“I Thought It Was Normal”: Adolescents’ Attempts to Make Sense of Their Experiences of Domestic Violence in Their Families

Abstract

This article describes the experience and impact of domestic violence on adolescents using qualitative methodology. It explores the meanings that adolescents give to their experiences and how this may relate to the impact of those experiences. Five adolescents who were receiving interventions within child and adolescent mental health services were interviewed about their experiences of domestic violence and the interviews were analyzed using interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA). The results suggest that adolescents had a range of thoughts and feelings connected to their experiences, and that the impact of the domestic violence may be related to the different meanings that the adolescents gave to their experiences and how they made sense of those experiences. The results are explored using theories such as Grych and Fincham’s Cognitive-Contextual Model; Watkin’s elaborated Control Theory; and the work on posttraumatic growth. Research and clinical implications are discussed in the light of the results.

Keywords

domestic violence child mental health posttraumatic growth trauma

Introduction

This article reports on the experience of adolescents who have witnessed violence between their parents and guardians. Different terms and definitions have been used in the literature to describe this type of violence. Although problems have been identified with the term “domestic violence” (Stark & Flitcraft, 1996), this is the most commonly used descriptor in the United Kingdom, and so this article will use the phrase “domestic violence” (or DV) to describe “the physical abuse of one intimate partner by another with whom they have or have had a relationship” (Edleson, 1999). Exposure to DV includes viewing, hearing, being involved in, or experiencing the aftermath of the physical violence that has taken place between intimate partners (Edleson, 1999). Coercion, control, and emotional abuse often occur simultaneously with physical aspects of DV, therefore the adolescents in this study were likely to have lived through a range of additional experiences covered by the umbrella term “domestic violence.”

DV in the United Kingdom is a significant problem: In England and Wales, 26% of women and 14% of men retrospectively reported in a confidential survey to having experienced some form of domestic abuse in adulthood. In March 2017, 7.5% of women and 4.3% of men reported having experienced DV in the previous 12 months (Office for National Statistics, 2017).

Reported DV for both men and women is highest in younger age groups: In the 16 to 19 age group, the rates are 10% for women and 6.7% for men; in the 20 to 24 age group, the rates are 8.6% for women and 5.3% for men—although differences in rates were only statistically significant when compared with the 55 to 59 age groups (Office for National Statistics, 2017). A large scale survey of children and adolescents conducted by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children found that 17.5% of 11 to 17 year olds reported to having been exposed to DV between adults in their homes during childhood (Radford et al., 2011).

The experience and impact of being exposed to DV has been explored in both qualitative and quantitative studies. Children in qualitative studies commonly report their experience of DV as being ever-present without a full understanding of why it occurs (Bennett, 1991; Epstein & Keep, 1995). DV becomes associated with family secrecy, isolation, intimidation, a sense of being controlled, and with having to manage a mixture of unresolved, powerful feelings (Abrahams, 1994; Epstein & Keep, 1995; Ericksen & Henderson, 1992; McGee, 2000). Children may blame themselves for its occurrence, and often feel a sense of guilt or responsibility toward the victimized parent. They may try to intervene directly when the violence occurs, draw on external sources to make it stop, become accepting of it as part of their everyday life, or distance themselves physically and emotionally from places where it occurs (Cunningham & Baker, 2004; Hague, Mullender, Kelley, Imam, & Malos, 2002).

The impact of DV is also explored in quantitative studies: In a major survey (Lundy & Grossman, 2005) of 40,636 children between the ages of 1 and 12 years, who had been exposed to DV, 51% displayed signs of emotional problems, almost 50% had problems with social adjustment, and 20% had problems that were physical but likely to have an emotional basis (such as bed-wetting). Evans, Davies, and DiLillo (2008) in a meta-analysis of 60 studies found a subsample of six studies that had measured trauma symptoms separately from other emotional symptoms (such as anxiety and depression). They found in a separate analysis of these six studies, a mean weighted effect size of d = 1.54 (SE = .59). Further tests showed that this effect size differed significantly from zero, which suggested a strong association between exposure to DV and the development of trauma symptoms. However, the authors explain that given the small sample size and lack of homogeneity in the effect sizes, the finding should be interpreted with caution.

In another meta-analysis, this time of 118 studies, Kitzmann, Gaylord, Holt, and Kenny (2003) explored a large number of different variables that might be related to “adjustment” between children and adolescents who witnessed DV and those in non-DV groups. The variables included the type of study, participant characteristics, and type of adjustment problem. Taking all the studies together they found that there was a large effect size for the risk of adjustment problems in children and adolescents exposed to DV compared with a no DV group (with an average effect size of d = −0.29). Interestingly there was no significant effect of DV witnessing on adjustment when compared with groups of children who had been victims of physical abuse or who had been witnesses and also been victims of physical abuse. The authors then looked at further possible moderators to effect size including type of problem and participant characteristics. The six categories of problems that they explored (using the categories in the Child Behavior Checklist [CBC], Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1991, as a guide) were internalizing problems, externalizing problems, other psychological problems, total psychological problem score, social competence, and academic problems. Compared with nonwitnesses there was a significant effect of being in the DV group for all six categories of problems, though this worse outcome for the DV witness group was again not significantly different in the studies that compared DV witnesses with other types of “abuse” group such as the physically abused children. There was also no significant differences in effect size between the different types of problem. Another possible moderator studied was age of the participants in the study. The authors found that although there was an effect size which was significantly different from zero in all three different age groups (below 5, 6-12, and over 13), the age groups did not differ from each other. Interestingly, there was also no interaction between age and problem outcome found by the authors either when average age of the sample was used as a variable or when age specific studies were analyzed, suggesting that contrary to the authors’ hypotheses, children and adolescents did not present their distress significantly differently at different ages.

Much of the literature on the impact of children and adolescents witnessing DV has understandably concentrated on negative effects, however, more recent literature has found that not all children and adolescents display problematic behavior or mental health problems and that this seemingly resilient group may be as high as 30% of the children and adolescents with this history (Kitzmann et al., 2003). Factors which may protect children and adolescents from subsequent difficulties are a secure attachment to a nonviolent parent or other adult (Graham-Bermann, DeVoe, Mattis, Lynch, & Thomas, 2006) and positive peer and sibling support (Guille, 2004). In addition, adolescents’ personal characteristics such as good self-esteem in other areas can also be a protective factor for them (Guille, 2004). Using the more robust longitudinal methodology, Martinez-Torteya, Bogat, Von Eye, and Levendosky (2009) compared 190 young children “exposed” to DV with a matched group not exposed to violence. Exposure to violence was assumed from mothers’ accounts, but children were not questioned separately about their actual experiences. Both exposed and nonexposed groups were assessed using the CBC (Achenbach and Edelbrock, 1991) yearly at 2, 3, and 4 years old. Children were classified as positively adapted or “resilient” if their scores were below 60 on the CBC at all time periods. Several risk and protective factors were also measured at all time points. Of children exposed to DV, 54% showed positive adaptation (82% in the non-DV group). Regression analysis suggested that lack of maternal depression (measured by Beck Depression Inventory) and child’s easy temperament (measured by a series of age appropriate temperament scales) predicted adaptive versus nonadaptive children in the DV group (p < .001 for each prediction).

