tittle, Bursik, and Arneklev’s (1993) self-control scale (“I like to test my limits by doing something dangerous”; “I sometimes like to do things which could endanger myself,” “I like to take a risk, just because it’s fun,” “Excitement and adventure are more important to me than safety”). Items were assessed on a 4-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, 4 = strongly agree) and were recoded so that high values indicate high self-control (Rabold, Baier, & Pfeiffer, 2008). Cronbach’s alpha for the scale was .86, indicating good internal consistency.

Problematic substance use

To measure problematic substance use, we used information on the frequency of alcohol, cigarette, and illegal drugs consumption in the past 12 months. Problematic substance use occurred if students reported problematic use for at least one of these three substances (0 = no, 1 = yes). Based on Baier and Rabold’s (2009) classification, problematic alcohol use was defined as having drunk alcohol (beer, wine, champagne, alcopops, schnaps) at least once per week. Drug use (e.g., marijuana, ecstasy, speed, LSD, hallucinogens, mushrooms) was defined as problematic if it occurred at least several times in a week during the past 12 months, while problematic cigarette use was defined as having smoked every day within the reference period. Even though the age range in our sample is rather heterogeneous, such that problematic consumption patterns of a 13-year-old have to be differently evaluated than that of an 18-year-old, the threshold values defining problematic substance use are deemed suitable for adolescents of all ages.

Sociodemographic control variables

Control variables include child gender (1 = female), migration background (0 = no, 1 = yes), family structure (0 = two parents in household, 1 = single-parent household), parental education (1 = low, 2 = medium, 3 = high), and a dummy on year of interview (1 = 2015). Respondents were considered as having a migration background if they or their parents had a citizenship other than German or if they or their parents were born in a country other than Germany. Single-parent households refer to families in which only one biological parent, that is, either mother or father, is present. Level of education was measured by the highest educational degree children reported of their parents. Low level of education meant that parents’ highest level of education was either no school-leaving certificate or lower secondary school–leaving certificate. Medium level of education refers to families where an intermediate secondary school–leaving certificate was the highest degree. Parents were defined as having a high level of education if at least one parent had Abitur, or a vocational technical diploma.

Results

About 6% of the adolescents had exercised some form of physical violence toward their parents during the past 12 months; 45% had used verbal violence (see Table 1). The relatively high percentage of verbal violence against parents is understandable if one considers that in our study, it includes rather common acts such as insulting or swearing at parents. As Figure 1 indicates, this is the most common form of verbal CPV. Physical violence occurred predominantly as having “pushed, grabbed or shoved” parents. While overall, girls were verbally more abusive toward their parents than boys, χ² = 150.38(1), p<.001, there was no statistically significant gender difference with regard to physical CPV.

Figure 1.

Prevalence of verbal and physical child-to-parent violence by child gender (*** p < .001).

Zero-Order Correlations

To examine the relationships and influences, we first computed Spearman correlations between the study variables (Table 2). Because significant gender differences were observed at least with regard to verbal violence, this was done separately for boys and girls. For both genders, physical CPV was positively related to verbal CPV (boys: r = .268, p < .001; girls: r = .174, p < .001). Both forms of CPV were positively related to parent-to-child physical and verbal abuse and inversely related to positive parenting practices (warmth and monitoring), although the correlations between CPV and parental monitoring were very weak, and in the case of boys physical CPV not significant. Verbal CPV was more strongly related to parent-to-child abuse than physical CPV (parent-to-child physical abuse: boys: r = .240, p < .001; girls: r = .238, p < .001; parent-to-child verbal abuse: boys: r = .214, p < .001; girls: r = .221, p < .001). Concerning parenting practices, there were significant negative relations between positive parenting and both types of CPV for boys and girls, although they were stronger among females. Suicidal ideation showed positive correlations with both forms of CPV, although these were stronger for verbal aggression. Self-control was negatively and problematic substance use positively correlated with physical and verbal CPV, both among boys and girls. While German ethnicity was slightly positively correlated with verbal CPV, Turkish and former Soviet Union/Eastern European background showed significant negative correlations. Parental education showed weak positive correlations with verbal aggression for both sexes.

Table 2.

Zero-Order Correlations Between the Study Variables and CPV by Gender (Values Above Diagonal = Girls, Values Below Diagonal = Boys).

