Does Emotion Regulation Mediate the Relation Between Family-of-Origin Violence and Intimate Partner Violence?

Abstract

Family-of-origin violence (FOV), including child maltreatment and exposure to interparental violence during childhood, is frequently cited as a risk factor for intimate partner violence (IPV) in adulthood. Emotion regulation (ER) difficulties have been linked to FOV and to IPV, but research has not identified the role of ER as a mechanism by which past exposure to FOV predicts current IPV. The current study examines whether greater FOV predicts ER difficulties, whether these difficulties can explain/mediate the relationship between FOV and IPV, and whether the process differs according to the gender of parent–child dyads. Emerging adult participants (475 women, 145 men) aged 18 to 30 years, who were in a current romantic relationship lasting at least 3 months, completed measures of past FOV, current difficulties in ER, and IPV perpetrated and experienced in current intimate relationships. ER difficulties mediated the relationship between FOV and current IPV; however, differences among specific types of FOV and gender were noted. Results support an intergenerational transmission of family violence and suggest that parent–child gender dyads influence this process.

Keywords

emotion regulation family violence interparental violence intimate partner violence emerging adults intergenerational transmission

Intimate partner violence (IPV) includes physical, sexual, or psychological aggression or coercion used to gain control or compliance over an intimate partner (Breiding, Basile, Smith, Black, & Mahendra, 2015). Substantial numbers of young adults have experienced some form of IPV, but prevalence estimates vary depending on type of abuse, prevalence time period, and whether questions refer to current or prior relationships. A recent systematic review of IPV among youth and young adults aged 15 to 30 years noted prevalence rates ranging from 6% and 9% for boys and girls, respectively, to 21.8% and 37.2% for young men and women, respectively (Jennings et al., 2017). Notably, IPV is most commonly reported by women aged 18 to 24 years (Catalano, 2012; Truman & Morgan, 2015). Based on crime statistics, IPV typically involves men perpetrating against women (Dobash, Dobash, Cavanagh, & Lewis, 2004). At the same time, some research suggests that men report experiencing significant IPV (Breet, Seedat, & Kagee, 2019) and that the number of men and women who perpetrate IPV are comparable (Allen, Swan, & Raghavan, 2009).

Those who experience IPV are at a higher risk for physical harm as well as poor mental health outcomes such as anxiety, depression, self-esteem deficits, and posttraumatic stress disorder (Coker et al., 2002; La Flair, Bradshaw, Mendelson, & Campbell, 2015). Despite some studies finding similar rates of women and men who perpetrate IPV, physical injury and other negative outcomes affect women predominantly (Archer, 2000; Frieze, 2005). In addition to the immediate effects of IPV-related injuries, physical and mental health conditions associated with IPV are associated with greater health care utilization and costs (Bonomi, Anderson, Rivara, & Thompson, 2009; Sterling et al., 2018).

In light of these harmful consequences, research has sought to identify factors related to violence perpetration and victimization, including exposure to family-of-origin violence (FOV) and emotion regulation (ER) difficulties. Although the relationships among these variables have been investigated, the process by which they work has received less attention. Moreover, gender effects (i.e., comparing mothers and fathers as well as sons and daughters) must be considered, especially given the varying prevalence of IPV based on gender. For example, some studies find men and women report similar rates of physical and psychological victimization (Breet et al., 2019; Harned, 2002), whereas other studies find men report higher victimization rates (Cercone, Beach, & Arias, 2005; Foshee et al., 1996) and lower perpetration rates (Gover, Kaukinen, & Fox, 2008; Luthra & Gidycz, 2006). Thus, the current study examined how ER mediates the relationship between FOV and IPV while considering gender effects.

FOV

A frequently cited contributor of IPV is FOV, including exposure to child maltreatment (Gover et al., 2008) and witnessing parental IPV (Elmquist et al., 2016; Grych & Kinsfogel, 2010). Often referred to as the intergenerational transmission of family violence, the strength of this relationship and the mechanism by which it operates is yet unclear, with some finding a strong link and others suggesting a weak-to-moderate association. For example, when examining a sample of adult male perpetrators of IPV, a strong association has been found between childhood exposure to FOV and both the frequency and intensity of IPV in adulthood (Murrell, Christoff, & Henning, 2007). Furthermore, a moderate association has been found between FOV and IPV when examining emerging adults (Black, Sussman, & Unger, 2010; Paat & Markham, 2019). Given the variable relationship between FOV and IPV, research has turned to identifying the multiple factors that impact the risk of subsequent IPV.

Gender differences have been noted in studies of the intergenerational transmission of violence, with stronger effects for males than for females (Lackey, 2003; Stith et al., 2000). In a nationally representative prospective sample, exposure to family violence predicted IPV perpetrated by adolescent and young adult men, but not women (Lackey, 2003). Similarly, receiving harsh parenting (i.e., scolding, hitting, humiliating) from fathers in particular was a stronger predictor of ER difficulties and aggression for sons than for daughters (Chang, Schwartz, Dodge, & McBride-Chang, 2003). Although some theorists attribute such gender differences to social learning and same-sex modeling (Bandura & Walters, 1959), these gender differences are not always found (Kwong, Bartholomew, Henderson, & Trinke, 2003) and other researchers propose mechanisms that are not gender specific.