In a sample of 110 Israeli children in the community, a longitudinal study by Sternberg, Lamb, Guterman, and Abbott (2006) suggested that if violence had stopped by adolescence (aged 16) there was likely to be a decrease in symptoms reported by parents and teachers from what they had reported when the children/students had been 10, but that the young people themselves still self-reported internalizing symptoms. These authors stress the need for multiple informants in studies—including the children and adolescents themselves—as it is possible that adults—both parents and teachers—became less aware of internalizing problems in adolescents and students. Many studies only include maternal reports of problems which can differ by whether the mother herself has been a victim of violence (Sternberg, Lamb & Dawud-Noursi, 1998, reported in Sternberg et al., 2006).

Gewirtz and Edleson (2007) have used a developmental framework to help understand the risk and protective factors that may lead to children developing problems following DV. They argue that experiences of DV can interrupt the tasks of childhood at different ages. Children who witness DV at an early age might struggle to develop good attachment relationships, appropriate self-regulation, and to develop social and peer competencies, with each of these areas having an impact on the development of the next competence. Holt, Buckley, and Whelan’s (2008) review of the literature suggested that young people’s experiences may manifest as problems at different developmental ages. For example, young children showed some regressed behaviors around language and toilet training, and school aged children were more likely to develop antisocial behaviors at primary school.

A developmental framework is also helpful in considering the effects of witnessing DV on adolescence. Adolescents who have experienced violence from an early age may have issues with emotional regulation, social skills, and academic competence that become most apparent at this important developmental period. At this stage in development, the effects of DV may move out of the family and into other close relationships. For example, Cui and Fincham (2010) showed that 285 young adults in dating relationships were more likely to show conflict behavior in their own relationships (p < .01) if they had experienced their own parents as having a conflictual relationship.

Education attainment also becomes important at this stage due to important exams. Harold, Aitkin, and Shelton (2007) in a longitudinal study explored attainment levels across the ages of 11 to 13, in 230 schoolchildren living in the United Kingdom. Their results using structural equation modeling suggested that the link between DV and poor academic attainment may be mediated by self-blaming attribution by the young people (p < .01), suggesting that the effects of DV on educational attainment may be different for adolescents depending on how they appraise their experiences of DV.

The literature to date, therefore, suggests a number of ways that children and adolescents may be affected by DV and there is some evidence that children and adolescents may express their distress in different ways depending on factors such as age, temperament, and other attachment relationships (though the evidence on age is contradicted across studies). An aspect that needs more study and that may contribute to the impact of DV is the meaning that adolescents make of their experiences. Children and adolescents are active makers of meaning (Graue & Walsh, 1998) and how they interact with their environments will be shaped by their understanding and response to this environment. Although it is likely that these meanings will be influenced and shaped by their experiences, it is important to hear from children and adolescents directly about how they make sense of what they see, hear and experience, and how that, in turn, relates to how they act and feel overall (Cunningham & Baker, 2004).

This study will therefore interview adolescents about their reported experiences and how they have been affected by these experiences, and about the meanings that they make of what they have witnessed. It is hypothesized that this meaning making may be one of the factors that distinguishes the impact of DV on individuals. The following section describes two models which give some theoretical basis to understanding how children’s and adolescent’s appraisal and understandings of their experience might affect the impact of those experiences.

A model which gives a theoretical explanation of the ways that children and adolescents’ appraisals might affect their adjustment is Grych & Fincham’s (1990) Cognitive-Contextual Model. In this model, adolescents appraise the violence and make judgments about the level of threat and whether they feel they have responsibility in causing or preventing the violence. In a test of their model Grych, Fincham, Jouriles, and McDonald (2000) showed that appraisal of the DV experienced by adolescents was a mediator (the appraised level of threat and how much the participants expressed feelings of self-blame) between what was experienced and the impact on subsequent behavior and adjustment (for internalizing problems). Interestingly, the mediation effect of self-blame differed by gender: It mediated the association between parental conflict and internalizing problems for boys in both community and shelter samples, but only for girls in the shelter sample. The authors hypothesized that boys might be socialized to action and assertiveness in the face of stress and therefore feel more responsible for stopping DV. However, the literature on gender differences is contradictory: Cummings, Davies and Simpson (1994) with a smaller sample found the opposite effect for gender, and there is also a lack of tested theory to explain gender differences.

Related to adolescents’ cognitions about DV, there is growing evidence within the posttraumatic growth (PTG) literature to suggest that children and adolescents are able to use reflective “rumination” to problem-solve and make sense of trauma, and that this can lead to thoughts and feelings of having learned or grown from their experiences, (Calhoun & Tedeschi, 2006). Reflective rumination describes a type of intrusive thinking in which the individual engages in adaptive problem solving. This is in contrast to “brooding” which describes more of a repetitive intrusive thinking in which an individual compares a current situation with a wished for but unachieved standard. Reflective rumination is more likely to be positively associated with PTG than brooding (Stockton, Hunt, & Joseph, 2011). There is evidence of PTG growth in children, but a systematic review in 2011 (Mayerson, Grant, Smith Carter, & Kilmer, 2011) did not find any studies that explored PTG with children who had witnessed DV as their trauma.

The Present Study

There are a few in-depth studies that describe the experience of being exposed to and living with DV directly from the perspective of children and adolescents (e.g., Epstein & Keep, 1995 and Cunningham & Baker, 2004). Also, many studies have investigated the impact that exposure to DV has on adolescents (e.g., the review by Evans et al., 2008). There are also several quantitative studies which test the Cognitive-Contextual Model—for example, Grych et al. (2000) described above, and Kim, Jackson, Hunter, and Conrad (2009), who explored the mediating variables of perceived threat and self-blame with adolescent’s behavior in their dating relationships. Equally, many quantitative studies have explored the phenomenon of PTG in young people but not after witnessing DV (see, for example, the review by Mayerson et al., 2011). Quantitative studies are generalizable and able to test out specific hypothesis, however, they are not able to offer the detail of qualitative studies in an exploration of the phenomenon. This article will in contrast describes some in-depth interviews with adolescents which have been analyzed using interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) which is a method well suited to understand people’s own understandings of their experiences. Through these interviews, adolescents explain in their own words what they think is the impact of DV on their lives and what meaning they make of their experiences. These young people’s own accounts are then further explored in the discussion to see if they can add detail to an understanding of the above theories, suggesting that cognitive appraisals and rumination may be important in understanding impacts of DV.