Variables	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16
1. Physical CPV^a		.174***	.187***	.161***	−.139***	−.081***	.125***	−.098***	.121***	.002	−.005	.013	−.012	−.004	.011	−.054**
2. Verbal CPV^a	.268***		.238***	.221***	−.161***	−.112***	.155***	−.170***	.075***	.073***	−.047*	−.057**	−.015	.055**	.045*	−.066***
3. Parent-to-child PA^b	.203***	.240***		.463***	−.359***	−.197***	.319***	−.183***	.134***	−.152***	.060**	.104***	.074***	.047*	−.005	−.027
4. Parent-to-child VA^b	.156***	.214***	.372***		−.469***	−.266***	.337***	−.178***	.169***	−.103***	.003	.098***	.046*	.071***	−.039*	.033
5. Parental warmth^b	−.076***	−.125***	−.252***	−.312***		.595***	−.330***	.157***	−.152***	.085***	.001	−.095***	−.026	−.135***	.134***	.065**
6. Parental monitoring^b	−.021	−.056**	−.122***	−.140***	.533***		−.189***	.124***	−.124***	.007	.033	−.037*	.005	−.179***	.062**	.029
7. Suicidal ideation	.118***	.201***	.199***	.237***	−.205***	−.113***		−.227***	.229***	−.033	−.023	.047*	.014	.104***	−.039*	.077***
8. Self-control	−.106***	−.117***	−.120***	−.113***	.098***	.116***	−.070***		−.224***	.016	.027	−.038*	−.003	−.039*	−.041*	−.013
9. Problematic substance use	.104***	.087***	.053**	.050**	−.087***	−.073***	.051**	−.257***		.006	−.009	.002	−.006	.058**	−.069***	−.002
10. Ethnicity: German	−.021	.048**	−.171***	−.111**	.081***	.022	.003	.070***	.025		−.359***	−.596***	−.590***	−.004	.047*	.004
11. Ethnicity: Turkish	−.013	−.049**	.070***	.006	−.014	.038*	−.052**	−.009	.008	−.360***		−.069***	−.069***	−.025	−.170***	−.019
12. Ethnicity: FSU/EE	.019	−.048**	.096***	.080***	−.043*	−.042*	.023	−.058**	−.040*	−.580***	−.063**		−.114***	−.009	.007	.021
13. Ethnicity: Other	.019	.009	.102***	.074***	−.064**	−.014	.006	−.038**	−.002	−.613***	−.067***	−.108***		.031	.037*	−.015
14. Single-parent HH	−.010	.028	.028	.041*	−.099***	−.084***	.038*	.004	.000	−.012	−.012	−.009	.033		−.030	.018
15. Parental education	.004	.048**	−.024	−.049**	.108***	.046*	−.010	−.027	−.043*	.037*	−.107***	−.034	.049**	−.014		.029
16. Year of interview	−.088***	−.064**	−.055**	−.033	.097***	.025	.003	.026	−.032	.006	.002	.013	−.021	.011	−.019

Note. Spearman correlations. Listwise deletion of cases. Results are weighted. CPV = child-to-parent violence; PA = physical abuse; VA = verbal abuse; FSU/EE = Former Soviet Union/Eastern European; HH = household; N_boys = 2,860; N_girls = 2,896.

During last 12 months.

During childhood.

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

Multilevel Logistic Regression Analyses

Table 3 reports the multilevel logistic regression results of boys’ and girls’ physical (1) and verbal (2) aggression toward parents. The models on physical CPV show that direct experiences of parent-to-child abuse during childhood were among the strongest predictors of physical aggression by adolescents (OR_boys = 1.652, p < .001; OR_girls = 1.488, p < .001). Likewise, childhood experiences of parent-to-child verbal abuse increase physical CPV, although this applied only to boys (OR = 1.318, p < .001). With regard to positive parenting, parental warmth protected girls but not boys from physical CPV (OR = .682 p < .01). Parental monitoring had no effects on neither girls’ nor boys’ physical CPV. Interestingly, the sign of the respective coefficients point in another direction than expected, indicating harmful rather than beneficial effects of parental monitoring on physical CPV. This also applies to parental warmth in the context of boys’ CPV. Concerning child characteristics, suicidal ideation and problematic substance use were further risk factors of CPV, although the effect of suicidal ideation was only significant for boys (OR_boys = 1.389, p < .01). As expected, physical aggression toward parents decreased with adolescents’ increasing self-control, whereby again, this effect proved to be significant only among males (OR_boys = .700, p < .01). Ethnic background, family structure, and parental educational level showed no significant effects on physical CPV. However, being interviewed in 2015 decreased the odds for students’ reports of CPV.

Table 3.

Multilevel Logistic Regression Analyses of Physical (1) and Verbal (2) CPV in the Last 12 Months.