A theoretical framework proposed to explain the impact of FOV on children’s adjustment involves emotional security theory, stating that witnessing interparental conflict and anger threatens children’s emotional security, a self-regulatory process associated with adjustment (Cummings & Davies, 1996; Davies & Cummings, 1994). Emotional security theory has been reformulated (EST-R; Davies & Martin, 2014) to clarify the role of the social defense system, which consists of integrated affective, physiological, and information-processing mechanisms that work together to defuse and defend against threats posed by hostile individuals in the social group. Given the cost throughout history of within-group conflict (e.g., death or exile), a fitness advantage was gained by individuals who could (a) identify efficiently the social cues that could threaten aggression and (b) respond to minimize or defuse the threat to group survival. Self-protective strategies organized by the social defense system include fear, fight or flight behaviors (e.g., avoidance, aggression), camouflaging (e.g., inhibiting overt emotions), de-escalation (e.g., pacifying the parent), and heightened vigilance for threatening cues (Davies & Martin, 2014). These strategies overlap with the construct of ER.

Emotion Regulation

Children develop the ability to understand and express their emotions in a regulated way through their interactions with others, beginning with the parent–child relationship (Buckholdt, Parra, & Jobe-Shields, 2014). According to attachment theory, children develop a healthy/secure bond to their primary attachment figure (e.g., parent) following a consistent pattern of having their needs met (Bowlby, 1983). The attachment system prompts the securely attached child to seek support from the parent, who then serves as a secure base or external regulator, over time helping children to develop their own ER abilities (Brumariu, 2015). Indeed, difficulties with ER have been found to mediate the relationship between children’s exposure to family violence and their development of internalizing (e.g., depression, anxiety) and externalizing (e.g., aggression) symptoms (Harding, Morelen, Thomassin, Bradbury, & Shaffer, 2013). Difficulties with ER also have been associated with dating violence perpetration by male and female college students (Shorey, Brasfield, Febres, & Stuart, 2011).

Gender differences have been noted in the use of ER strategies and subsequent difficulties (Bender, Reinholdt-Dunne, Esbjørn, & Pons, 2012; Gross & John, 2003; McRae, Ochsner, Mauss, Gabrieli, & Gross, 2008; Nolen-Hoeksema & Aldao, 2011). In childhood and adolescence, girls reported more overall difficulties in ER, less emotional clarity, greater nonacceptance of negative emotions, and less access to effective ER strategies (Bender et al., 2012). Gender differences in adulthood are less clear. Women have been found to use more ER strategies, both adaptive and maladaptive ones, but use of suppression (a maladaptive strategy associated with greater negative emotion) increases with age for women but not men, even after controlling for gender differences in depressive symptoms (Nolen-Hoeksema & Aldao, 2011). Among four undergraduate samples, however, men were consistently found to use suppression significantly more often than women (Gross & John, 2003).

The Current Study

Overall, research noted above has linked difficulties with attachment and family of origin to difficulties involving both ER and IPV, and difficulties with ER have been linked to internalizing and externalizing problems as well as IPV. However, prior research does not appear to have examined the mediating role of ER in the relationship between FOV and IPV. Furthermore, gender differences among these relationships must be examined given research demonstrating differential effects based on gender. Also, as noted above, IPV is most commonly reported by women aged 18 to 24, suggesting that studying IPV in emerging adults may be especially important for understanding factors that influence IPV, such as FOV and ER.

Building from prior research, Hypothesis 1 stated that the variables examined all would be correlated. Specifically, it was predicted that greater levels of FOV, both interparental and parent–child, would predict greater levels of perpetrated and experienced IPV as well as greater difficulties with ER. Hypothesis 2 stated that difficulties with ER would mediate the relationship between FOV, both interparental and parent–child, and IPV. Hypothesis 3 stated that gender would moderate the mediational process (i.e., moderated mediation), such that the relationship between FOV and ER difficulties as well as ER and IPV would be stronger for males than females.

Method

Participants

The sample (N = 620; 475 female, 145 male) consisted of emerging adults aged 18 to 30 years (M = 19.50, SD = 1.59) who were attending a large Southern university. Inclusion criteria involved being in an intimate relationship, and all participants reported being in an intimate relationship lasting between 3 months and 8 years, with the majority of participants reporting being in an intimate relationship for 1 year (29.8%), 2 years (17.4%), or 3 years (7.8%). The majority of participants described their relationship status as dating but living apart (87.1%), with others stating they were living together (5.9%), engaged (4.3%), or married (0.3%). Participants identified their race as Caucasian (72.3%), African American (25.6%), Hispanic (1.8%), Asian (2.2%), American Indian/Alaska Native (1.3%), Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (0.8%), or Other (0.8%).