Method

Participants

The participants were three adolescent young women and two adolescent young men who had all witnessed or been victims of parental domestic abuse. To be considered for participation, the adolescents needed to have been safe from DV for at least a year prior to the interview (for safeguarding reasons). Participants were accessed via a Child and Family Mental Health service where the second author was working at the time. Possible participants were suggested by clinicians and then approached by the researchers. Five out of the 10 adolescents approached agreed to take part in the study.

The adolescents’ age ranged from 14 to 18 years and they were all of White British origin, which was representative for that service and area. Four participants had siblings. None had ever resided at a shelter for victims of DV. Their age when the DV began varied from 2 to 8 years, and it ended when they were 7 to 14 years old. On average, the DV had lasted 7½ years (ranging from 4 to 12 years). With one exception in which a male and female parent were violent toward each other, the violence described was from a male parent toward a female parent. One mother had lived with several male partners who had been violent toward her.

A National Health Service (NHS) ethics panel gave approval for this project. All adolescents and their parents gave informed consent to their participation and for the anonymized results of the study to be published. Safeguarding was assured by the adolescents being told that there would be limits to confidentiality. All adolescents had the opportunity to talk to a known clinician after the interview for further support.

Procedure

The participant interviews were semistructured. The main areas explored included the participants’ experience of being exposed to DV, the meaning they made of their experiences, how they felt it had affected them, how any changes had happened, and about receiving support from others. The first author (J.C.) conducted all five interviews which lasted between 60 and 90 min.

Analysis of Data

The taped interviews were transcribed verbatim and a reiterative analytical process adopted to develop emerging themes from the transcripts (Smith, Jarman, & Osborne, 1999). The analysis draws on IPA to perform an in-depth analysis of the material (Smith, 1995, 2004). IPA not only allowed each person’s unique experiences to emerge but also allowed for understanding of common experiences. This method acknowledges that many processes may operate at any one point in time. It maintains a phenomenological focus on the structure and essence of experience. Within this process, the first author (who analyzed all the data under supervision from the second author) also brought her own knowledge and experiences in making sense of the participants’ accounts. Osborn and Smith (2008) suggested that IPA can be helpful when the topic being investigated involves subjective material and when questions about identity and the self are important.

The analysis of the interviews followed the steps outlined by Smith, Flowers, and Larkin (2009). The interviews were read and reread to gain an initial sense of the participants’ experiences. Notes were made by the first author of any thoughts and questions at this stage. Second, notes on the transcripts identified themes that might be related to concepts. Connected themes were then formed into clusters and tentative headings were assigned to these clusters. These themes were constantly reevaluated and changed with new names or assigned different levels (e.g., some themes became subthemes).

Several strategies were employed to enhance the validity of this study: The second author and other colleagues were consulted as emerging themes developed; a personal research diary was kept to reflect on the interactive and interpretive process of developing the themes (Mays & Pope, 2000); two clinicians new to the data were shown two randomly selected transcripts and were satisfied with the analysis undertaken and the final set of themes being evidenced in the data. Finally, a presentation to Child and Mental Health Service clinicians indicated that main themes “resonated” with their clinical experience (Elliott, Fischer, & Rennie, 1999; Madill, Jordon, & Shirley, 2000).

Results

The analysis is presented in four sections that capture the overarching themes of experience, coping and protective factors, impact, and meaning making.

Experience

The experiences identified by the adolescents in this study are very similar to those covered by previous qualitative research described in the introduction. For example, the theme of the violence being ever present was also talked about in studies by Bennett (1991) and Epstein and Keep (1995) and the theme of DV as hidden in the study by McGee (2000). The subthemes covering experience therefore are briefly covered in Table 1 with an example of a quote that illustrates each theme.

Table 1.

Participants Experiences of DV.

Theme with description	Example quote
Ever present Four participants described how the violence seemed to have always been there with only Kay remembering a time before violence.	“I can’t remember it not happening” (Rebecca, p. 4, l. 180).
Unpredictable Four participants described the violence occurring out of the blue with one participant making a link between alcohol as being a predictor of violence.	“My mum was doing her usual thing and he decided to start on her. He pulled out a knife and put it up against her throat and told her he was going to kill her” (Craig, p. 2, l. 104).
Breaking boundaries This theme described the fear when the violence spilled outside the “normal” parent/parent conflict.	“Well one day when it kicked off . . . there was my Nan round there and my Nan’s friend and she was punched in the face because of it” (Craig, p. 8, l. 410).
Controlling and uncontrollable This theme described the experience that the young people felt of the perpetrator being controlling but also the sense of helplessness when they or others tried to stop the violence	“We weren’t allowed to giggle, and if something happened we weren’t allowed to laugh” (Rebecca, p. 4. l. 74). “If I tried stopping it then my dad would chuck me across the room” (Anne, p. 3, l. 163).
DV as hidden Secrecy about DV operated in a number of ways. The participants often felt that the perpetrator tried to hide the violence from them and from other people. The participants talked of feeling silenced for a number of reasons; fear that the violence would increase, not being believed or being judged.	“He’ll hide it. He’d beat her up in places you can’t visibly see it” (Craig, p. 20, l. 1049). “They didn’t like to believe it, cos it’s their son” (Carl p. 10, l. 491)

Note. DV = domestic violence.

Attempts to Cope With DV and Protective Factors

Coping strategies and protective factors have been less explored in the literature so in this section the subthemes are described in more detail. All the participants described ways they tried to deal with the situation, but often these ways proved futile in keeping them and their parents safe.