	Physical CPV (1)				Verbal CPV (2)
	Boys		Girls		Boys		Girls
	OR	SE	OR	SE	OR	SE	OR	SE
Parent-to-child physical abuse^a	1.652***	(.123)	1.488***	(.122)	1.423***	(.080)	1.428***	(.082)
Parent-to-child verbal abuse^a	1.318***	(.107)	1.155	(.096)	1.287***	(.061)	1.234***	(.063)
Parental warmth^b	1.064	(.160)	0.682**	(.010)	0.954	(.075)	0.932	(.076)
Parental monitoring^b	1.164	(.153)	1.061	(.159)	1.060	(.075)	0.984	(.079)
Suicidal ideation	1.389**	(.142)	1.129	(.107)	1.489***	(.101)	1.078	(.050)
Self-control	0.700**	(.079)	0.802	(.099)	0.830**	(.048)	0.708***	(.047)
Problematic substance use	1.917***	(.370)	1.700*	(.392)	1.303*	(.139)	0.964	(.133)
Ethnicity (Ref. = German)
Turkish	0.519	(.277)	0.622	(.338)	0.464**	(.119)	0.501**	(.112)
Former SU/Eastern European	0.926	(.247)	0.780	(.220)	0.511***	(.080)	0.478***	(.065)
Other	0.798	(.214)	0.609	(.215)	0.738*	(.106)	0.673**	(.091)
Single-parent household	0.799	(.193)	0.618	(.165)	1.110	(.128)	1.210	(.130)
Parental education (Ref. = medium)
Low	1.243	(.362)	0.771	(.241)	1.188	(.174)	1.135	(.154)
High	1.231	(.231)	1.229	(.246)	1.385***	(.123)	1.318**	(.113)
Year of interview (Ref. = 2013)	0.448***	(.082)	0.586**	(.108)	0.806*	(.069)	.733***	(.061)
N	2,860		2,896		2,862		2,899

Note. Results are weighted. CPV = child-to-parent violence; OR = odds ratio; SU = Soviet Union.

During last 12 months.

During childhood.

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

Model 2 shows the predictors of boys’ and girls’ verbal CPV in the last 12 months. Equivalent to Model 1, physical parent-to-child abuse (OR_boys = 1.423, p < .001; OR_girls = 1.428, p < .001), as well as parent-to-child verbal abuse (OR_boys = 1.287, p < .001; OR_girls = 1.234, p < .001) were significant risk factors of verbal CPV. Suicidal ideation (OR_boys = 1.489, p < .001) and problematic substance use (OR_boys = 1.303, p < .05) predicted boys’ verbal CPV only, while self-control showed protective effects for both genders (OR_boys = .830, p < .01; OR_girls = .708, p < .001). Furthermore, being of Turkish, former Soviet Union/Eastern European, and other non-German origin was significantly associated with lower odds of verbal CPV. For boys, effects were most pronounced among those of Turkish origin (OR_boys = .464, p < .01), while girls with Former Soviet Union/Eastern European origin had the lowest odds of engaging in verbal CPV (OR_girls = .478, p < .001). Similar to Model 1 and against expectations, positive parenting practices were not associated with verbal CPV, neither for boys nor for girls. Family structure did not affect girls’ and boys’ perpetration of verbal CPV either. However, in contrast to the results of Model 1, high parental educational level had a significant promoting effect on verbal CPV (OR_boys = 1.385, p < .001; OR_girls = 1.318, p < .01). Additional analyses in which we modeled interactions between the different predictor variables and gender showed that all except one risk factor were statistically similar for boys and girls. Only parental warmth was a significantly stronger protective factor for girls than for boys (p < .01). Thus, except for the emotional component of parenting, the importance of risk and protective factors does not substantially vary across child gender (see also Calvete, Orue, & Gamez-Guadix, 2013).