Measures

FOV

FOV was assessed by measuring interparental conflict using the Conflict Tactics Scale-2 (CTS2; Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996) as well as parent–child conflict using the Parent–Child Conflict Tactics Scale (CTSPC; Straus, Hamby, Finkelhor, Moore, & Runyan, 1997) from emerging adults’ perspectives based on the year with the most conflict. The CTS2 contains 39 items measuring conflict perpetrated by mothers against fathers (i.e., maternal scale) as well as fathers against mothers (i.e., paternal scale) with subscales including psychological aggression (e.g., my father insulted or swore at my mother), assault (e.g., my mother pushed or shoved my father), and injury (e.g., my mother had a broken bone from a fight with my father). Good psychometrics have been established for the CTS2 (Straus et al., 1996) and internal consistencies ranged from .74 to .93 in the current study. The CTSPC contains 22 items measuring conflict perpetrated by mothers and fathers against participants with subscales including psychological aggression (e.g., shouted, yelled, or screamed at you), minor assault (e.g., slapped you on the hand, arm, or leg), severe assault (e.g., hit you with a fist or kicked you hard), and very severe assault (e.g., grabbed you around the neck and choked you). Good psychometrics have been established (Straus et al., 1997) and internal consistencies ranged from .79 to .86 in the current study.

ER

ER was assessed using the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation (DERS; Gratz & Roemer, 2004) from emerging adults’ current perspectives. The DERS is a 36-item questionnaire that measures difficulties with ER with subscales including nonacceptance (e.g., when I’m upset, I feel guilty for feeling that way), goal-directed behavior (e.g., when I’m upset, I can still get things done), impulsivity (e.g., when I’m upset, I lose control over my behaviors), strategy (e.g., when I’m upset, I believe that I’ll end up feeling very depressed), and clarity (e.g., I have difficulty making sense out of my feelings). Good psychometrics have been established (Gratz & Roemer, 2004) and internal consistencies ranged from .81 to .93 in the current study.

IPV

IPV was assessed using the Abuse Within Intimate Relationships Scales (AIRS; (Borjesson, Dunn, & Aarons, 2003) from emerging adults’ perspectives based on their current relationship. The AIRS contains 26 items measuring violence perpetrated by participants as well as violence perpetrated by participants’ partners with subscales including emotional abuse (e.g., I have mocked my partner), deception (e.g., my partner has betrayed me), verbal abuse (e.g., I have blamed my partner for uncontrollable things), overt violence (e.g., I have pushed my partner), and restrictive violence (e.g., my partner has grabbed me roughly). Good psychometrics have been established (Borjesson et al., 2003) and internal consistencies ranged from .73 to .92 in the current study.

Procedure

Upon approval by the university institutional review board (IRB), the questionnaires above were posted to Qualtrics, an online survey hosting system. Participants were recruited through the university’s online system for research participation (called Sona), where students log in to complete screening questions that are generated by the criteria for all active studies and then can opt to participate in any study for which they qualify. The screening questions for the current study asked about (a) relationship status and (b) duration of romantic relationship. After completing the screening questions for all active studies, only those who endorsed being in a romantic relationship that had lasted for 3 months or more were able to see the link to this study and select it among others on their screen. Participants who selected this study read about the study through the online system, provided informed consent, and completed the measures described above in random order. Given the sensitive nature of the study questions and to encourage honest responses, participants were able to provide consent by clicking the appropriate checkbox on the screen, without providing their names.

As stated above, participants completed measures about FOV regarding the most conflictual year they could recall and completed measures about maternal conflict perpetrated against father, paternal conflict perpetrated against mother, and maternal and paternal conflict perpetrated against participant. Participants also completed measures about ER based on current perceptions and completed measures about IPV based on their current romantic relationship. Upon completion of the study, participants were provided with a debriefing form and routed to a page thanking them for participating and triggering an automated notice to Sona that contains no participant responses but adds a point to participants’ Sona account that they can assign to any course that grants credit for research participation.

Measurement Model Specification and Planned Analyses

Structural equation modeling (SEM) was conducted using AMOS 24.0 (Arbuckle, 2014). Latent variables included maternal and paternal variables including interparental conflict and parent–child conflict as well as participant variables including ER, IPV perpetrated by participant, and IPV perpetrated by partner. Interparental conflict was indicated by the CTS2 using the negotiation, psychological aggression, assault, and injury subscales. Parent–child conflict was indicated by the CTSPC using the nonviolent discipline, psychological aggression, minor assault, severe assault, and very severe assault subscales. ER was indicated by the DERS using the nonacceptance, goal-directed behavior, impulsivity, strategy, awareness, and clarity subscales. IPV perpetrated by partner and participant were indicated by the AIRS using the emotional abuse, deception, verbal abuse, overt violence, and restrictive violence subscales.

For the purposes of SEM, a sample size of 621 is considered good (Kline, 2015). The maximum likelihood method of covariance structure analysis was used. Hu and Bentler’s (1999) model fit criteria were used where comparative fit index (CFI) > .90 or .95, standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) < .10 or .08, and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) < .08 or .06 indicate acceptable and good fit, respectively. Similar to other research, a two-stage modeling approach was taken (Barry & Stewart, 1997). First, a measurement model that allowed all constructs to correlate freely was evaluated. Next, a structural model designed to test relationships among constructs was conducted. This approach decreases the possibility that relationships among constructs will be misinterpreted due to poor construct measurement (Barry & Stewart, 1997).

Examination of the model as specified above revealed several indicators that did not relate clearly to their construct (i.e., factor loadings <.20). Thus, these indicators were deleted from future analyses and included CTS2 negotiation (loading onto interparental conflict), CTSPC nonviolent discipline (loading onto parent–child conflict), and DERS awareness (loading onto ER). The resulting model achieved good model fit and high factor loadings as shown in Table 1. Correlations among latent constructs found in the measurement model are shown in Table 2 and were used to examine Hypothesis 1.