Intervening, or trying to take control

Trying to prevent the violence from occurring, and intervening in the violence were the two main ways that participants coped at the time of violence. Often these strategies were futile or sometimes resulted in the participant being harmed. Rebecca, Craig, and Kay all talked about trying to prevent the violence, often by subjugating or suppressing their own feelings and needs:

You learnt different ways of coping, like when he was there, pleasing him. (Rebecca, p. 6, l. 327)

Craig, Carl, and Anne actively intervened to stop DV. However, this was not usually successful, often resulting in them being harmed. This may reinforce the experience of new boundaries being broken as well as leading to feelings of powerlessness and lack of control:

If I tried stopping it then my dad would chuck me across the room. But I just learnt to let them get on with it. (Anne, p. 3, 1.163-164)

Loss of control and powerlessness coupled with not being able to talk about it led Craig to depression and a suicide attempt:

I just couldn’t control it, it made me feel so low and I hated myself. Because I was there and it was happening but I couldn’t do nothing about it. I tried to and it got worse, I tried to, I say to myself you know you couldn’t have done anything, but then I thought I could have, I could have told someone. It would have stopped. But I couldn’t, I just couldn’t do it. And it just made me deeper, deeper depressed and end my life because I couldn’t cope with it. (Craig, p. 16, l. 872-876)

Talking or not talking

Participants found it hard to talk to others about the DV and/or their feelings. Rebecca, Craig, and Carl bottled their feelings up:

I tend to block, hold it all in and don’t tell anyone and then just explode because I can’t cope anymore and then it leads to self-harming. (Craig, p. 12, l. 630)

Anne and Kay found it helpful to talk to someone at the time:

She does listen, she like understands. (Kay, p. 19, l. 896)

Craig and Carl had both found people they could speak to post violence within their family and within mental health services. However, they also talked about the importance of keeping other people at a distance. This appeared to emanate from a lack of trust and a fear or expectation of being hurt:

You know I got walls, I don’t like telling people about things, cos I don’t want to get hurt. I don’t really like people knowing a lot about me. (Carl, p. 15, l.789)

You can say to someone “why can’t you talk to me, why can’t you tell me this?” You just can’t, you’re so frightened. The fear, what’s going to happen. (Craig, p. 18, l. 963)

Other coping strategies

Some of the participants tried other coping strategies including distraction, hiding, escape, and blocking. These ways of coping tended to be marginally effective, but could not totally guard them from disturbing thoughts and feelings:

So I just, I’d put my music on really loud so I couldn’t hear it, but it was still in my mind. (Carl, p. 2, l. 55-56)

Hiding seemed to be an effective and consistent strategy used by Kay that also doubled as a practical mechanism for keeping her and her brother safe:

When he would start hitting my mum I remember getting the dog and getting my brother and running up-stairs and sitting against my door so he couldn’t come in. (Kay, p. 5, l. 238)

Protective Factors

Some protective factors were revealed in the adolescents’ accounts: for example, having a different experience of family life, one where there was the potential for a violence-free life, access to other perspectives, alternative role models, patterns of interacting, and relationships all appeared helpful. These protective factors seemed to enable participants to establish a different understanding of the violence (i.e., that they were not responsible for DV), and thus begin to develop other ways of coping (i.e., talking or not fighting):

Think it was when I went to the school I am at now. And I learnt how to talk to people instead of fighting. (Anne, p. 6, l. 227-228)

Craig’s mother’s new partner provided an alternative role model:

If my dad knows he’s going to get violent he walks away. He’ll go out. He’ll just walk away. That’s it, I’m leaving you and that. But he’ll come back after he’s calmed down and they’ll talk. (Craig, p. 6, l. 280-282)

Participants’ accounts often included references to therapy:

Seeing [therapist name] helps, talk to someone. (Craig, p. 17, l. 903)

Having a family experience which offered the possibility for good attachment relationships seemed helpful for most of the participants:

Having older brother and sisters there and foster mum and dad, they are like my parents, they have done so much for me, they have put up with so much crap off of me. (Anne, p. 14, l. 713)

Impact

The third main theme refers to how the participants described the results that the violence had on them and their family. The psychological impact of witnessing DV has often been explored using questionnaire data (e.g., Radford et al., 2011). In this section, participants describe in their own words the feelings and behaviors that arose from their experiences. These themes are summarized in Table 2. The themes here were very similar to those found in previous quantitative and qualitative studies. For example, the feelings described in this study are also found in the 126 participants whose calls to Childline were analyzed. The Childline participants described feeling “scared, confused, upset, frightened, angry, distraught, sad, suicidal, guilty, helpless, betrayed, ashamed and powerless” (Epstein & Keep, 1995, p. 48). Less detail of feelings are given in quantitative studies that use questionnaires, but this study suggest a similar impact of DV which could be categorized as externalizing or internalizing behaviors found in large scale studies (e.g., Lundy & Grossman, 2005). Young people in this study also described symptoms of trauma as found in previous studies which more formally assess for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD; Evans et al., 2008). One finding that is not described separately in other studies is categorized here as “numbing”—however, this may be a description of a further way of managing trauma and may be a way that the participant described the process of avoiding memories that is a symptom commonly found in PTSD.

Table 2.

Impact of DV.

Short or long term	Description of theme	Example quote
Short term impact	Feelings A range of feelings was associated with the violence for most participants.	“Angry, upset, frightened. Mainly it was anger. The hurt” (Craig, p. 7, l. 328).
Short term impact	Confusion Participants also seemed to be confused by the DV. This manifested in different ways for participants.	“he was nice during the day and then all of a sudden he would just change . . . he used to get us presents and stuff and then I don’t know he just changed, so it was really confusing” (Kay, p. 8, l. 365).
Longer term impact Feelings could changeover time depending on how participants made sense of the violence, the outcome of coping strategies, and other external variables.	Externalizing behavior	“Like if I went in school and someone would say something to me then I’d just go mad . . . swearing at them, chucking stuff” (Anne, p. 5, l. 259).
	Internalizing behavior	“Scared, I get panicky, I start having a nervous panic attack, I start hyperventilating, all sweaty. Even if the staff start shouting at me, I don’t like it. I’ve seen what it leads to” (Craig, p. 4, l. 208).
	Numbing	“it’s difficult to explain, I don’t think much goes through your mind, it’s weird a lot goes through your mind but nothing” (Rebecca, p. 6, l. 315-316).
	Trauma symptoms	“I used to have nightmares really bad like about him trying to get into the house” (Kay, p. 4, l. 184). “All the flashbacks of my mum, seeing my mum getting beaten up. While, we were sitting there crying in the corner” (Craig, p. 15, l. 774).
Growth after trauma Some participants discussed more positive changes in their lives following the cessation of the violence.	Reengaging with developmental tasks including education and training.	“get on with your life. Don’t let your past destroy you. That’s what I’ve done” (Anne, p. 16, l. 871).
	Repairing old relationships/forming new attachments	“My Nan and my Granddad and I talk to a lot. I’ve made up with them now, we talk together a lot” (Carl, p. 9, l. 484).

Note. DV = domestic violence.

Making Meaning of Experiences

The experience of DV and the impact it had on the adolescents and their home lives have been outlined. The following section indicates some factors that might help a reader understand how the adolescents attempted to make meaning of their experiences and how those meanings might have been linked to the different types of impact.

All of the participants talked about trying to understand the DV but most found this difficult:

Rebecca made sense of violence by believing it was normal:

I never thought it was that bad cos I thought it was normal. (Rebecca, p. 12, l. 650)

Anne, Carl, and Craig developed ideas that violence was acceptable:

My dad always taught me to be like that. If someone had a go at you then you got to hit them. (Anne, p. 5, 265-266)

Violence as an effective strategy was viewed directly and observed in wider contexts:

But then my granddad really, really went into one and got him by the throat and I think that really changed things. (Carl, p. 9, l. 491)

Interestingly, Carl though seeing violence in general as an effective strategy developed strong feelings about DV in particular:

I get a really strong feeling that’s the, probably one of the most worse things a man could do. (Carl p. 14, l. 737)

Another way participants tried to make sense of DV was by trying to find explanations about their parents’ behavior:

He didn’t do it cos he hated her, he loved her too much. (Carl, p. 3, l. 121)

I think now his upbringing was important cos he went into the services at 16 and saw boys kill themselves. (Rebecca, p. 10, l. 546)

The participants also tried to find cause-effect relationship for DV:

She’s on the drink a lot. And when she is she’ll start an argument for no reason. And my dad couldn’t handle it. (Anne, p. 4, l. 192-193)

Rebecca, Carl, Craig, and Anne looked inward for explanations, and often thought they were to blame for the violence:

I felt it was my fault because of my condition. That my mum had to be with me and support me. (Craig, p. 17, l. 886)

I thought we’d been bad. That’s what happened when you were bad. (Rebecca p. 4, l 196)

Kay, Anne, and Carl were able to develop a different understanding when the violence had stopped:

I suppose I got older and started realising that my dad shouldn’t have been doing that . . . (Anne, p. 4, l. 202)

Rebecca and Craig still seemed to have great difficulty in finding any meaning to their experiences and continued to blame themselves for what had happened:

How can anyone do that to my mum? If he loved her, how could that happen? (Craig, p. 3, l. 152)

I still think we must have done something, like when I think about it, we must have done something. (Rebecca, p. 4, l. 210)

Results Summary

From participants’ accounts, DV was experienced as “ever present, unpredictable, controlling yet uncontrollable, crossing boundaries and hidden.” This impacted the individuals as well as their families. It created an atmosphere of fear and confusion at home with many aspects of family life and relationships structured in ways that attempted to minimize violence or its effects. For example, older children instead of parents can take on the role of protectors of younger children. All of the participants tried to make sense of the violence, coming up with different explanations and beliefs. Often, participants’ experience, understanding, and response to violence could be consolidated or changed by the response of people outside the immediate family. For example, they might initially learn that violence was an acceptable strategy in some situations from grandparents, but then learn other strategies for dealing with conflict at school. Most of the participants tried to prevent or intervene to stop the violence. Generally, these interventions did not work as a strategy. The participants then seemed to describe a development of feelings such as learned helplessness that suggest a longer term impact of DV such as fear and depression. They also used other strategies for coping, which suggested the development of externalizing behaviors. When the violence stopped, some of the participants showed some signs of trying to move on from the trauma with the ability to repair relationships and some development of hope that things could be different for them.

Discussion

The accounts of the adolescents in this study support themes identified in previous studies on DV in adolescents: The themes of control (both being controlled and lacking control), crossing boundaries (both in terms of the violence itself as being not acceptable within society, but also in crossing boundaries when a previous family “rule” was broken such as violence in front of others), and the secrecy of DV have been found to be factors in DV that are likely to have an impact on adolescents’ feelings of safety and security (e.g., Epstein & Keep, 1995).

This study also found responses to DV that were similar to previous studies (e.g., Kitzmann et al., 2003): both internalized responses (e.g., depression and panic attacks) and externalized responses (e.g., reported aggressive behavior and feelings) were discussed by participants. However, the detail of adolescents’ accounts suggests that the same young person could experience a range of feelings and behaviors both externalizing and internalizing. There were also features of PTSD in some adolescents’ accounts such as experiences of nightmares and flashbacks.

This study also found many examples that suggest that adolescents are active makers of meaning about their experience and that these meanings can be influenced by others and later experiences, for example, by the school environment. Adolescents in this study developed active understanding about the violence and violence in general (e.g., violence as a way of resolving conflict). They also tried to look for patterns and cause and effect in the violence (e.g., being associated with alcohol). They also looked for aspects in themselves that would have caused the violence (e.g., blaming their behavior or their own disability for the violence).

These adolescents’ narratives suggest that theories that outline the importance of studying adolescents’ own appraisals of their experiences to understand subsequent emotional difficulties are validated by adolescents’ own accounts. In keeping with Grych and Fincham’s model described above, there is evidence that self-blame is one of the ways that young people try and make sense of the DV they have experienced, and that this is likely to be associated with subsequent emotional problems particularly internalizing problems. Both Craig and Rebecca presented with mental health symptoms associated with self-punishment (eating disorder and self-harm and both had attempted suicide).

As well as self-blame, the young people also at times blamed their mothers or tried to understand their father’s behavior by looking at his past. Different forms of blame might be equally problematic. For example, self-blame may allow an adolescent to be able to form positive relationships with the nonviolent parent (which can be a protective factor), but he or she may develop problems with self-worth as a result, whereas blaming a parent may be better for the young person’s sense of self, but affect his or her relationship with parents in the future. Finding reasons for a violent parent’s behavior may be helpful in some circumstances, but may result in legitimate feelings of anger being suppressed which may result in later adjustment problems.

One example of meaning making is shown by Janoff-Bulman (1979), whose research suggests that when a victim of trauma attributes responsibility for the trauma on an aspect of himself or herself that cannot be changed (characterological self-blame) they are most likely to experience difficult emotions. This was the case for Craig who partly blamed the violence on his (physical) condition, which could not be changed. The participants generally demonstrated over time and development, a shift from self to other blame (see, for example, quote from Anne [p. 4, l. 202]) which then seemed associated with better adjustment. This developmental move suggests perhaps that some adolescents may be able to take a more depersonalized approach as they get older and encounter a range of different views and experiences.