Discussion

The aim of the present study was to identify family and child risk factors associated with child-to-parent aggression during adolescence and to assess whether these differ for physical and verbal violence toward parents. In addition, we examined sex differences in CPV. In line with research from other national contexts, there were no significant differences between boys and girls in the prevalence of physical CPV, while verbal CPV was more predominant among girls (Calvete, Orue, & Gamez-Guadix, 2013; Ibabe & Bentler, 2016). Results from multilevel logistic regression underline the importance of family violence and especially parent–child abuse as a risk factor for CPV, regardless of sex. These results reproduce results of previous studies conducted in different national contexts (Gámez-Guadix & Calvete, 2012; Ibabe et al., 2013). Over and above experiences of child-to-parent abuse, childhood exposure to parent-to-child verbal abuse was furthermore related to both forms of CPV, although concerning physical CPV, parents’ verbal abuse had only effects for boys. Overall, these results confirm the hypothesis of bidirectionality of family violence, stating that those parents who behave violently toward their children either verbally or physically are more likely to experience CPV (Ulman & Straus, 2003). Besides the negative impact of punitive discipline strategies, we found that parental warmth protected girls from perpetrating physical CPV. Thus, warm and supportive parent–child relations seem to be especially important for preventing girls’ aggressive behavior toward parents. In a similar vein, Ibabe and Bentler (2016) highlight the importance of affectivity and quality of family relationships. We were unable to find any protective effect of parental monitoring on CPV. The fact that the sign of the respective coefficients indicate harmful effects of parental monitoring partly reflects the results from Ibabe and Bentler, who find in their sample of 585 Spanish children aged between 12 and 18 years that supervision (including monitoring) as part of medium-level power-assertive discipline was significantly associated with more CPV. They operationalized it, however, as a rather coercive strategy to control child behavior, whereas we conceptualized it as parents’ interest and knowledge about their children’s whereabouts. The insignificant effect of monitoring in our models might be explained by the fact that parents who use violence tend to show deficient parenting practices in general, including a low degree of monitoring and supervision (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). The negative, although rather low correlations between monitoring and parent-to-child abuse somewhat support the idea of a single dimension of parenting characterized by both low control and the use of physical violence. In this context, it remains an open question whether more nuanced operationalizations of positive parenting strategies lead to similar results. Most notably, in assessing the determinants of CPV, research should clearly differentiate between parental monitoring as an integral part of the positive concept of authoritarian parenting, and other forms of parental control considered harmful, such as overinvolvement (Hudson & Dodd, 2012), permissive control (Cottrell & Monk, 2004), and excessive control (Pagani et al., 2004). All of these represent important risk factors of CPV. For example, Calvete, Orue, et al. (2014) found that CPV was strongly associated with a lack of emotional support by parents. Similarly, service providers and parents reported that an overly permissive parenting style as well as emotional neglect contributed to adolescent’s aggression toward parents (Calvete, Orue, et al., 2014; Cottrell & Monk, 2004). Also, parents who are excessively controlling and authoritarian tend to be victims of their children’s aggressive acts (Calvete et al., 2011; Pagani et al., 2004). In an effort to explain this link, it has been argued that parents applying the same level of rigid control that they did when their children were younger leads to feelings of humiliation and resentment in these adolescents (Straus & Stewart, 1999). In general, future research could benefit from more thoroughly analyzing the interactive role of family processes and different parenting practices in explaining CPV. In general, the life-course approach (Sampson & Laub, 2005), which theorizes on whether and why adolescents engage in or refrain from delinquent behavior, is a fruitful theoretical perspective framing the development of aggressive behavior within the family context. Focusing on the developmental stage of adolescence in the context of parent-to-child violence, and vice versa, seems to be highly relevant in light of several other findings demonstrating that parent-to-child violence is a major risk factor for later aggressive behavior across the life span (Mikton, MacMillan, Dua, & Betancourt, 2014). The long-term consequences of parent-to-child violence also warrant increased investment in preventive strategies beginning from early childhood. Thus, a developmental perspective is essential not only to an adequate understanding of how parenting affects youth aggression but also to the implementation of intervention programs to this problem. Programs for the prevention of child maltreatment, which already have been successfully employed (MacMillan et al., 2009), should consider the pivotal role of both physical and verbal parent-to-child violence during childhood in creating later aggression, as well as the importance of positive parenting strategies, notably for female adolescents.

Surprisingly, high parental education proved to be a risk factor of girls’ verbal CPV. This partly confirms the findings from Pagani et al. (2009), who demonstrate a similar effect for father’s college education. The mechanism behind this may be that higher educated parents tend to spend more time at work, which may reduce parent-child involvement. At the same time, they might teach their offspring more verbal strategies for solving conflicts. Thus, in conflict situations, adolescents may aggress verbally against parents who may give in more easily their authority due to weaker involvement and limit-setting capacities.