Table 1.

Measurement Model Factor Loadings.

	Male		Female
	Maternal	Paternal	Maternal	Paternal
Interparental conflict
CTS2 Psychological Aggression	.61	.73	.55	.55
CTS2 Assault	.98	.94	.99	.94
CTS2 Injury	.91	.97	.62	.77
Parent–child conflict
CTSPC Psychological Aggression	.56	.36	.35	.44
CTSPC Minor Assault	.62	.44	.52	.46
CTSPC Severe Assault	.98	.82	.97	.99
CTSPC Very Severe Assault	.84	.99	.71	.85
	Self		Self
Emotion regulation
DERS Nonacceptance	.70		.76
DERS Goal-Directed Behavior	.59		.65
DERS Impulsivity	.78		.81
DERS Strategy	.91		.93
DERS Clarity	.60		.55
	Participant	Partner	Participant	Partner
Romantic violence
AIRS Emotional Abuse	.58	.58	.57	.59
AIRS Deception	.64	.74	.75	.72
AIRS Verbal Abuse	.71	.63	.63	.68
AIRS Overt Violence	.96	.99	.94	.92
AIRS Restrictive Violence	.88	.95	.92	.94

Note. Fit indices: comparative fit index = .99, Tucker–Lewis index = .98; root mean square error of approximation = .04, and standardized root mean square residual = .05. CTS = conflict tactics scale; CTSPC = Parent–Child Conflict Tactics Scale; DERS = Difficulties in Emotion Regulation; AIRS = Abuse Within Intimate Relationships Scales.

Table 2.

Correlations Among Latent Variables.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1. Maternal interparental conflict	1	.43	.29	.43	.08	.21	.20
2. Paternal interparental conflict	.79	1	.10	.13	ns	ns	ns
3. Maternal parent–child conflict	.72	.59	1	.57	.15	.31	.34
4. Paternal parent–child conflict	.81	.64	.80	1	.14	.28	.29
5. Emotional regulation	.14	.19	.13	ns	1	.27	.26
6. Romantic participant violence	.38	.27	.32	.33	.21	1	.79
7. Romantic partner violence	.32	.22	.30	.28	.22	.80	1

Note. Correlations for females appear above and correlations for males appear below the diagonal. p < .01 unless noted as ns.

Upon specifying an appropriate measurement model, a structural model was used to test Hypothesis 2 by examining mediation using indirect effects (i.e., the statistical effect of the predictor variable on the predicted variable through the mediator variable), which have been suggested by statisticians (e.g., MacKinnon, 2008; Rucker, Preacher, Tormala, & Petty, 2011) to more adequately test for mediation. Indirect effects were estimated with bootstrapping using 2,000 iterations, which is considered to be more robust than typical tests of indirect effects (Hayes, 2009).

A multiple group analysis (MGA) was used to test Hypothesis 3 by examining moderation by gender utilizing pairwise parameter comparisons, a statistical test comparing the difference between path coefficients (Byrne, 2013). This comparison produces a Z score indicating the statistical difference between groups on a particular path coefficient. This also allows for examination of moderated mediation. Moderated mediation occurs when a moderator variable interacts with a mediator variable such that the value of the indirect effect changes depending on the value of the moderator variable (Preacher, Rucker, & Hayes, 2007). This is known as a conditional indirect effect (i.e., the value of the indirect effect is conditional on the value of the moderator variable). Conditional indirect effects in mediation models such as the one presented in the current study may occur along two paths: the independent variable to mediator path and the mediator to dependent variable path.

Results

Hypothesis 1 was tested using correlations in the measurement model. As shown in Table 2 and supporting Hypothesis 1, both maternal and paternal interparental conflict was correlated positively with IPV perpetrated by participant and partner as well as ER when examining males. When examining females, similar results were found for maternal interparental conflict, but paternal interparental conflict was not correlated significantly with IPV or ER, failing to support Hypothesis 1. In other words, ratings of interparental violence by mothers and fathers were associated with sons’ higher ratings of ER difficulties, IPV perpetration, and victimization. In contrast, interparental violence by mothers, but not by fathers, was associated with daughters’ higher ratings of ER difficulties, IPV perpetration, and victimization.

Hypothesis 2 was tested using the structural model as shown in Figure 1 and was partially supported. As shown in Table 3, difficulties with ER mediated the relationship between FOV and IPV in several cases. When examining interparental conflict, paternal, but not maternal, interparental conflict had an indirect effect through ER on IPV by participant as well as partner in males only, meaning ER difficulties partially explained the link between ratings of fathers’ (not mothers’) interparental violence and sons’ higher ratings of IPV perpetration and victimization. When examining parent–child conflict, maternal and paternal parent–child conflict had an indirect effect through ER on IPV by participant as well as partner in females only, meaning ER difficulties partially explained the link between daughters’ ratings of parent–child violence behaviors (from mothers and fathers) and higher ratings of IPV perpetration and victimization for daughters (but not sons).

Figure 1.

Structural model.

Table 3.

Indirect Effects and Pairwise Parameter Comparisons.