In terms of ideas around growth following trauma, most of the participants talked about some of the more positive aspects for their development that the experience of DV had created in shaping who they had become, which is again consistent with previous research (Calhoun & Tedeschi, 2006). Some of the narratives brought by the adolescents were consistent with the broad themes posited by Calhoun and Tedeschi for growth: namely, “outlook on life,” “experience of relationship” with others, and “perception of self.” A review of studies on PTG and adult survivors of DV suggested that qualitative studies elicited themes which also broadly fell in these areas (Elderton, Berry, & Chan, 2017). However, adults’ accounts, according to the review, showed a greater range of the subthemes of PTG. For example, the adolescents in this study did not discuss the theme of helping others, taking up activist roles, or the role of faith in their lives. These differences might reflect the age of the participants and cultural differences in a U.K. population (most studies reviewed were from the United States). Clearly, however, as with adults, the role of experiences in shaping the life narrative of adolescents suggests that self-reliance and strength can be gained through the process of coping with DV and that being distressed about events does not preclude some emotional growth and change. This positive meaning making, however, has to be viewed in the context of all participants having severe enough health needs to require the care of a mental health team. Therefore, their attempts at reinterpreting their experiences may be in the early stages of understanding.

In thinking about PTG, one important area is that of rumination about experiences. In a review of constructive versus unconstructive repetitive thought, Watkins (2008) identified key components that might distinguish repetitive thoughts that are helpful to mood and behavior to those that are unhelpful. He identifies aspects of the thoughts which might result in poor outcomes (depression, anxiety, and physical health problems) with those that might result in more positive outcomes (successful processing of stress, loss and trauma; adaptive preparation and planning; recovery from depression; increase in health promoting behaviors). Watkins reviewed research in the area and concludes that several aspects of repetitive thought are associated with or predictive of the impact of that thought. For example, valance of the thought (e.g., optimistic or pessimistic content) and the construal of the thought (if it is related to high level abstract concepts such as laziness, or more concrete concepts such as tiredness) will have different impacts—with high level abstract constructs having the worst impacts on emotions. Watkins concludes that the best theoretical explanation of the interaction between variables affecting the outcome of repetitive thought is an expanded version of Control Theory (e.g., Carver & Scheier, 1982). This theory posits that individuals are constantly evaluating their behavior (including thoughts) with their own set of goals and beliefs. When there is a discrepancy between a goal and belief, repetitive thought might be triggered to facilitate progress toward an unresolved goal. Watkins expands the theory to consider, for example, why a focus on abstract versus concrete goals may have different outcomes depending on the valance of the thought.

The accounts that the adolescents gave showed examples of different types of valance in the thoughts they had about the DV and their eventual goal of being safe. For example, “Some ways I think well he ruined that part of my life but he’s not going to ruin this part” (Rebecca, p. 8, l. 416) in comparison with “it was my fault because of my condition” (Craig, p. 17, l. 886). There was also some evidence of contrast between abstract and more concrete goal settings: for example, “get on with your life. Don’t let your past destroy you” (Anne, p. 16, l. 871) contrasting with “When I have a kid . . . I’d take him out more and be there for him” (Carl, p. 14, 1. 711). These differences in wishes for the future, suggest that there are naturally occurring differences in valances in adolescents’ accounts which might be explored and developed further in helping young people process their experiences in a way that allows them to move on with their lives in more positive ways.

Clinical Implications

The research generated some clinical implications and dilemmas for clinicians. These implications are explored below.

Given the chronic fear and confusion that these adolescents have experienced, interventions will need to strive to promote the young person’s feelings of safety and security. In addition, predictability and clear boundaries should be particularly attended to when working with these adolescents so as not to replicate their often chaotic home lives. A problem with mental health services in the United Kingdom is that services are often configured around “pathways” which are largely related to a particular diagnosis. The adolescents in this study showed symptoms which would have fallen under a number of different diagnoses (e.g., anxiety, depression, PTSD, aggressive behavior) and are likely therefore to need services that take on a more holistic understanding of how DV can affect a number of different developmental areas.

The growing literature on interventions for these adolescents, as well as that on resilience and risk factors (e.g., Martinez-Torteya et al., 2009) suggest that family approaches are an important area for intervention. Interventions that target both the primary caregiver as well as the young person are seen to be most effective (e.g., Chamberlain, 2014). However, some of the adolescents in this study seemed to take on carer/parentified roles with younger siblings or even with their mothers which may in fact have increased their resilience, and working with these learned family structures in adolescence is likely to need specialist family therapy interventions.

In terms of individual work, an understanding of the nature of the adolescents’ meaning making within existing theory would suggest that some types of rumination/repetitive thoughts are more helpful than others. For example, attention should be made to the valance of the thought in adolescents as well as the types of goals the adolescents are bringing to therapy. Where there is depressive valance, Watkins (2008) review suggested that more attention should be paid to concrete and specific goals, or if the goals are unattainable then adolescents should be helped to abandon them. For example, a young person who attempts to stop the violence by trying to be “compliant” as Rebecca did in this study is likely to fail and might need to adopt another goal of keeping themselves out of the way if violence starts. However, the work on PTG suggests that positive valence might be related to higher more abstract thoughts such as recognizing a new personal strength, or a different quality of relationship with others and so these types of valence should be explored and encouraged where they exist.

The current findings also indicate that participants were experiencing symptoms consistent with trauma, and therefore models developed to treat trauma responses and/or PTSD may be useful. The overarching goal may be to help the young person integrate their experiences in an adaptive manner and for therapists to work with the young person to manage their symptoms. Therapeutic models, such as specially adapted Trauma Focused Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, have shown improvements in arousal and avoidance symptoms of PTSD even when adolescents are still experiencing DV (Cohen, Mannarino, & Iyengar, 2011, Murray, Cohen, & Mannarino, 2013). This summary of projects in the United States show that positive work can be carried out even when DV is still present in the families by working closely with the nonabusive parent as well as the young person, by having clear safety plans, and by helping adolescents not overgeneralize their fears from specific incidents to generalized anxiety. The young people in this article were no longer experiencing DV, but our clinical experience of the NHS in the United Kingdom is that adolescents are often rejected for psychological work on the grounds that they need to be made safe before treatment can start. However, this may never happen for some adolescents and therefore more focus needs to be put on treatment options for adolescents and families still living trauma saturated lives.

Research Implications

This study raises a number of questions that could be addressed in future research.

The applicability of the findings to other adolescents who have been exposed to DV could be established using quantitative methodology, especially in relation to nonclinical samples and with a range of different cultural and ethnic groups. Sumter (2006), among others, explores the problems with providing services which are based on the needs of a dominant culture and do not take into account that minority cultures may have different experiences and beliefs which mean that they may differ in how and for what they seek help.

Following from Grych et al.’s (2000) study of mediating variables that might affect outcome, this study suggested that young people may take a range of “blame” positions to make sense of DV. Two types of blame that would be interesting to follow through with larger numbers is blaming the victim (usually the mother) for the violence, and the other is finding reasons to understand the perpetrator’s violence that remove some blame (e.g., in understanding their father’s behavior because of a difficult childhood). Grych and Fincham’s model would suggest that these types of blame (by not being self-blame) may be less associated with internalizing problems. However, these other types of blame may be linked to problems with maintaining family relationships, which otherwise might be a protective factor (Graham-Bermann et al., 2006). A deeper exploration of different types of blame therefore might link two different types of research—that on self-blame and that on relationships with nonviolent parents being a protective factor.

The research on the possibility of PTG in adolescents is often limited in the context of trauma experienced by a young person within a safe home environment (e.g., Salter & Stallard, 2004). All the adolescents in this study were not experiencing DV at the time of the interviews and therefore further research should explore if it is still possible to develop PTG narratives when adolescents are still experiencing the trauma of DV. Equally, Tedeschi and Calhoun (2004) described trauma as a major life crises which challenge individual’s assumptions about the world (e.g., that they are safe or that generally people are good). Some of these participants grew up in a violent world and seemed to have developed different world assumptions (such as violence being normal). Although there were clear symptoms of PTSD articulated among the participants, they also presented in ways that evoked the idea of “developmental trauma.” For example, Van der kolk and colleagues in a review of the literature (D’Andrea, Stolbach, Ford, Spinazzola, & van der Kolk, 2012) suggest that adolescents with a history of interpersonal abuse have a distorted sense of control, negative cognitive styles, and distorted attributions about themselves (all symptoms that were suggested in the young peoples’ accounts in this research). It is likely that adolescents who have experienced DV from an early age have assumptions about the world that are distorted from the start and the road to recovery may take a different path from those who had a reasonably safe childhood which later gets disrupted by DV. The small sample size in this research did not allow for comparisons, but studies with larger samples could compare positive growth trajectory between groups.

Further research needs to also focus on some of the hypotheses presented by Watkins (2008) and its relation to DV. For example, longitudinal studies could explore whether adolescents’ goals and desires change with time from more abstract to more concrete goals and if this change relates to greater recovery. The young people in this study were interviewed at one time point, and although they did talk about different thoughts and ideas retrospectively, it would have been helpful to explore changes in appraisals over time by offering in-depth interviews at different time points. In addition, it would be important to interview adolescents from a variety of cultures to explore the nature of their understanding of DV and how this understanding might differ between cultures. For example, one participant (Carl) from a working class background had developed an understanding of violence as being acceptable as a strategy (e.g., his grandfather being violent to stop the DV). However, he still felt that violence against female partners was totally unacceptable. Research with a more diverse population could explore young people’s experience and understanding of violence and if this ethical stance against DV was true across cultures even when violence is more the cultural norm than it was for the young people in this study.

Conclusion

This study has shown that these adolescents who have experienced DV were able to talk in depth about what they have understood of their life events, and were able to reflect in a meaningful manner about their experiences. This depth allows clinicians and researchers to begin to use real clinical data to appraise ways of working with adolescents who have experienced DV, and to consider the usefulness of different theoretical models related to trauma, appraisal of trauma, and growth from trauma which in turn will increase our understanding of the needs and ways of helping more adolescents who have a history of these difficult experiences.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the young people who took part in this study for their time, thoughtfulness and honesty, and the clinicians who made it possible for them to participate. We would also like to thank Hitesh Ravel for additional support in the study design and data analysis.

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

Jo Chester is a clinical psychologist who has worked for several years within Child Mental Health services. She currently works in a school for young people with social, emotional, and behavioral difficulties. Her research interests include the development of resilience in relation to previous trauma, and how schools can promote good mental health.

Trish Joscelyne is a clinical and academic tutor on a training program for clinical psychologists at Canterbury Christ Church University. She previously worked within child and adolescent mental health. Her research interests include posttraumatic growth and trauma, and discourses around common mental health issues found in young people. Having previously worked as a primary schoolteacher, she also has an interest in the schools’ roles in promoting good mental health.

References

Abrahams

(1994). The hidden victims - children and domestic violence. London, England: NCH Action for Children.

Achenbach

T.M.

Edelbrock

C.S.

(1991). Manual for the child behaviour checklist and revised child behavior profile. Burlington: University of Vermont.

Bennett

(1991). Adolescent girls experience of witnessing marital violence: A phenomenological study. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 16, 431-438.

Calhoun

L. G.

Tedeschi

R. G.

(2006). The foundations of posttraumatic growth: An expanded framework. In Calhoun

L. G.

Tedeschi

R. G.

(Eds.), Handbook of posttraumatic growth: Research and practice (pp. 3-23). Routledge, New York.

Carver

C. S.

Scheier

M. F.

(1982). Control theory: A useful conceptual framework for personality-social, clinical and health psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 111-113.

Chamberlain

(2014). Comprehensive review of interventions for children exposed to domestic violence. Retrieved from http://promising.futureswithoutviolence.org/files/2012/01/Comprehensive-Review-of-Interventions-for-Children-Exposed-to-Domestic-Violence-FINAL.pdf

Cohen

Mannarino

A. P.

Iyengar

(2011). Community treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder for children exposed to intimate partner violence: A randomized controlled trial. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 165, 16-21. doi:10.1001/archpediatrics.2010.247

Cui

Fincham

F. D.

(2010). The differential effects of parental divorce and marital conflict on young adult romantic relationships. Personal Relationships, 17, 331-343. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2010.01279.x

Cummings

E. M.

Davies

P. T.

Simpson

K. S.

(1994). Marital conflict, gender, and children’s appraisals and coping efficacy as mediators of child adjustment. Journal of Family Psychology, 8, 141-149.

10.

Cunningham

Baker

(2004). What about me: Seeking to understand a child’s view of violence in the family. London, Ontario, Canada: Centre for Children and Families in the Justice System.

11.

D’Andrea

Stolbach

Ford

Spinazzola

van der Kolk

B. A.

(2012). Understanding interpersonal trauma in children: Why we need a developmentally appropriate trauma diagnosis. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 82, 187-200. doi:10.1111/j.1939-0025.2012.01154

12.

Edleson

J. L.

(1999). Children’s witnessing of adult domestic violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14, 839-870.

13.

Elderton

Berry

Chan

(2017). A systematic review of posttraumatic growth in survivors of interpersonal violence in adulthood. Trauma, Violence and Abuse, 18, 223-236. doi:10.1177/1524838015611672

14.

Elliott

Fischer

C. T.

Rennie

(1999). Evolving guidelines for publication of qualitative research studies in psychology and related fields. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38, 215-229.

15.

Epstein

Keep

(1995). What children tell Childline about domestic violence. In Saunders

Epstein

Keep

Debbonaire

(Eds.), It hurts me too: Children’s experience of domestic violence and refuge life (pp 43-57). Bristol, UK: WAFE/Childline/NISW.

16.

Ericksen

J. R.

Henderson

A. D.

(1992). Witnessing family violence: The children’s experience. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 17, 1200-1209.

17.

Evans

S. E.

Davies

DiLillo

(2008). Exposure to domestic violence: A meta-analysis of child and adolescent outcomes. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 13, 131-140. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2008.02.005

18.

Gewirtz

A. H.

Edleson

J. L.

(2007). Young children’s exposure to intimate partner violence: Towards a developmental risk and resilience framework for research and intervention. Journal of Family Violence, 22, 151-163. doi:10.1007/s10896-007-9065-3

19.

Graham-Bermann

S. A.

DeVoe

E. R.

Mattis

J. S.

Lynch

Thomas

S. A.

(2006). Ecological predictors of traumatic stress symptoms in Caucasian and ethnic minority children exposed to intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women, 12, 663-692.

20.

Graue

Walsh

(1998). Studying children in context: Theories, methods and ethics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

21.

Grych

J. H.

Fincham

F. D.

(1990). Marital conflict and children’s adjustment: A cognitive-contextual framework. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 267-290.

22.

Grych

J. H.

Fincham

F. D

Jouriles

E. N

McDonald

(2000). Interparental conflict and child adjustment: Testing the mediational role of appraisals in the cognitive-contextual framework. Child Development, 71, 1648-1661. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1132505

23.

Guille

(2004). Men who batter and their children an integrated review. Aggression and Violent Behaviour, 9, 129-163. doi:10.1016/S1359-1789(02)00119-2

24.

Hague

Mullender

Kelley

Imam

Malos

(2002). How do children cope with domestic violence? Practice, 14(1), 18-25.

25.

Harold

G. T.

Aitkin

J. J.

Shelton

K. H.

(2007). Inter-parental conflict and children’s academic attainment: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 48, 1223-1232.

26.

Holt

Buckley

Whelan

(2008). The impact of exposure to domestic violence on children and young people: A review of the literature. Child Abuse & Neglect, 32, 797-810.

27.

Janoff-Bulman

(1979). Characterological versus behavioral self-blame: Inquiries into depression and rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1798-1809.

28.

Kim

K. L.

Jackson

Hunter

H. L.

Conrad

S. M.

(2009). Interparental conflict and adolescent dating relationships. The role of perceived threat and self-blame appraisals. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24, 844-865. Available from http://jiv.sagepub.com

29.

Kitzmann

K. M.

Gaylord

N. K.

Holt

A. R.

Kenny

E. K.

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

30.

Lundy

Grossman

S. F.

(2005). The mental health and service needs of young children exposed to domestic violence: Supportive data. Families in Society, 86, 17-29.

31.

Madill

Jordon

Shirley

(2000). Objectivity and reliability in qualitative analysis: Realist, contextualist and radical constructionist epistemologies. British Journal of Psychology, 91, 1-20.

32.

Martinez-Torteya

Bogat

Von Eye

Levendosky

(2009). Resilience among children exposed to domestic violence: The role of risk and protective factors. Child Development, 80, 562-577. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/29738634

33.

Mayerson

D. A.

Grant

K. E.

Smith Carter

Kilmer

R. P.

(2011). Posttraumatic growth among children and adolescents: A systematic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 31, 949-964. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2011.06.003

34.

Mays

Pope

(2000). Assessing quality in qualitative research. British Medical Journal, 320, 50-52.

35.

McGee

(2000). Childhood experiences of domestic violence. London, UK: Jessica Kingsley.

36.

Murray

L. K.

Cohen

J. A.

Mannarino

A. P.

(2013). Trauma-focused cognitive behavioural therapy for youth who experience continuous traumatic exposure. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 19, 180-195. doi:10.1037/a0032533

37.

Office for National Statistics. (2017). Domestic abuse in England and Wales: Year ending March 2017. Retrieved from https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/domesticabuseinenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2017

38.

Osborn

Smith

J. A.

(2008). The fearfulness of chronic pain and the centrality of the therapeutic relationship in containing it: An interpretative phenomenological analysis. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 5, 276-288.

39.

Radford

Corral

Bradley

Fisher

H. L.

Bassett

Howat

Collishaw

(2011). Child abuse and neglect in the UK today: Research into the prevalence of child maltreatment in the UK. Retrieved from https://www.nspcc.org.uk/services-and-resources/research-and-resources/pre-2013/child-abuse-and-neglect-in-the-uk-today/

40.

Rossman

B. B. R.

(1998). Descartes’ error and post-traumatic stress disorder: Cognition and emotion in children who are exposed to parental violence. In Holden

G. W.

Geffner

Jouriles

E. N.

(Eds.), Children exposed to marital violence. Washington, DC: American Psychological Society.

41.

Salter

Stallard

(2004). Posttraumatic growth in child survivors of a road traffic accident. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 17, 335-340.

42.

Smith

J. A.

(1995). Semi-structured Interviewing and Qualitative Analysis. In Smith

Harre

Langenhove

(Eds.), Rethinking methods in psychology (pp 9-26). London, England: Sage.

43.

Smith

J. A.

(2004). Reflecting on the development of interpretative phenomenological analysis and its contribution to qualitative research in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 1, 39-54.

44.

Smith

J. A.

Flowers

Larkin

(2009). Interpretative phenomenological analysis: Theory, method and research. London, UK: Sage.

45.

Smith

J. A.

Jarman

Osborne

(1999). Doing interpretative phenomenological analysis. In Murray

Chamberlain

(Eds.), Qualitative health psychology (pp 218-241). London, England: Sage.

46.

Stark

Flitcraft

(1996). Women at risk: Domestic violence & women’s health. London, England: Sage.

47.

Sternberg

K. J.

Lamb

M. E.

Guterman

Abbott

C. B.

(2006). Effects of early and later family violence on children’s behavior problems and depression: A longitudinal multi-informant perspective. Child Abuse and Neglect, 30, 283-306. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2005.10.008

48.

Stockton

Hunt

Joseph

(2011). Cognitive processing, rumination and posttraumatic growth. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 24, 85-92.

49.

Sumter

(2006). Domestic violence and diversity: A call for multicultural services. Journal of Health and Human Services Administration, 29, 173-190.

50.

Tedeschi

R. G.

Calhoun

L. G.

(2004). Posttraumatic growth: Conceptual foundations and empirical evidence. Psychological Inquiry, 15, 1-18.

51.

Watkins

E. R.

(2008). Constructive and unconstructive repetitive thought. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 163-206. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.134.2.163