Concerning individual factors, we found that emotional and behavioral characteristics of adolescents are important predictors of both physical and verbal violence toward parents. Substance use predicted boys’ and girls’ physical CPV as well as boy’s verbal CPV, while suicidal ideation was a risk factor of boys’ physical and verbal CPV only. These sex differences, however, proved not to be significant in models with interaction effects on gender. The importance of problematic substance use and emotional difficulties as risk factors of CPV has already been outlined in prior studies (Calvete, Orue, & Gamez-Guadix, 2013; Calvete et al., 2011; Ibabe & Jaureguizar, 2010; Margolin & Baucom, 2014). Compared with studies that focus on depressiveness, our results on suicidal ideation should be interpreted with caution. Although depressiveness is a major risk factor of suicidal ideation, not anyone exposed to depression is at risk for suicidal ideation or behavior (Miller et al., 2017). Furthermore, we found that self-control was a significant protector against verbal CPV among both males and females. Moreover, it protected boys from perpetrating physical violence. Thus, the importance of high self-control as a protective influence against youth aggressive behavior in general can be enlarged to the specific phenomenon of CPV. Interestingly, migration background, and especially Turkish background, protected youths against verbal CPV. Research has demonstrated that notably in Turkish families, parents more often employ an authoritarian parenting style, including higher levels of control and the use of harsh discipline (Baier et al., 2009; Bergmann, Baier, & Rehbein, 2017). Different power relations and hierarchies within migrant families, including norms prohibiting aggressive acts toward family members, might deter Turkish adolescents as well as those from Eastern Europe and former Soviet Union countries from perpetrating verbal violence against parents. Thus, in total, non-German ethnicity appears to be a proxy for normative conditions within the family, including norms about behavior toward authorities, family conflict, and violence in general. Future research should further examine the importance of values and norms related to CPV in migrant families. Finally, we observed differences in CPV based on interview year: Being interviewed in 2015 decreased the odds of reporting CPV across both genders. Besides potential effects of social desirability due to an increasing sensitiveness to matters of family violence across time, these results might indicate that CPV of adolescents is in fact decreasing in Germany. Indeed, in the interview year 2015, a much lower proportion of students reported physical CPV than in 2013. Further studies should more thoroughly observe developmental trends of CPV in other representative samples from other regions and additionally employ longitudinal designs to assess intra-individual changes in reporting CPV.

Limitations

The present study is associated with some limitations, of which the most important concerns the nature of the data used. Because we rely on cross-sectional data, no causal inferences can be made. In general, more longitudinal studies on this topic are needed to ensure the temporal order of events and to assess trajectories of CPV, which might be particularly frequent at certain stages of child development. In addition, all variables are derived from adolescent self-reports of aggressive behavior toward parents. To decrease shared method variance, data should be complemented by alternative sources such as statements by parents. These, however, might be biased due to the rather sensitive research subject. In our study, we did not differentiate between mother’s and father’s parenting. Future research could assess the importance of diverging parenting styles and practices used by father and mother or inconsistent use of family discipline strategies as risk factors for CPV. Furthermore, because parents rarely use one particular parenting dimension in isolation, future research should consider the effects of different combinations of parenting behaviors. For example, parents who utilize corporal punishment might simultaneously provide a warm, protective, and nurturing home environment for their children, which might protect them from maladaptive developmental trajectories. In addition, we were unable to include any measures on the current quality of the family environment and relationship with parents. These factors have been shown to be significant predictors of children’s violent behavior toward parents in other recent studies (Ibabe & Bentler, 2016). It is also worth noting that verbal aggressive acts, such as insulting parents, might be differentially associated with different cultural demographics, such as family structure, or high-risk family environments in general. While in single-parent families, verbal aggression might be a more “natural” part of growing up, it may be perceived as more problematic in low-risk families. Also, parents of high-risk families, such as single parents, might be psychologically less apt to handle their children’s aggressive acts.

These limitations notwithstanding, our study outlined the importance of various family and child risk and protective factors for adolescents’ physical and verbal CPV. Using a much larger sample of adolescents than available studies, our findings clearly point to the importance of the parenting context, and especially harsh parental discipline practices, for the occurrence of both physical and verbal CPV. Future research should further examine other individual and family-related factors, especially family process variables and different operationalizations of parental control.

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

Laura Beckmann is a sociologist and research assistant of the Criminological Research Institute of Lower Saxony, Hanover. Her interdisciplinary research focuses on the etiology as well as determinants of juvenile delinquency and deviant behavior, especially parenting practices and family violence.

Marie Christine Bergmann is a sociologist and research assistant of the Criminological Research Institute of Lower Saxony, Hanover. Besides juvenile delinquency, her research interests include the determinants of Internet-related deviant behavior of juveniles.

Franziska Fischer is a bachelor student of social sciences at Otto von Guericke University Magdeburg, Germany. In addition to family violence, her research interests include juvenile delinquency and its determinants.