Indirect effects	Maternal		Paternal
Indirect effects	Male	Female	Male	Female
Interparental Conflict → Emotion Regulation → Romantic Partner Violence by Participant	ns	ns	.039	ns
Interparental Conflict → Emotion Regulation → Romantic Partner Violence by Partner	ns	ns	.038	ns
Parent–Child Conflict → Emotion Regulation → Romantic Partner Violence by Participant	ns	.031	ns	.021
Parent–Child Conflict → Emotion Regulation → Romantic Partner Violence by Partner	ns	.029	ns	.019

Note. Significant pairwise parameter comparisons indicating differences in male and female paths. Paternal interparental conflict → Emotion regulation stronger for males than females, Z = 1.99, p < .05. unless indicated as ns.

Hypothesis 3 was tested by comparing male and female path coefficients along paths involved in mediation (i.e., independent variable to mediator as well as mediator to dependent variable). As shown in Table 3, males and females significantly differed when examining the paternal interparental conflict to ER path only. The male path coefficient (b = .20) was significantly stronger than the female path coefficient (b = ns), suggesting moderated mediation. That is, the indirect effect of paternal interparental conflict on IPV perpetrated by participant as well as partner is conditional on participant gender. Although other paths did not statistically differ between males and females, a qualitative analysis of the indirect effects of parent–child conflict as shown in Table 3 indicates that maternal and paternal parent–child conflict have significant indirect effects on IPV perpetrated by participant as well as partner in females, whereas these indirect effects are not significant when examining males. These results suggest that the indirect effects of maternal and paternal parent–child conflict are conditional upon participant gender (i.e., they are significant for females but not males, indicating moderated mediation).

Discussion

The current study tested a model that examined the associations among ratings of past violence in family of origin, current difficulties in ER, and IPV perpetrated and experienced in current intimate relationships; moreover, gender differences in those associations were explored. Overall, the current findings provide support for the intergenerational transmission of family violence and contribute to the literature regarding the complex nature of these relationships when taking parent–child gender dyads into account. Rather than finding that intergenerational continuity from FOV to current IPV is unconditional, ER difficulties helped explain some of the connection between FOV and IPV. Specifically, interparental violence by mothers and fathers correlated with ER difficulties and current IPV (experienced and perpetrated) as reported by sons. In contrast, daughters’ ER difficulties and current ratings of experienced and perpetrated IPV were correlated with interparental violence ratings of their mothers only. It appears that mothers’ FOV may affect both sons and daughters, but sons may be particularly sensitive to fathers’ FOV.

Notably, the current study revealed that ER difficulties mediated the relationship between FOV and current IPV, but with IPV ratings of males and females predicted by different types of FOV, suggesting that specific types of FOV and gender play important roles in this process. For females, current IPV (experienced and perpetrated) was predicted by child-directed FOV from mothers and fathers, and this relationship was mediated by ER difficulties. For males, current IPV (experienced and perpetrated) was predicted by their fathers’ interparental violence, by way of (i.e., mediated by) ER difficulties. It may be that father-to-mother aggression represents a specific risk for sons’ ER difficulties, which then predicts greater levels of IPV in sons’ current romantic relationships. Indeed, when comparing the model for males and females, the path from fathers’ interparental violence to ER difficulties was significantly stronger for sons, indicating that the indirect effect of father-to-mother FOV on current experienced and perpetrated IPV is conditional on participant gender (i.e., moderated mediation).

The current findings are consistent with prior research documenting that fathers’ aggressive behavior predicts ER difficulties and aggression more strongly for sons than for daughters (Chang et al., 2003; Lackey, 2003). This pattern of results supports the social learning model, and specifically same-sex modeling (Bandura & Walters, 1959), as a mechanism for the intergenerational transmission of domestic violence. At the same time, women’s ratings of IPV, experienced and perpetrated, in their current relationships were predicted by child-directed violence they experienced from both their mothers and fathers. It may be that although the greatest risk for sons’ ER difficulties is father-to-mother aggression, daughters’ ER difficulties arise especially from direct parent–child aggression.

Implications

Results reveal that ER difficulties play an important mediational role between FOV and IPV, and that specific forms of FOV may impact ER difficulties differentially for males and females. That sons’ ER difficulties were most impacted by father-to-mother aggression implies that sons view this type of aggression as most threatening to their emotional security, whereas child-directed aggression from either parent is particularly threatening for daughters. To the extent that parents’ use of aggression activates children’s social defense system (Cummings & Davies, 1996), they may be more likely to engage in strategies, including camouflaging/hiding overt emotions and increasing vigilance for threatening cues, that are meant to protect themselves and their social system from harm (Davies & Martin, 2014).

Both of these strategies, emotional suppression and increased vigilance for threat, are associated with maladaptive functioning (Eckhardt, Norlander, & Deffenbacher, 2004; Elmquist et al., 2016; Gross & John, 2003). Regulating emotions through suppression is associated with increased negative emotion and worse interpersonal functioning (Gross & John, 2003). Although it makes sense for children to suppress emotions in a family context that feels threatening, the extent to which emotional suppression becomes habitual is associated with decreased closeness with others, less successful mood repair, and more frequent rumination (Gross & John, 2003). Individuals who rely the most on emotional suppression (i.e., camouflaging emotions that are unsafe to express) are at the greatest disadvantage during conflict if this strategy diminishes the ability to repair negative emotions. Similarly, increased vigilance for threat is associated with hostile attribution bias that is conducive to greater relationship conflict (Eckhardt et al., 2004; Elmquist et al., 2016). Thus, what starts as a way to cope with FOV may work to increase the risk of conflict/aggression in future relationships.