Thomas Mößle is a psychologist and professor of criminology/sociology at the Hochschule für Polizei Baden-Württemberg, Villingen-Schwenningen. His research interest lies on the development of children and adolescents and its determinants.

References

Agnew

Huguley

(1989). Adolescent violence toward parents. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 51, 699-711. doi:10.2307/352169

Andrews

J. A.

Foster

S. L.

Capaldi

Hops

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

Baier

Pfeiffer

Simonson

Rabold

(2009). Jugendliche in Deutschland als Opfer und Täter von Gewalt: Erster Forschungsbericht zum gemeinsamen Forschungsprojekt des Bundesministeriums des Innern und des KFN [Adolescents in Germany as culprits and victims of violence: First research report on the joint research project of the Federal Ministry of the Interior and the Criminological Research Institute of Lower Saxony]. KFN-Forschungsbericht Nr. 107. Hannover: KFN.

Baier

Rabold

(2009). Drogenkonsum im Jugendalter: Verbreitung, Bedingungsfaktoren und Zusammenhang mit Gewaltverhalten [Drug use during adolescence: Prevalence, determinants, and association with violent behavior]. Zeitschrift für Jugendkriminalrecht und Jugendhilfe, 20, 292-306.

Bandura

(1973). Prentice-Hall Series in Social Learning Theory. Aggression: A social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bandura

(1986). The social learning perspective: Mechanisms of aggression. In Toch

(Ed.), Psychology of crime and criminal justice (pp. 198-236). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.

Baumrind

(1991). The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance use. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 11, 56-95. doi:10.1177/0272431691111004

Bergmann

M. C.

Baier

Rehbein

(2017). Jugendliche in Niedersachsen. Ergebnisse des Niedersachsensurveys 2013 und 2015 [Adolescents in Lower Saxony. Results of two representative school surveys conducted in 2013 and 2015]. KFN-Forschungsbericht Nr. 131. Hannover: KFN.

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

10.

Boxer

Gullan

R. L.

Mahoney

(2009). Adolescents’ physical aggression toward parents in a clinic-referred sample. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 38, 106-116. doi:10.1080/15374410802575396

11.

Brezina

(1999). Teenage violence toward parents as an adaptation to family strain: Evidence from a national survey of male adolescents. Youth & Society, 30, 416-444. doi:10.1177/0044118X99030004002

12.

Bridge

J. A.

Goldstein

T. R.

Brent

D. A.

(2006). Adolescent suicide and suicidal behavior. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47, 372-394. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2006.01615.x

13.

Calvete

Gámez-Guadix

Orue

(2014). Características familiares asociadas a violencia filio-parental en adolescentes [Family characteristics associated with child-to-parent aggressions in adolescents]. Anales de Psicología, 30, 1176-1182. doi:10.6018/analesps.30.3.166291

14.

Calvete

Gamez-Guadix

Orue

Gonzalez-Diez

Lopez

Arroyabe

Sampedro

. . . Borrajo

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

15.

Calvete

Orue

Bertino

Gonzalez

Montes

Padilla

Pereira

(2014). Child-to-Parent violence in adolescents: The perspectives of the parents, children, and professionals in a sample of Spanish focus group participants. Journal of Family Violence, 29, 343-352. doi:10.1007/s10896-014-9578-5

16.

Calvete

Orue

Gamez-Guadix

(2013). Child-to-parent violence: Emotional and behavioral predictors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28, 755-772. doi:10.1177/0886260512455869

17.

Calvete

Orue

Sampedro

(2011). Violencia filio-parental en la adolescencia: Características ambientales y personales [Child to parent violence in adolescence: Environmental and individual characteristics]. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 34, 349-363. doi:10.1174/021037011797238577

18.

Contreras

Cano

(2014). Family profile of young offenders who abuse their parents: A comparison with general offenders and non-offenders. Journal of Family Violence, 29, 901-910. doi:10.1007/s10896-014-9637-y

19.

Contreras

del Carmen Cano

(2016). Child-to-parent violence: The role of exposure to violence and its relationship to social-cognitive processing. The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 8, 43-50. doi:10.1016/j.ejpal.2016.03.003

20.

Coogan

(2011). Child-to-parent violence: Challenging perspectives on family violence. Child Care in Practice, 17, 347-358. doi:10.1080/13575279.2011.596815

21.

Cornell

C. P.

Gelles

R. J.

(1982). Adolescent to parent violence. Urban and Social Change Review, 15, 8-14.

22.

Cottrell

(2001). Parent abuse: The abuse of parents by their teenage children. Ottawa: Health Canada.

23.

Cottrell

Monk

(2004). Adolescent-to-parent abuse: A qualitative overview of common themes. Journal of Family Issues, 25, 1072-1095. doi:10.1177/0192513X03261330

24.

Gámez-Guadix

Calvete

(2012). Child-to-parent violence and its association with exposure to marital violence and parent-to-child violence. Psicothema, 24, 277-283.

25.

Gershoff

E. T.

(2002). Corporal punishment by parents and associated child behaviors and experiences: A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 539-579.

26.

Gomez

M. A.

(2011). Testing the cycle of violence hypothesis: Child abuse and adolescent dating violence as predictors of intimate partner violence in young adulthood. Youth & Society, 43, 171-192. doi:10.1177/0044118X09358313

27.

Gottfredson

M. R.

Hirschi

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

28.

Grasmick

H. G.

Tittle

Bursik

Arneklev

B. J.

(1993). Testing the core empirical implications of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 30, 5-29. doi:10.1177/0022427893030001002

29.

Hirschi

(1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley: University of California Press.

30.

Hudson

J. L.

Dodd

H. F.

(2012). Informing early intervention: Preschool predictors of anxiety disorders in middle childhood. PLoS ONE, 7(8), e42359. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0042359

31.

Ibabe

Arnoso

Elgorriaga

(2014). Behavioral problems and depressive symptomatology as predictors of child-to-parent violence. The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 6, 53-61. doi:10.1016/j.ejpal.2014.06.004

32.

Ibabe

Bentler

P. M.

(2016). The contribution of family relationships to child-to-parent violence. Journal of Family Violence, 31, 259-269. doi:10.1007/s10896-015-9764-0

33.

Ibabe

Jaureguizar

(2010). Child-to-parent violence: Profile of abusive adolescents and their families. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 616-624. doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2010.04.034

34.

Ibabe

Jaureguizar

Bentler

P. M.

(2013). Risk factors for child-to-parent violence. Journal of Family Violence, 28, 523-534. doi:10.1007/s10896-013-9512-2

35.

Izaguirre

Calvete

(2016). Exposure to family violence as a predictor of dating violence and child-to-parent aggression in Spanish adolescents. Youth & Society, 49, 1-20. doi:10.1177/0044118X16632138

36.

Kandel

D. B.

Raveis

V. H.

Davies

(1991). Suicidal ideation in adolescence: Depression, substance use, and other risk factors. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 20, 289-309. doi:10.1007/BF01537613

37.

Kennair

Mellor

(2007). Parent abuse: A review. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 38, 203-219. doi:10.1007/s10578-007-0061-x

38.

Kennedy

T. D.

Edmonds

W. A.

Dann

K. T. J.

Burnett

K. F.

(2010). The clinical and adaptive features of young offenders with histories of child-parent violence. Journal of Family Violence, 25, 509-520. doi:10.1007/s10896-010-9312-x

39.

Kivimäki

Kekkonen

Valtonen

Tolmunen

Honkalampi

Tacke

. . . Laukkanen

(2014). Alcohol use among adolescents, aggressive behaviour, and internalizing problems. Journal of Adolescence, 37, 945-951. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2014.06.011

40.

Laird

R. D.

Pettit

G. S.

Bates

J. E.

Dodge

K. A.

(2003). Parents’ monitoring-relevant knowledge and adolescents’ delinquent behavior: Evidence of correlated developmental changes and reciprocal influences. Child Development, 74, 752-768.

41.

Lansford

J. E.

Miller-Johnson

Berlin

L. J.

Dodge

K. A.

Bates

J. E.

Pettit

G. S.

(2007). Early physical abuse and later violent delinquency: A prospective longitudinal study. Child Maltreatment, 12, 233-245. doi:10.1177/1077559507301841

42.

MacMillan

H. L.

Wathen

C. N.

Barlow

Fergusson

D. M.

Leventhal

J. M.

Taussig

H. N.

(2009). Interventions to prevent child maltreatment and associated impairment. The Lancet, 373, 250-266. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61708-0

43.

Margolin

Baucom

B. R.

(2014). Adolescents’ aggression to parents: Longitudinal links with parents’ physical aggression. The Journal of Adolescent Health, 55, 645-651. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2014.05.008

44.

McCloskey

L. A.

Lichter

E. L.

(2003). The contribution of marital violence to adolescent aggression across different relationships. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 390-412. doi:10.1177/0886260503251179

45.