The finding that mothers’ interparental violence was associated with ER difficulties and IPV for both sons and daughters highlights the important influence of mothers for both genders. It may be that mothers, to the extent that they are in the role of primary caregiver, have more shared time with which to impact children’s ER; this is consistent with research finding that mothers are significantly more likely than fathers to take responsibility for child-related activities regardless of the child’s age (Renk et al., 2003) and to provide more time caring for children than fathers with similar financial and family circumstances (Craig, 2006). Mothers also have been observed to engage in distinct child-directed behavior, significantly more likely than fathers to make bids for social connection and for helping improve their children’s mood (Wilson & Durbin, 2013). As such, child-directed aggression from mothers in particular takes away a major source of support and coregulation that children require to internalize self-regulation (Brumariu, 2015).

The fact that ER difficulties were predictive of both experienced and perpetrated IPV in the current relationship implies that, at least among emerging adults, ER difficulties serve as a risk factor for engaging in IPV and also for being victimized by an intimate partner. In normative development from adolescence to young adulthood, romantic relationships become more serious and longer-lasting, which can mean increased relationship quality and commitment, but with added time and investment, come increased opportunities for disagreements, with IPV perpetration increasing from adolescence, peaking at age 20 and 21 for men and women, respectively (Johnson, Giordano, Manning, & Longmore, 2015). Possibly, the increased time and energy youth invest in intimate relationships outpaces their maturation with regard to emotion regulation. The transition from adolescence to adulthood may provide a sensitive period during which to intervene by targeting youth’s capacity for regulating the emotions and behaviors involved in relationship conflict.

In addition to investigating a potential mismatch between the goals and abilities of emerging adults, research would do well to examine factors that predict continuity and discontinuity of IPV over time. Although ER difficulties are related to social-information processing that can increase risk for aggressive behavior, it is unclear whether specific ER strategies play a role in staying in a relationship that is abusive. Furthermore, ER difficulties can get in the way of connecting with others who might provide social support, which can protect IPV victims from mental health symptoms (Coker et al., 2002). Future research should examine what ER strategies are used by IPV victims, in an effort to identify factors that, if modified, can decrease the risk of future generations growing up with violence and continuing to pay it forward.

Limitations

It is important to note several limitations in the current study. As a correlational study with cross-sectional data, the results are limited in explaining the directionality of the relationships among the variables and inferring causation. For example, those with higher levels of IPV may report greater FOV related to their ER difficulties. That is, ER difficulties may impact perceptions and recollections of FOV. Future research may benefit from examining whether FOV and ER difficulties yield similar outcomes throughout different periods of development as well as using longitudinal data to determine directionality. However, given the lack of research on ER as a mediator of the relationship between FOV and IPV, it was beneficial to examine these processes.

In addition, the use of self-report questionnaires and the reliance on a single informant renders the study vulnerable to response biases and participants’ insight into their behavior. It should be noted that researchers (e.g., Finley, Mira, & Schwartz, 2008) have established that the use of self-report is a valid measure of parenting, especially during emerging adulthood when individuals may be freer to express their true point of view. Even so, future research should attempt to recruit multiple informants and observe parent–child interactions.

The sample was a convenience sample restricted to a Southern college population with limited racial and ethnic diversity, which may not be representative of the perceptions and preferences of all emerging adults. As a result, future studies are encouraged to select a sample characterized by diversity in race and ethnicity, geographical regions, socioeconomic status, and educational status to better understand emerging adults as a whole. The current study added to the current body of literature by examining parent–child gender dyads. However, the results of the current study may not generalize to same-sex families of origin or intimate relationships. Further research involving diverse family structures is needed.

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.

ORCID iD

Arazais D. Oliveros

Author Biographies

Arazais D. Oliveros, PhD, is a licensed psychologist and an assistant professor at Mississippi State University, Department of Psychology. Her research examines cognitive and affective pathways in family violence, with the goal of understanding and preventing intergenerational transmission of abuse and trauma. She is interested in community-based partnership, cross-training, and evaluation to promote evidence-based practices in prevention and early intervention.

Ashley S. Coleman, MS, is a graduate student in clinical psychology at Mississippi State University. Her research focuses on the development of emotion regulation, specifically through the parent–child relationship. She is interested in developing better measurement tools for emotion regulation functioning to promote early intervention for emotion regulation difficulties.

References

Allen

C. T.

Swan

S. C.

Raghavan

(2009). Gender symmetry, sexism, and intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24, 1816-1834. doi:10.1177/0886260508325496

Arbuckle

J. L.

(2014). Amos (Version 24.0). Chicago, IL: IBM SPSS.

Archer

(2000). Sex difference in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 651-680.

Bandura

Walters

R. H.

(1959). A study of the influence of child rearing practices and family interrelationships. New York, NY: Ronald Press.

Barry

Stewart

G. L.

(1997). Composition, process, and performance in self-managed groups: The role of personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 62-78. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.82.1.62

Bender

P. K.

Reinholdt-Dunne

M. L.

Esbjørn

B. H.

Pons

(2012). Emotion dysregulation and anxiety in children and adolescents: Gender differences. Personality and Individual Differences, 53, 284-288. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2012.03.027

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

Bonomi

A. E.

Anderson

M. L.

Rivara

F. P.

Thompson

R. S.

(2009). Health care utilization and costs associated with physical and nonphysical-only intimate partner violence. Health Services Research, 44, 1052-1067. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6773.2009.00955.x

Borjesson

W. I.

Dunn

M. E.

Aarons

G. A.

(2003). Development and confirmatory factor analysis of the abuse within intimate relationships scale. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 295-309. doi:10.1177/0886260502250089

10.

Bowlby

(1983). Attachment, Vol. 1 of attachment and loss (Vol. 1, 2nd ed.). Retrieved from http://www.abebe.org.br/files/John-Bowlby-Attachment-Second-Edition-Attachment-and-Loss-Series-Vol-1-1983.pdf

11.

Breet

Seedat

Kagee

(2019). Posttraumatic stress disorder and depression in men and women who perpetrate intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 34, 2181-2198. doi:10.1177/0886260516660297

12.

Breiding

M. J.

Basile

K. C.

Smith

S. G.

Black

M. C.

Mahendra

R. R.

(2015). Intimate partner violence surveillance: Uniform definitions and recommended data elements, version 2.0. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

13.

Brumariu

L. E.

(2015). Parent-child attachment and emotion regulation. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2015, 31-45. doi:10.1002/cad.20098

14.

Buckholdt

K. E.

Parra

G. R.

Jobe-Shields

(2014). Intergenerational transmission of emotion dysregulation through parental invalidation of emotions: Implications for adolescent internalizing and externalizing behaviors. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 23, 324-332. doi:10.1007/s10826-013-9768-4

15.

Byrne

B. M.

(2013). Structural equation modeling with Mplus: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. US: Routledge.

16.

Catalano

(2012). Intimate partner violence, 1993–2010 (NCJ 239203). Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.

17.

Cercone

J. J.

Beach

S. R. H.

Arias

(2005). Gender symmetry in dating intimate partner violence: Does similar behavior imply similar constructs? Violence and Victims, 20, 207-218.

18.

Chang

Schwartz

Dodge

K. A.

McBride-Chang

(2003). Harsh parenting in relation to child emotion regulation and aggression. Journal of Family Psychology, 17, 598-606. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.17.4.598

19.

Coker

A. L.

Smith

P. H.

Thompson

M. P.

McKeown

R. E.

Bethea

Davis

K. E.

(2002). Social support protects against the negative effects of partner violence on mental health. Journal of Women’s Health & Gender-Based Medicine, 11, 465-476.

20.

Craig

(2006). Does father care mean fathers share? A comparison of how mothers and fathers in intact families spend time with children. Gender & Society, 20, 259-281. doi:10.1177/0891243205285212

21.

Cummings

E. M.

Davies

P. T.

(1996). Emotional security as a regulatory process in normal development and the development of psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 8, 123-139. doi:10.1017/S0954579400007008

22.

Davies

P. T.

Cummings

E. M.

(1994). Marital conflict and child adjustment: An emotional security hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 387-411. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.116.3.387

23.

Davies

P. T.

Martin

(2014). Children’s coping and adjustment in high-conflict homes: The reformulation of emotional security theory. Child Development Perspectives, 8, 242-249. doi:10.1111/cdep.12094

24.

Dobash

R. P.

Dobash

R. E.

Cavanagh

Lewis

(2004). Not an ordinary killer—Just an ordinary guy: When men murder an intimate woman partner. Violence Against Women, 10, 577-605.

25.

Eckhardt

Norlander

Deffenbacher

(2004). The assessment of anger and hostility: A critical review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9, 17-43. doi:10.1016/S1359-1789(02)00116-7

26.

Elmquist

Shorey

R. C.

Labrecque

Ninnemann

Zapor

Febres

. . . Stuart

G. L.

(2016). The relationship between family-of-origin violence, hostility, and intimate partner violence in men arrested for domestic violence testing a mediational model. Violence Against Women, 22, 1243-1258. doi:10.1177/1077801215621177

27.

Finley

G. E.

Mira

S. D.

Schwartz

S. J.

(2008). Perceived paternal and maternal involvement: Factor structures, mean differences, and parental roles. Fathering: A Journal of Theory, Research, and Practice about Men as Fathers, 6(1), 62–82. doi:10.3149/fth.0601.62

28.

Foshee

V. A.

Linder

G. F.

Bauman

K. E.

Langwick

S. A.

Arriaga

X. B.

Heath

J. L.

(1996). The safe dates project: Theoretical basis, evaluation design, and selected baseline findings. American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 12, 39-47.

29.

Frieze

I. H.

(2005). Female violence against intimate partners: An introduction. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29(3), 229-237.

30.

Gover

A. R.

Kaukinen

Fox

K. A.

(2008). The relationship between violence in the family of origin and dating violence among college students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23, 1667-1693. doi:10.1177/0886260508314330

31.

Gratz

K. L.

Roemer

(2004). Multidimensional assessment of emotion regulation and dysregulation: Development, factor structure, and initial validation of the difficulties in emotion regulation scale. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 26, 41-54. doi:10.1023/B:JOBA.0000007455.08539.94

32.

Gross

J. J.

John

O. P.

(2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 348-362. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.348

33.

Grych

J. H.

Kinsfogel

K. M.

(2010). Exploring the role of attachment style in the relation between family aggression and abuse in adolescent dating relationships. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 19, 624-640. doi:10.1080/10926771.2010.502068

34.

Harding

Morelen

Thomassin

Bradbury

Shaffer

(2013). Exposure to maternal- and paternal-perpetrated intimate partner violence, emotion regulation, and child outcomes. Journal of Family Violence, 28, 63-72.

35.

Harned

M. S.

(2002). A multivariate analysis of risk markers for dating violence victimization. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17, 1179-1197.

36.

Hayes

A. F.

(2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Communication monographs, 76(4), 408-420.

37.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1-55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118

38.

Jennings

W. G.

Okeem

Piquero

A. R.

Sellers

C. S.

Theobald

Farrington

D. P.

(2017). Dating and intimate partner violence among young persons ages 15–30: Evidence from a systematic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 33, 107-125. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2017.01.007

39.

Johnson

W. L.

Giordano

P. C.

Manning

W. D.

Longmore

M. A.

(2015). The Age–IPV Curve: Changes in the Perpetration of Intimate Partner Violence During Adolescence and Young Adulthood. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44(3), 708–726. doi:10.1007/s10964-014-0158-z

40.

Kline

R. B.

(2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Guilford.

41.

Kwong

M. J.

Bartholomew

Henderson

A. J. Z.

Trinke

S. J.

(2003). The intergenerational transmission of relationship violence. Journal of Family Psychology, 17, 288-301. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.17.3.288

42.

Lackey

(2003). Violent family heritage, the transition to adulthood, and later partner violence. Journal of Family Issues, 24, 74-98. doi:10.1177/0192513X02238521

43.

La Flair

L. N.

Bradshaw

C. P.

Mendelson

Campbell

. (2015). Intimate partner violence and risk of psychiatric symptoms: The moderating role of attachment. Journal of Family Violence, 30, 567-577. doi:10.1007/s10896-015-9681-2

44.

Luthra

Gidycz

C. A.

(2006). Dating violence among college men and women: Evaluation of a theoretical model. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21, 717-731.

45.

MacKinnon

D. P.

(2008). Multivariate applications series. Introduction to statistical mediation analysis. New York: Taylor & Francis Group/Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

46.

McRae

Ochsner

K. N.

Mauss

I. B.

Gabrieli

J. J. D.

Gross

J. J.

(2008). Gender differences in emotion regulation: An fMRI study of cognitive reappraisal. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 11, 143-162. doi:10.1177/1368430207088035

47.

Murrell

A. R.

Christoff

K. A.

Henning

K. R.

(2007). Characteristics of domestic violence offenders: Associations with childhood exposure to violence. Journal of Family Violence, 22, 523-532. doi:10.1007/s10896-007-9100-4

48.

Nolen-Hoeksema

Aldao

(2011). Gender and age differences in emotion regulation strategies and their relationship to depressive symptoms. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 704-708. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.06.012

49.

Paat

Y.-F.

Markham

(2019). The roles of family factors and relationship dynamics on dating violence victimization and perpetration among college men and women in emerging adulthood. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 34, 81-114. doi:10.1177/0886260516640544

50.

Preacher

K. J.

Rucker

D. D.

Hayes

A. F.

(2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate behavioral research, 42(1), 185-227.

51.

Renk

Roberts

Roddenberry

Luick

Hillhouse

Meehan

. . . Phares

(2003). Mothers, fathers, gender role, and time parents spend with their children. Sex Roles, 48, 305-315. doi:10.1023/A:1022934412910

52.

Rucker

D. D.

Preacher

K. J.

Tormala

Z. L.

Petty

R. E.

(2011). Mediation Analysis in Social Psychology: Current Practices and New Recommendations. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 5(6), 359–371. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2011.00355.x

53.

Shorey

R. C.

Brasfield

Febres

Stuart

G. L.

(2011). An examination of the association between difficulties with emotion regulation and dating violence perpetration. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 20, 870-885. doi:10.1080/10926771.2011.629342

54.

Sterling

Chi

Weisner

Grant

Pruzansky

Bui

. . . & Pearl

(2018). Association of behavioral health factors and social determinants of health with high and persistently high healthcare costs. Preventive Medicine Reports, 11, 154-159.

55.

Stith

S. M.

Rosen

K. H.

Middleton

K. A.

Busch

A. L.

Lundeberg

Carlton

R. P.

(2000). The intergenerational transmission of spouse abuse: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62, 640-654.

56.

Straus

M. A.

Hamby

S. L.

Boney-McCoy

Sugarman

D. B.

(1996). The revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2) development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17, 283-316.

57.

Straus

M. A.

Hamby

S. L.

Finkelhor

Moore

Runyan

(1997). Identification of child maltreatment with the parent-child conflict tactics scales: Development & psychometric data for a national sample of American parents. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED411251

58.

Truman

J. L.

Morgan

R. E.

(2015). Nonfatal domestic violence, 2003-2012. Journal of Current Issues in Crime, Law and Law Enforcement, 8, 535-564.

59.

Wilson

Durbin

C. E.

(2013). Mother-child and father-child dyadic interaction: Parental and child bids and responsiveness to each other during early childhood. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 59, 249-279. doi:10.1353/mpq.2013.0018