McKeown

R. E.

Garrison

C. Z.

Cuffe

S. P.

Waller

J. L.

Jackson

K. L.

Addy

C. L.

(1998). Incidence and predictors of suicidal behaviors in a longitudinal sample of young adolescents. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 37, 612-619. doi:10.1097/00004583-199806000-00011

46.

Mersky

J. P.

Topitzes

Reynolds

A. J.

(2012). Unsafe at any age: Linking childhood and adolescent maltreatment to delinquency and crime. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 49, 295-318. doi:10.1177/0022427811415284

47.

Mikton

MacMillan

Dua

Betancourt

T. S

. (2014). Integration of prevention of violence against children and early child development. The Lancet Global Health, 2, e442-e443. doi:10.1016/S2214-109X(14)70233-5

48.

Miller

A. B.

Eisenlohr-Moul

Giletta

Hastings

P. D.

Rudolph

K. D.

Nock

M. K.

Prinstein

M. J.

(2017). A within-person approach to risk for suicidal ideation and suicidal behavior: Examining the roles of depression, stress, and abuse exposure. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 85, 712-722. doi:10.1037/ccp0000210

49.

Nock

M. K.

Kazdin

A. E.

(2002). Parent-directed physical aggression by clinic-referred youths. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 31, 193-205. doi:10.1207/S15374424JCCP3102_05

50.

Kim

H. S.

Martins

Kim

(2006). A study of elder abuse in Korea. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 43, 203-214. doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2005.03.005

51.

Pagani

Larocque

Vitaro

Tremblay

R. E.

(2003). Verbal and physical abuse toward mothers: The role of family configuration, environment, and coping strategies. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 32, 215-222. doi:10.1023/A:1022599504726

52.

Pagani

Tremblay

R. E.

Nagin

Zoccolillo

Vitaro

McDuff

(2004). Risk factor models for adolescent verbal and physical aggression toward mothers. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 28, 528-537. doi:10.1080/01650250444000243

53.

Pagani

Tremblay

R. E.

Nagin

Zoccolillo

Vitaro

McDuff

(2009). Risk factor models for adolescent verbal and physical aggression toward fathers. Journal of Family Violence, 24, 173-182. doi:10.1007/s10896-008-9216-1

54.

Paulson

M. J.

Coombs

R. H.

Landsverk

(1990). Youth who physically assault their parents. Journal of Family Violence, 5, 121-133. doi:10.1007/BF00978515

55.

Rabold

Baier

Pfeiffer

(2008). Jugendgewalt und Jugenddelinquenz in Hannover. Aktuelle Befunde und Entwicklungen seit 1998 [Youth violence and delinquency in Hanover. Current findings and developments since 1998]. KFN-Forschungsbericht Nr. 105. Hannover: KFN.

56.

Routt

Anderson

(2011). Adolescent violence towards parents. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 20, 1-19. doi:10.1080/10926771.2011.537595

57.

Sampson

R. J.

Laub

J. H.

(2005). A life-course view of the development of crime. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 602, 12-45.

58.

Straus

M. A.

(1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The Conflict Tactics (CT) Scales. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41, 75-88. doi:10.2307/351733

59.

Straus

M. A.

Stewart

J. H.

(1999). Corporal punishment by American parents: National data on prevalence, chronicity, severity, and duration, in relation to child and family characteristics. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 2, 55-70. doi:10.1023/A:1021891529770

60.

Tangney

J. P.

Baumeister

R. F.

Boone

A. L.

(2004). High self-control predicts good adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. Journal of Personality, 72, 271-324. doi:10.1111/j.0022-3506.2004.00263.x

61.

Turner

H. A.

Finkelhor

Shattuck

Hamby

(2012). Recent victimization exposure and suicidal ideation in adolescents. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 166, 1149-1154. doi:10.1001/archpediatrics.2012.1549

62.

Ulman

Straus

(2003). Violence by children against mothers in relation to violence between parents and corporal punishment by parents. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 34, 41-60.

63.

Walsh

J. A.

Krienert

J. L.

(2007). Child–parent violence: An empirical analysis of offender, victim, and event characteristics in a national sample of reported incidents. Journal of Family Violence, 22, 563-574. doi:10.1007/s10896-007-9108-9

64.

Wetzels

(1997). Gewalterfahrungen in der Kindheit: Sexueller Mißbrauch, körperliche Mißhandlung und deren langfristige Konsequenzen [Childhood victimization: Sexual abuse, physical abuse and their long-term consequences]. Interdisziplinäre Beiträge zur kriminologischen Forschung: Vol. 8. Baden-Baden, Germany: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft.