Characteristics of Childhood Family Violence Experiences in Spanish Batterers

Abstract

Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) constitutes a major public health problem worldwide. The existing links between childhood family violence experiences and perpetration of IPV during adulthood suggest that violence is transmitted across generations. The aims of this study were to provide new insights into characteristics of the history of childhood family violence in a sample of Spanish convicted male batterers and to examine what typology of batterer (specialist or generalist) is more likely to have had different types of childhood experiences of violence in the family context. Participants were 740 men convicted of IPV whose ages ranged from 18 to 71 years old (M = 39.74; SD = 10.01). Of them, 305 men were classified as specialist batterers, and 391 men were classified as generalist batterers. Participants completed a questionnaire made ad hoc regarding family of origin violence and sociodemographic aspects. Results showed that, in comparison with generalist batterers, specialist batterers had higher likelihood of having experienced child abuse or maltreatment during their childhood, having experienced physical punishment and child neglect, having their father as the aggressor of such experienced situations of abuse, or maltreatment. Likewise, specialist batterers had higher likelihood of having been witnesses of family violence, having witnessed physical and psychological violence in the family, having witnessed their mother and siblings being the victims and their father being the aggressor when family violence occurred. This study emphasized the need for identifying children exposed to direct and indirect family violence because they could be a vulnerable group for future IPV perpetration. Moreover, variables related to childhood family violence must be considered when developing intervention treatment programs focused on male specialist batterers.

Keywords

child abuse batterers domestic violence children exposed to domestic violence

Introduction

Intimate partner violence (IPV) continues to be a serious and pervasive problem internationally that requires an analysis and joint efforts from multiple perspectives. The World Health Organization (WHO, 2013) defined IPV as any act of violence that is made by a current or former partner or spouse. It includes physical violence (e.g., slapping, hitting, kicking, or beating), sexual violence (e.g., being physically forced to have sexual intercourse, having sexual intercourse while the individual was afraid, and/or being forced to do something sexual that one finds humiliating or degrading), psychological abuse (e.g., intimidation, constant belittling, or humiliation), or any other controlling behavior (Krug et al., 2002; WHO, 2013). According to the last estimations of WHO (2017), 35% of women worldwide have experienced either physical and/or sexual IPV or nonpartner sexual violence in their lifetime. Results of a survey conducted with 42,000 women across the 28 Member States of the European Union (EU) have shown that 33% of the women surveyed had been victims of physical and/or sexual violence in the last 12 months (European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights [FRA], 2014). Prevalence rates of violence against women in the EU Member States are heterogeneous. Thus, in Spain, in the same survey, it was found that 3% of women over 18 surveyed had suffered physical and/or sexual violence from their partner in the last 12 months and 10.9% over the course of their lives (FRA, 2014). In Spain, between the years 2016 and 2018, as a result of IPV, 151 women were killed by their male partners or former partners. Of them, 64.2% were Spanish and 35.8% were foreigners (European and Latin American, principally; Consejo General del Poder Judicial, 2019).

In the last four decades, Spain has experienced great societal and political changes where the transition from a dictatorship to a democracy has been the most important. During the dictatorship, IPV was considered a private matter. After the end of the dictatorship and from the transition stage on, societal and political changes promoted raising Spanish public awareness regarding IPV, and, nowadays, it is considered and categorized as a serious social and health issue (Aizpurua et al., 2017). Therefore, equality policies are receiving an increased importance in this Spanish society where IPV is now conceptualized as a public problem (Miranda-Pérez & Sanz-Gavillon, 2015). In this context, many legislative changes have been made. IPV is included in the penal code, and there is a specific law focused on gender-based violence (“Comprehensive Protection Law against Gender Violence” [Ley Orgánica 1/2004, de 28 de diciembre, de Medidas de Protección Integral contra la Violencia de Género]). This law establishes that a man may be convicted by a judge for several types of aggression, including insults, threats, slaps or beatings, sexual abuse, or murder.

Regarding IPV typologies, Ali et al. (2016) summarized them according to the form of abuse (physical, sexual, and psychological), type of violence, and type of perpetrator. Concerning male batterers, one of the most commonly used is Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart’s (1994) typology. They identified three subtypes of male batterers according to their characteristics: family-only, dysphoric-borderline, and generally violent-antisocial men. According to Herrero et al. (2016), there are two situations that would restrict the usefulness of this typology. First, the severity of violence seems to be associated with the presence of an antisocial trajectory or severe psychopathology. However, as Herrero et al. (2016) stated, in the case of convicted batterers, severity is usually present, which leads to a lack of representativeness of the less violent batterer typology (family-only subtype). Second, it seems that there is an overlap between the more violent and psychologically distressed groups of batterers. To overcome these limitations, Herrero et al. (2016) proposed a typology of male batterer based on their criminal history, distinguishing between generalist and specialist batterers. Generalist batterers would be those men who had a long and varied criminal history, including IPV against women, whereas specialist batterers would be those men who only had offenses related to IPV against women. This typology intends to account for the fact that many male batterers have shown violent behavior in other contexts (Juarros-Basterretxea et al., 2018; Moffit et al., 2000), and, therefore, this is the typology that we use in the present article.

Scientific research has shown that there are distal and proximal variables that differentiate batterers, and, therefore, batterers cannot be considered as a homogeneous group. Violence occurring in the family of origin is one of these distal variables (Goldstein et al., 2016), which is defined as the child’s experience of direct exposure (e.g., child maltreatment such as physical punishment), and/or indirect exposure (e.g., being a witness of violence between father and mother) to violence in their own family (Lee et al., 2013). Moreover, childhood family violence exposure is a risk factor for being a batterer in adulthood (Capaldi et al., 2012; Gil-González et al., 2008; Singh et al., 2014; WHO, 2017). For instance, corporal punishment of children has been associated with their future involvement in IPV when they are adults, both as victims and as aggressors (Afifi et al., 2017; Poulsen, 2018). In addition, McMahon et al. (2015) found that most types of childhood maltreatment (physical and psychological) were associated with a higher risk of victimization, perpetration, and reciprocal IPV in adulthood. Moreover, Elmquist et al. (2016) found that male batterers who experienced child maltreatment in the family context perpetrated psychological aggression more frequently. Similarly, Eriksson and Mazerolle (2015) concluded that male arrestees who witnessed interparental violence during their childhood were more likely to be violent with their female partners compared with those who were not exposed to any kind of violence during their childhood. Moreover, the strongest effects were observed in the combination of having experienced child abuse and having witnessed interparental violence, which increased the likelihood of being violent against partners.

The existing links between childhood family violence experiences and perpetration of IPV during adulthood suggest that violence is transmitted across generations (Eriksson & Mazerolle, 2015). It is known as the intergenerational transmission of violence, which is framed by the social learning theory (Corvo & Johnson, 2013). According to the social learning theory (Bandura, 1977), the direct and/or indirect exposure to violence in the family of origin creates beliefs, attitudes, and norms related to the suitability and acceptability of aggression and violence in individuals. Thus, those children who experience and observe violence in their own family would be more likely to repeat this violence in their adulthood. In accordance with this phenomenon, Wareham et al. (2009) found that the existence of having experienced physical maltreatment during childhood increased the likelihood of minor (i.e., shaking, throwing/threatening to throw objects, and slapping) and severe (i.e., beating up, hitting, kicking, biting, and choking) IPV in a sample of male batterers, although they did not find a relation between witnessing parental violence and IPV. However, in general terms, empirical evidence points out that children who grow up in those violent families where interparental violence is present are more likely to be aggressive toward their partners in adulthood (e.g., Fonseka et al., 2015; Gracia et al., 2017; Islam et al., 2017; Wareham et al., 2009). Although the intergenerational transmission of IPV has been strongly supported by scientific research (Song et al., 2017), having experienced violence in the family context does not directly imply that a child is going to become a batterer in the future.

Despite the fact that scientific research has broadly and consistently supported the significant associations between having experienced violence in the family of origin and becoming a batterer in adulthood, findings regarding such associations are still inconclusive. According to the meta-analysis conducted by Smith-Marek et al. (2015), there was a small effect of having experienced violence at home during childhood and being a batterer in adulthood, which suggests that becoming a batterer depends on other factors. In fact, not every batterer has been exposed to childhood family violence exposure (Lee et al., 2013), which also suggests that becoming a batterer depends on the interaction of multiple factors (individual, contextual, societal, etc.) that should be addressed jointly and not separately (Elmquist et al., 2016; Gil-González et al., 2008; Henrichs et al., 2015; Steel et al., 2017). Nevertheless, research has yet to look further into the characteristics of family violence that male batterers experienced when they were children.

Finally, as Lee et al. (2013) pointed out, research that examines in detail the context of family violence (e.g., if maltreatment was perpetrated by a mother, father, both, or other siblings) is highly needed, as it may shed light on the association of exposure to family violence in childhood and being a batterer in adulthood. Moreover, Elmquist et al. (2016) concluded that findings that provide more detailed information regarding the types and acts of violence in the family of origin are required. Furthermore, Watt and Scrandis (2013) highlighted that findings related to the history of childhood exposure to violence in male batterers are needed, and according to Debowska and Boduszek (2017), studies using male samples are rare in the field of child abuse research. To the authors’ knowledge, there is no study that has examined the detailed history of childhood family violence in broad samples of convicted male batterers. Moreover, it is also important to consider if batterers have been aggressive only with their partners/former partners (specialist batterers) or whether they have also been violent in other contexts (generalist batterers). The present article intends to fill these research gaps by addressing the following aims: (a) to provide new insights into the characteristics of the history of childhood family violence in a sample of Spanish convicted male batterers and (b) to examine what typology of batterer (specialist or generalist) is more likely to have had diverse childhood experiences of violence in the family context. Therefore, if according to the intergenerational transmission of violence, IPV is learned through imitation and modeling (Corvo & Johnson, 2013), then we expect to find that specialist batterers will be more likely to have had diverse childhood experiences of violence within the family compared with generalist batterers.

Method

Participants

Participants were 740 men convicted of IPV crimes recruited from several prisons in Andalusia (Spain). Ages ranged from 18 to 71 years old (M = 39.74; SD = 10.01). Based on the typologies proposed by Herrero et al. (2016), these men were classified into two groups: (a) 305 men specialist batterers (male offenders whose only type of offenses were related to IPV) and (b) 391 men generalist batterers (male offenders who were convicted of IPV but they also had been aggressive with other people). Due to missing information, there were 44 participants that could not be classified.

According to Spanish law (Law 1/2004, Comprehensive Protection Law against Gender Violence [Ley Orgánica 1/2004, de 28 de diciembre, de Medidas de Protección Integral contra la Violencia de Género]), first convictions for IPV without sexual or physical abuse are classified as a misdemeanor, which implies that the person is sent to an open facility (Center for Social Insertion [CSI]) of the Ministry of Justice, but not to prison. In CSI, batterers should attend IPV rehabilitation programs. In the case of sexual or physical abuse with any physical injury, batterers go to prison. Characteristics of participants are shown in Table 1.

Table 1.

Sociodemographic Characteristics and Type of IPV Crime.

Variable	Specialist Batterers (n = 305) %	Generalist Batterers (n = 391) %	TotalN = 740 (%)
Prison System
CSI^a	28.70	11.50	19.10
Prison	71.30	88.50	80.90
Nationality
Spanish	87.80	94.10	91.30
Non-Spanish	12.20	5.90	8.70
Educational level
No education	8.60	10.20	9.50
Primary-level education (ages 6–12)	59.60	62.70	61.50
Secondary-level education (ages 13–18)	25.20	23.30	24.00
University education	6.60	3.80	5.00
Type of IPV crime^b
Psychological maltreatment	64.50	69.40	67.20
Physical maltreatment	38.20	39.40	39.00
Psychological, physical, and sexual maltreatment	5.10	4.8	4.90

Note. IPV = intimate partner violence; CSI = Center for Social Insertion.

According to Spanish law (Law 1/2004, Comprehensive Protection Law against Gender Violence [Ley Orgánica 1/2004, de 28 de diciembre, de Medidas de Protección Integral contra la Violencia de Género]), first convictions for IPV without sexual or physical abuse are classified as a misdemeanor, which implies that the person is sent to an open facility (CSI) of the Ministry of Justice, but not to prison. In CSI, batterers should attend IPV rehabilitation programs. In the case of sexual or physical abuse with any physical injury, batterers go to prison.

More than one option could be selected. Each answer option is considered as a separate variable. Of each answer option, the percentage of participants who selected such option is shown.

Procedure

After obtaining prior approval from the Institute of Prisons in Spain, participants were recruited from different prisons in Andalusia (Spain). Participants were invited to collaborate in the study on a voluntary and anonymous basis. The study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the University of Granada, Spain. Confidentiality was kept and guaranteed according to the Spanish legislation on personal data protection (Organic Law 15/1999, December 13). Participants signed a written informed consent document and received €20 for their participation. Participants had the right to withdraw from the study at any time. The following inclusion criteria to participate were used: individuals 18 years old or older who had been convicted of a crime of physical, psychological, or sexual aggression against a partner or ex-partner (Law 1/2004, Comprehensive Protection Law against Gender Violence, order 1/2004, Spain). The exclusion criterion was the presence of illiteracy. Data collection was carried out in groups of 10 men and conducted by two researchers with prior training and experience in administering questionnaires.

Variables and Measures

A questionnaire regarding family of origin violence and sociodemographic aspects (age, prison system, nationality, and educational level) was developed for the purpose of this research based on previous studies (e.g., Echeburúa et al., 2008). Specifically, questions about family of origin violence were the following:

Have you ever experienced any type of abuse or maltreatment during your childhood? Answer options were “yes” or “no.”

Have you experienced any of the following situations during your childhood? You can choose more than one option. Response options were “physical punishment from your mother”; “physical punishment from your father”; “sexual abuse from your mother”; “sexual abuse from your father”; “child neglect from any of your parents.” For analysis purposes, these response options were transformed into “physical punishment,” “sexual abuse,” and “child neglect.”

Who was the aggressor in such situations? You can choose more than one option. Response options were “mother”; “father”; “siblings”; “other family members”; “known people”; “unknown people.”

Have you ever witnessed situations of family violence (against your siblings, grandparents, mother, etc.) during your childhood? Response options were “yes” or “no.”

What type of violence have you witnessed? You can choose more than one option. Response options were “physical violence (e.g., hits, shoves, scratches, etc.)”; “psychological violence (e.g., insults; taunts, etc.); “sexual violence (e.g., molestations; pressure to have sex without consent, etc.).”

Who was the victim of the violence you witnessed? You can choose more than one option. Response options were “mother”; “father”; “siblings”; “other family members”; “unknown people.”

Who was the aggressor of the violence you witnessed? You can choose more than one option. Response options were “mother”; “father”; “siblings”; “other family members.”

Statistical Analyses

The statistical software package SPSS 24 was used. To analyze differences between specialist and generalist batterers in the characteristics of maltreatment or abuse experienced during childhood as well as those related to having witnessed family violence during childhood, chi-square tests (or Fisher’s exact test in cases of cell counts <5 in more than 25% of the total cells) were conducted. To examine which type of batterer (specialist or generalist) was more likely to have had diverse childhood experiences of violence within the family, logistic regression analyses were conducted. In logistic regression analyses, models were adjusted for sociodemographic variables (covariates; age, prison system, nationality, and educational level). Signification level was p ≤ .05.

Results

Sample Characteristics

Table 1 shows sociodemographic characteristics of the sample as well as the type of IPV crime. As can be noted in the table, the majority of specialist batterers (71.30%) and generalist batterers (88.50%) were in prison. Likewise, 87.80% of specialist batterers and 94.10% of generalist batterers were Spanish. Moreover, 59.60% of specialist batterers and 62.70% of generalist batterers had primary education. The main type of IPV crime in both generalist and specialist batterers was psychological maltreatment followed by physical maltreatment (see Table 1).

History of child abuse or maltreatment and family violence witnessed during childhood in male batterers

Table 2 shows the characteristics of maltreatment or abuse experienced during childhood as well as those related to having witnessed family violence during childhood in male batterers (specialist vs. generalist). To analyze differences in such characteristics between these two groups, chi-square tests (or Fisher’s exact test in cases of cell counts <5 in more than 25% of the total cells) were conducted. As shown in Table 2, specialist and generalist batterers differed in the majority of the variables considered (see Table 2). Compared with specialist batterers, generalist batterers reported a higher percentage of having experienced any type of abuse or maltreatment during their childhood (32.70% generalist vs. 16.70% specialist), having experienced physical punishment (55.00% generalist vs. 13.50% specialist), having had their father as aggressor (27.20% generalist vs. 12.50% specialist), having witnessed situations of family violence during their childhood (46.80% generalist vs. 19.30% specialist), having witnessed physical violence within the family (35.10% generalist vs. 13.20% specialist), having had their mother as victim of the violence that they witnessed (37.30% generalist vs. 13.20% specialist), having had their father as aggressor of the violence they witnessed (36.80% generalist vs. 14.90% specialist; see Table 2).

Table 2.

Variables Related to (a) Child Abuse or Maltreatment and (b) Having Witnessed Family Violence During Childhood According to Typology of Batterers.

Variables	Specialist Batterers (n = 305) % (n)	Generalist Batterers (n = 391) % (n)	TotalN = 740 % (n)	Significance Testing
Having experienced any type of abuse or maltreatment during their childhood				χ²(1, N = 691) = 22.92*
Yes	16.70 (50)	32.70 (128)	25.80 (178)
No	83.30 (250)	67.30 (263)	74.20 (513)
Type of abuse or maltreatment^a
Physical punishment	13.50 (41)	35.00 (137)	25.60 (178)	χ²(1, N = 695) = 41.69*
Sexual abuse	3.00 (9)	3.80 (15)	3.50 (24)	χ²(1, N = 695) = 0.39
Child neglect	5.90 (18)	15.30 (60)	11.20 (78)	χ²(1, N = 695) = 15.24*
Other	7.30 (19)	11.50 (39)	9.70 (58)	χ²(1, N = 599) = 2.87*
Who was the aggressor in the situations of abuse or maltreatment experienced?^a
Mother	8.50 (26)	13.10 (51)	11.10 (77)	χ²(1, N = 694) = 3.64*
Father	12.50 (38)	27.20 (106)	20.70 (144)	χ²(1, N = 694) = 22.74*
Siblings	3.30 (10)	4.60 (18)	4.00 (28)	χ²(1, N = 694) = 0.80
Other family members	2.30 (7)	5.40 (21)	4.00 (28)	χ²(1, N = 694) = 4.25*
Known people	4.60 (14)	8.20 (32)	6.60 (46)	χ²(1, N = 694) = 3.65*
Unknown people	2.00 (6)	9.80 (38)	6.30 (44)	χ²(1, N = 694) = 17.52*
Having witnessed situations of family violence during their childhood				χ²(1, N = 690) = 56.64*
Yes	19.30 (58)	46.80 (182)	34.80 (240)
No	80.70 (243)	53.20 (207)	65.20 (450)
Type of the violence witnessed^a
Physical violence	11.20 (34)	35.10 (136)	24.60 (170)	χ²(1, N = 692) = 52.39*
Psychological violence	17.00 (52)	34.30 (133)	26.70 (185)	χ²(1, N = 693) = 25.90*
Sexual violence	0.30 (1)	1.50 (6)	1.00 (7)	Fisher’s exact test (N = 693) = 2.88
Victim of the violence witnessed^a
Mother	13.20 (40)	37.30 (145)	26.70 (185)	χ²(1, N = 693) = 50.71*
Father	3.30 (10)	6.70 (26)	5.20 (36)	χ²(1, N = 693) = 3.99*
Siblings	11.80 (36)	21.10 (82)	17.00 (118)	χ²(1, N = 693) = 10.30*
Other family members	3.90 (12)	7.70 (30)	6.10 (42)	χ²(1, N = 693) = 4.25*
Unknown people	2.80 (7)	10.30 (35)	7.10 (42)	χ²(1, N = 594) = 12.57*
Aggressor of the violence witnessed^a
Mother	7.60 (23)	9.50 (37)	8.60 (60)	χ²(1, N = 694) = 0.76
Father	14.90 (45)	36.80 (144)	27.20 (189)	χ²(1, N = 694) = 41.61*
Siblings	4.30 (13)	5.40 (21)	4.90 (34)	χ²(1, N = 694) = 0.43
Other family members	4.60 (14)	12.50 (49)	9.10 (63)	χ²(1, N = 694) = 12.95*

More than one option could be selected. Each answer option is considered as a separate variable. Of each answer option, the percentage of participants who selected such option is shown.

p ≤ .05.

Type of maltreatment or abuse experienced during childhood and type of aggressor. Associations with the typology of male batterers

Table 3 presents the associations between typology of male batterers and type of abuse or maltreatment experienced during childhood. As can be seen in Table 3, compared with the group of generalist batterers, the group of specialist batterers was associated with an increased likelihood of having experienced child abuse or maltreatment during childhood (Adjusted Odds Ratio [AOR] = 2.49; 95% Confidence Interval [CI] = [1.67-3.69]; p ≤ .05), an increased likelihood of having experienced physical punishment (AOR = 3.45; 95% CI = [2.27- 5.24]; p ≤ .05), and an increased likelihood of having experienced child neglect (AOR = 2.59; 95% CI = [1.45-4.62]; p ≤ .05).

Table 3.

Associations Between Typology of Batterers and Type of Child Maltreatment Experienced During Childhood.

Variables	AOR [95% Confidence Interval]^a
Variables	Child Abuse or Maltreatment	Physical Punishment	Child Neglect	Other
Typology of batterers
Specialist batterers	2.49 [1.67-3.69]*	3.45 [2.27-5.24]*	2.59 [1.45-4.62]*	1.42 [0.78-2.58]
Control variables
Age	0.99 [0.97-1.01]	0.98 [0.97-1.00]	0.98 [0.95-1.00]	0.98 [0.96-1.01]
Prison System
CSI	0.85 [0.52-1.39]	0.73 [0.44-1.24]	0.81 [0.39-1.65]	0.62 [0.26-1.51]
Nationality
Spanish	0.44 [0.24-0.79]*	0.35 [0.19-0.64]*	0.65 [0.28-1.47]	1.78 [0.52-6.03]
Educational level
No education	1.23 [0.47-3.19]	0.65 [0.24-1.73]	1.03 [0.31-3.36]	0.12 [0.01-1.26]
Primary-level education	0.83 [0.37-1.87]	0.73 [0.32-1.64]	0.56 [0.20-1.58]	0.81 [0.23-2.85]
Secondary-level education	1.08 [0.46-2.54]	0.80 [0.34-1.89]	0.62 [0.21-1.86]	0.91 [0.24-3.39]

Note. CSI = Center for Social Insertion; AOR = adjusted odds ratio.

Typology of batterers (reference group was Generalist batterers). Adjusted for age, prison system (reference group was Prison), nationality (reference group was non-Spanish), and educational level (reference group was university education). Analysis regarding sexual abuse was not conducted due to a small sample size.

p ≤ .05.

Regarding the type of aggressor in the situations of abuse or maltreatment experienced during childhood, the multivariate logistic regression analyses revealed that specialist batterers had an increased likelihood of having had their father as aggressor (AOR = 3.00; 95% CI = [1.92- 4.69]; p ≤ .05) compared with generalist batterers (see Table 4).

Table 4.

Associations Between Typology of Batterers and Type of Aggressor in Family Violence Experienced During Childhood.

Variables	AOR [95% Confidence Interval]^a
Variables	Mother as Aggressor	Father as Aggressor	Siblings as Aggressors	Other Family Members as Aggressors	Other Known People as Aggressors
Typology of batterers
Specialist batterers	1.42 [0.84-2.40]	3.00 [1.92- 4.69]*	1.09 [0.48- 2.51]	2.23 [0.90- 5.56]	1.63 [0.83- 3.22]
Control variables
Age	0.98 [0.96- 1.00]	1.00 [0.99- 1.03]	0.97 [0.93- 1.01]	0.97 [0.93- 1.01]	0.98 [0.95- 1.01]
Prison System
CSI	0.80 [0.40- 1.59]	0.78 [0.45- 1.35]	0.55 [0.16- 1.88]	0.92 [0.31- 2.77]	0.93 [0.39- 2.19]
Nationality
Spanish	1.08 [0.44- 2.67]	0.29 [0.15- 0.53]*	2.84 [0.37- 21.85]	0.47 [0.15- 1.46]	1.26 [0.37- 4.28]
Educational level
No education	0.82 [0.25- 2.73]	0.76 [0.27- 2.18]	0.80 [0.07- 9.36]	2.03 [0.21- 19.53]	1.42 [0.27- 7.57]
Primary-level education	0.61 [0.22- 1.68]	0.77 [0.32- 1.82]	1.01 [0.13- 8.02]	1.10 [0.14- 8.76]	0.94 [0.21- 4.18]
Secondary-level education	0.69 [0.24- 2.04]	1.14 [0.47- 2.81]	1.85 [0.22- 15.16]	1.55 [0.18- 12.98]	1.15 [0.24- 5.44]

Note. CSI = Center for Social Insertion; AOR: adjusted odds ratio.

Typology of batterers (reference group was Generalist batterers). Adjusted for age, prison system (reference group was Prison), nationality (reference group was non-Spanish), and educational level (reference group was university education). Analysis regarding unknown people as aggressors was not conducted due to a small sample size.

p ≤ .05.

Type of situations of family violence witnessed during childhood, types of aggressors, and victims. Associations with the typology of male batterers

As noted in Table 5, compared with the group of generalist batterers, specialist batterers had more than 3 times higher risk of having been witnesses of situations of family violence during childhood (AOR = 3.64; 95% CI = [2.51- 5.29]; p ≤ .05). Indeed, the specialist batterers group was related to higher risk of having been witnesses of physical (AOR = 4.25; 95% CI = [2.73- 6.61]; p ≤ .05) and psychological violence (AOR = 2.49; 95% CI = [1.69- 3.68]; p ≤ .05).

Table 5.

Associations Between Typology of Batterers and Having Witnessed Family Violence During Childhood.

Variables	AOR [95% Confidence Interval]^a
Variables	Being a Witness of Situations of Family Violence	Being a Witness of Physical Violence in the Family	Being a Witness of Psychological Violence in the Family
Typology of batterers
Specialist batterers	3.64 [2.51- 5.29]*	4.25 [2.73- 6.61]*	2.49 [1.69- 3.68]*
Control variables
Age	0.99 [0.98- 1.01]	0.99 [0.97- 1.01]	0.99 [0.97- 1.01]
Prison System
CSI	0.87 [0.55- 1.37]	0.64 [0.37- 1.11]	0.85 [0.52- 1.38]
Nationality
Spanish	0.49 [0.27- 0.88]*	0.40 [0.21- 0.76]*	0.47 [0.26- 0.85]*
Educational level
No education	1.29 [0.51- 3.31]	1.10 [0.39- 3.05]	0.79 [0.29- 2.11]
Primary-level education	1.13 [0.51- 2.52]	0.82 [0.34- 1.95]	0.93 [0.41- 2.09]
Secondary-level education	1.31 [0.57- 3.03]	1.22 [0.49- 3.01]	1.15 [0.49- 2.69]

Note. CSI = Center for Social Insertion; AOR = adjusted odds ratio.

Typology of batterers (reference group was Generalist batterers). Adjusted for age, prison system (reference group was Prison), nationality (reference group was non-Spanish), and educational level (reference group was university education). Analysis regarding being a witness of sexual violence was not conducted due to a small sample size.

p ≤ .05.

Table 6 shows the associations between IPV typologies and types of aggressors and victims when witnessing family violence during childhood. Results revealed that specialist batterers had a more than 3 times higher risk of having had their mother as the victim (AOR = 3.74; 95% CI = [2.47- 5.66]; p ≤ .05) and their father as the aggressor (AOR = 3.48; 95% CI = [2.32- 5.21]; p ≤ .05) compared with the group of generalist batterers. Likewise, specialist batterers had almost a 2 times higher risk of having had their siblings as victims (AOR = 1.80; 95% CI = [1.15- 2.84]; p ≤ .05) and almost 3 times more risk of having had other family members as aggressors (AOR = 2.79; 95% CI = [1.46- 5.32]; p ≤ .05).

Table 6.

Associations Between Typologies of Batterers and Types of Aggressors and Victims When Witnessing Family Violence During Childhood.

Variables	AOR [95% Confidence Interval]^a
Variables	Mother as Victim	Mother as Aggressor	Father as Victim	Father as Aggressor	Siblings as Victims	Siblings as Aggressors	Other Family Members as Victims	Other Family Members as Aggressors
Typology of batterers
Specialist batterers	3.74 [2.47- 5.66]*	1.04 [0.58,-1.85]	2.18 [0.98- 4.84]	3.48 [2.32- 5.21]*	1.80 [1.15- 2.84]*	1.07 [0.51- 2.26]	1.62 [0.78- 3.37]	2.79 [1.46- 5.32]*
Control variables
Age	0.99 [0.97- 1.01]	0.98 [0.95. 1.01]	1.00 [0.97- 1.04]	0.99 [0.98- 1.01]	0.99 [0.97- 1.01]	0.98 [0.94- 1.01]	0.94 [0.91- 0.98]*	0.98 [0.95- 1.00]
Prison System
CSI	0.74 [0.44- 1.23]	0.47 [0.19- 1.14]	0.43 [0.13- 1.47]	0.92 [0.56- 1.49]	0.54 [0.29- 1.01]	1.01 [0.40- 2.57]	1.28 [0.55- 2.93]	1.24 [0.61- 2.52]
Nationality
Spanish	0.49 [0.26- 0.91]*	1.09 [0.41- 2.94]	0.46 [0.16- 1.30]	0.42 [0.23- 0.76]*	1.13 [0.52- 2.45]	3.46 [0.46- 26.23]	1.29 [0.38- 4.47]	0.62 [0.26- 1.47]
Educational level
No education	0.92 [0.32- 2.67]	0.60 [0.17- 2.10]	0.45 [0.12- 1.77]	0.92 [0.35- 2.47]	0.31 [0.11- 0.84]*	1.86 [0.19- 17.62]	0.57 [0.11- 2.80]	2.53 [0.28- 23.02]
Primary-level education	1.31 [0.54- 3.20]	0.40 [0.14- 1.12]	0.24 [0.08- 0.72]	0.92 [0.41- 2.10]	0.29 [0.13- 0.66]*	1.25 [0.16- 9.80]	0.53 [0.15- 1.91]	2.96 [0.39- 22.55]
Secondary-level education	1.41 [0.56- 3.59]	0.62 [0.21- 1.82]	0.28 [0.08- 0.94]	1.15 [0.49- 2.73]	0.52 [0.22- 1.17]	2.42 [0.30- 19.47]	0.58 [0.15- 2.29]	3.71 [0.47- 29.09]

Note. CSI = Center for Social Insertion; AOR = adjusted odds ratio.

p ≤ .05.

Discussion

The current study has important findings. Although generalist batterers presented higher percentages across variables related to (a) child abuse and (b) having witnessed family violence during childhood, the adjusted logistic regression models showed other results. First, in comparison with generalist batterers, specialist batterers had higher likelihood of having experienced child abuse or maltreatment during their childhood, having experienced physical punishment and child neglect, and having had their father as the aggressor in situations of abuse or maltreatment. Second, specialist batterers had higher likelihood of having been witnesses of family violence, having witnessed physical and psychological violence in the family, and having their mother and siblings as victims and their father as the aggressor of the situations of family violence they witnessed. In sum, being a specialist batterer is related to higher risk of direct (having experienced child abuse or maltreatment during childhood, having experienced physical punishment, and child neglect) and indirect (having witnessed family violence during childhood, having witnessed physical and psychological violence in the family during childhood) experiences of childhood family violence. Moreover, this group of batterers was more likely to have had their father as the aggressor in the situations of abuse or maltreatment they experienced during childhood, and had their mother and siblings as the victims of witnessed family violence during childhood.

Our results are in line with previous research that has pointed out that not every batterer has been exposed to childhood family violence (Lee et al., 2013). Thus, we found that 74.20% of the total sample of batterers reported that they did not experience any type of abuse or maltreatment during their childhood. Moreover, 65.20% of our sample reported that they did not witness any situation of family violence during their childhood. According to these percentages and as other researchers have concluded, becoming a batterer depends on the interaction of multiple factors (individual, contextual, societal, etc.; Elmquist et al., 2016; Gil-González et al., 2008; Henrichs et al., 2015; Steel et al., 2017). Nevertheless, children who directly experienced and observed violence in their own family would be more likely to repeat this violence in their adulthood (e.g., Afifi et al., 2017; Ehrensaft et al., 2003; Elmquist et al., 2016; Eriksson & Mazerolle, 2015; Fonseka et al., 2015; Henrichs et al., 2015; Singh et al., 2014).

Our findings show that the typology of batterer (specialist batterer) is an important aspect to take into account when the history of childhood family violence is considered. Therefore, in accordance with our findings, specialist batterers are more likely to have experienced diverse childhood family violence situations, which could have had an important role in the etiology of IPV perpetration. Similarly with a previous Spanish study conducted among male batterers that assessed, among other variables, the climate and functioning in the family of origin (see Herrero et al., 2016), our results suggest that exposure to family of origin violence as a child would be a key factor leading to IPV perpetration in the group of specialist batterers. However, due to the cross-sectional design of our study, we were not able to establish cause–effect associations.

To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study conducted in Spain and internationally that has considered the typology of batterers (specialist/generalist) in the analysis of the characteristics of their childhood family violence experiences. Therefore, it is the first study to provide insights into the characteristics of childhood family violence in Spanish convicted male batterers. Although other studies have analyzed childhood family violence, they have been conducted, for example, with nationally representative surveys of adult populations (e.g., Afifi et al., 2017; McMahon et al., 2015; Richards et al., 2017; Song et al., 2017), samples of adult populations (e.g., Kong et al., 2018; Steel et al., 2017), or community samples of men (e.g., Davis et al., 2018; Machisa et al., 2016).

This study is not exempt from limitations. As we have mentioned above, the cross-sectional nature of the study impedes us from inferring any cause–effect relationship. In addition, as Henrichs et al. (2015) pointed out also, we are not able to specify when the childhood family violence situations occurred (in early, middle, and/or late childhood). This aspect would be important to know because the psychological, social, physical, and cognitive consequences of witnessing IPV differ according to the developmental stage of children (Howell et al., 2016). Furthermore, to improve future IPV intervention and prevention, it is necessary that longitudinal research differentiate between these two types of male batterers (specialist vs. generalist) to clarify how childhood experiences of family violence contribute to the developmental trajectories of IPV perpetration in males (Bernardi & Day, 2015; Johnson et al., 2015). Likewise, such longitudinal research would be enriched if it also came from a multifactorial and ecological perspective (e.g., Spencer et al., 2019) and considered neuropsychological (Bueso-Izquierdo et al., 2015, 2016) as well as psychopathological factors (Capaldi et al., 2012; Henrichs et al., 2015). Another limitation is that our findings are based on retrospective data and self-report measures, which could be subjected to recall biases. However, previous research has suggested that childhood family violence experiences, such as childhood abuse, are more likely to be underreported (Ehrensaft et al., 2003; McMahon et al., 2015; Richards et al., 2017). Therefore, future studies should use multiple sources of information that include both self-reports and official records (Juarros-Basterretxea et al., 2018). Moreover, the unique childhood family violence experiences of the Spanish batterers who participated in this study are not necessarily applicable to all batterers, and it is also important to consider the cultural context of where this study took place. Finally, sample size limits the generalizability of our study’s findings to the population of Spanish batterers. However, the broad sample of male batterers who participated in this study (N = 740) is highlighted, and it also makes this study unique in Spain.

Despite the limitations, this study contributes to IPV perpetration literature by (a) providing new insights into the characteristics of the experience and exposure to family violence during childhood for Spanish convicted male batterers and (b) examining the association between childhood family violence experiences and the typology of batterer (specialist or generalist). Moreover, in general terms, this study could be of interest for policy makers and health professionals as it provides valuable information regarding childhood family violence experiences in male batterers in relation to a typology (specialist vs. generalist). Some relevant implications of this study that would be of interest for professionals and policy makers include that it is necessary to identify children who have been exposed to direct and indirect family violence as they could be a vulnerable group for future IPV perpetration (e.g., Richards et al., 2017). Such identification would allow the assessment and intervention across several domains (e.g., psychological, social, familial, etc.). Thus, these children could benefit from intervention programs that improve their psychological well-being and quality of life in the short term (Richards et al., 2017) and also to prevent their possible involvement in IPV perpetration in the long term. Moreover, variables related to childhood family violence must be considered when developing intervention treatment programs focused on male specialist batterers (e.g., Goodnight et al., 2017; Richards et al., 2017). Finally, the importance of the design and implementation of prevention programs and strategies are highlighted and aimed to break the cycle of violence in IPV from an early age on (Herrenkohl & Jung, 2016; Howell et al., 2016).

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

The corresponding author states that all coauthors are in agreement with the content of the manuscript. The authors also state that the findings reported in the manuscript have not been published previously and that the manuscript is not being simultaneously submitted elsewhere.

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) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (Project: PSI 2009-13585), Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (Project: PSI2013-42792-R), and Regional Ministry of Economy, Innovation and Science from the Andalusian Government (Project: P2012- SEJ1723).

ORCID iDs

Inmaculada Teva

Natalia Bueso-Izquierdo

Author Biographies

Inmaculada Teva is an associate professor at the Department of Educational and Developmental Psychology and a researcher at The Mind, Brain and Behavior Research Center (University of Granada, Spain). Her research interests encompassed sexual health promotion in adolescents and health psychology in HIV/AIDS-infected people. Currently, she is focused on psychosocial factors of intimate partner violence.

Natalia Hidalgo-Ruzzante is an associate professor at the Department of Educational and Developmental Psychology and a researcher at The Mind, Brain and Behavior Research Center (University of Granada, Spain). Her main lines of research include neuropsychology in intimate partner violence, gender, and health, and neurodevelopment. She has extensive experience in the assessment and rehabilitation of female victims of intimate partner violence.

Miguel Pérez-García is a full professor at the University of Granada (Spain) and a researcher at The Mind, Brain and Behavior Research Center (Granada, Spain). He has a strong background in clinical neuropsychology with a focus on social problems such as drug abuse and intimate partner violence. He is conducting a project about the role of neuroscience in intimate partner violence.

Natalia Bueso-Izquierdo is a researcher at The Mind, Brain and Behavior Research Center (Granada, Spain). She is also an assistant professor at the Department of Psychology and Anthropology (University of Extremadura, Spain). She has worked as a therapist for victims of abuse. She has focused her research career on the study of batterers.

References

Afifi

T. O.

Mota

Sareen

MacMillan

H. L.

(2017). The relationships between harsh physical punishment and child maltreatment in childhood and intimate partner violence in adulthood. BMC Public Health, 17, Article 493.

Aizpurua

Copp

Ricarte

J. J.

Vázquez

(2017). Controlling behaviors and intimate partner violence among women in Spain: An examination of individual, partner, and relationship risk factors for physical and psychological abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. Advance online production. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517723744

Ali

P. A.

Dhingra

McGarry

(2016). A literature review of intimate partner violence and its classifications. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 31, 16–25.

Bandura

(1977). Social learning theory. Prentice Hall.

Bernardi

Day

(2015). Intimate partner violence perpetrator subtypes and their developmental origins: Implications for prevention and intervention. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 36, 371–379.

Bueso-Izquierdo

Hart

S. D.

Hidalgo-Ruzzante

Kropp

P. R.

Pérez-García

(2015). The mind of the male batterer: A neuroscience perspective. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 25, 243–251.

Bueso-Izquierdo

Verdejo-Román

Contreras-Rodríguez

Carmona-Perera

Pérez-García

Hidalgo-Ruzzante

(2016). Are batterers different from other criminals? An fMRI study. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 11(5), 852–862.

Capaldi

D. M.

Knoble

N. B.

Shortt

J. A.

Kim

H. K.

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

Consejo General del Poder Judicial. (2019). Informe sobre víctimas mortales de la violencia de género en el ámbito de la pareja o expareja en los años 2016 a 2018. [Report about mortal victims as a consequence of gender violence within the partner or ex partner setting] http://www.poderjudicial.es/portal/site/cgpj/menuitem.65d2c4456b6ddb628e635fc1dc432ea0/?vgnextoid=e9294230f276d610VgnVCM1000006f48ac0aRCRD&vgnextchannel=a64e3da6cbe0a210VgnVCM100000cb34e20aRCRD&vgnextfmt=default&vgnextlocale=es_ES

10.

Corvo

Johnson

(2013). Sharpening Ockham’s razor: The role of psychopathology and neuropsychopathology in the perpetration of domestic violence. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 18, 175–182.

11.

Davis

K. C.

Masters

N. T.

Casey

Kajumulo

K. F.

Norris

George

W. H.

(2018). How childhood maltreatment profiles of male victims predict adult perpetration and psychosocial functioning. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 33, 915–937.

12.

Debowska

Boduszek

(2017). Child abuse and neglect profiles and their psychosocial consequences in a large sample of incarcerated males. Child Abuse & Neglect, 65, 266–277.

13.

Echeburúa

Montalvo

J. F.

de Corral

(2008). ¿Hay diferencias entre la violencia grave y la violencia menos grave contra la pareja? Un análisis comparativo [Are there differences between severe violence and less severe violence against partner? A comparative analysis]. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 8, 355–382.

14.

Ehrensaft

M. K.

Cohen

Brown

Smailes

Chen

Johnson

J. G.

(2003). Intergenerational transmission of partner violence: A 20-year prospective study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71, 741–753.

15.

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.

16.

Eriksson

Mazerolle

(2015). A cycle of violence? Examining family of origin violence, attitudes, and intimate partner violence perpetration. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30, 945–964.

17.

European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. (2014). Violencia de género contra las mujeres: Una encuesta a escala de la Unión Europea [Gender violence against women: An EU-wide survey]. https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra-2014-vaw-survey-at-a-glance-oct14_es.pdf

18.

Fonseka

R. W.

Minnis

A. M.

Gómez

A. M.

Dalal

(2015). Impact of adverse childhood experiences on intimate partner violence perpetration among Sri Lankan men. PLOS ONE, 10(8), Article e0136321.

19.

Gil-González

Vives-Cases

Ruiz

M. T.

Carrasco-Portiño

Álvarez-Dardet

(2008). Childhood experiences of violence in perpetrators as a risk factor of intimate partner violence: A systematic review. Journal of Public Health, 30, 14–22.

20.

Goldstein

D. A.

Cantos

A. L.

Brenner

L. H.

Verborg

R. J.

Kosson

D. S.

(2016). Perpetrator type moderates the relationship between severity of intimate partner violence and recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43, 879–898.

21.

Goodnight

J. A.

Bates

J. E.

Holtzworth-Munroe

Pettit

G. S.

Ballard

R. H.

Iskander

J. M.

… Lansford

J. E.

(2017). Dispositional, demographic, and social predictors of trajectories of intimate partner aggression in early adulthood. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 85, 950–965.

22.

Gracia

Rodríguez

C. M.

Martín-Fernández

Lila

(2017). Acceptability of family violence: Underlying ties between intimate partner violence and child abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. Advance online production. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517707310

23.

Henrichs

Bogaerts

Sijtsema

Klerx-van Mierlo

(2015). Intimate partner violence perpetrators in a forensic psychiatric outpatient setting: Criminal history, psychopathology, and victimization. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30, 2109–2128.

24.

Herrenkohl

T. I.

Jung

(2016). Effects of child abuse, adolescent violence, peer approval and pro-violence attitudes on intimate partner violence in adulthood. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 26, 304–314.

25.

Herrero

Torres

Fernández-Suárez

Rodríguez-Díaz

F. J.

(2016). Generalist versus specialists: Toward a typology of batterers in prison. The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 8, 19–26.

26.

Holtzworth-Munroe

Stuart

G. L.

(1994). Typologies of male batterers: Three subtypes and the differences among them. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 476–497.

27.

Howell

K. H.

Barnes

S. E.

Miller

L. E.

Graham-Bermann

S. A.

(2016). Developmental variations in the impact of intimate partner violence exposure during childhood. Journal of Injury and Violence Research, 8, 43–57.

28.

Islam

M. J.

Rahman

Broidy

Haque

S. E.

Saw

Y. M.

Duc

N. H. C.

…Mostofa

M. G.

(2017). Assessing the link between witnessing inter-parental violence and the perpetration on intimate partner violence in Bangladesh. BMC Public Health, 17, Article 183.

29.

Johnson

W. L.

Giordano

P. C.

Manning

W. D.

Longmore

M. A.

(2015). The age-IPV curve: Changes in intimate partner violence perpetration during adolescence and young adulthood. Journal of Youth Adolescence, 44, 708–726.

30.

Juarros-Basterretxea

Herrero

Fernández-Suárez

Pérez

Rodríguez-Díaz

F. J.

(2018). Are generalist batterers different from generally extra-family violent men? A study among imprisoned male violent offenders. The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 10, 8–14.

31.

Kong

Roh

Easton

S. D.

Lee

Y. S.

Lawler

M. J.

(2018). A history of childhood maltreatment and intimate partner violence victimization among native American adults. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 33, 2826–2848.

32.

Krug

E. G.

Mercy

J. A.

Dahlberg

L. L.

Zwi

A. B.

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

33.

Lee

R. D.

Walters

M. L.

Hall

J. E.

Basile

K. C.

(2013). Behavioral and attitudinal factors differentiating male intimate partner violence perpetrators with and without a history of childhood family violence. Journal of Family Violence, 28, 85–94.

34.

Ley Orgánica 1/2004, de 28 de diciembre, de Medidas de Protección Integral contra la Violencia de Género [Organic Law 1/2004, December 28th, regarding comprehensive protection measures against gender violence]. Boletín Oficial del Estado, 29 de diciembre de 2004, número 313. https://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2004/12/29/index.php?s=3

35.

Machisa

M. T.

Christofides

Jewkes

(2016). Structural pathways between child abuse, poor mental health outcomes and male-perpetrated Intimate Partner Violence (IPV). PLOS ONE, 11, Article e0150986.

36.

McMahon

Hoertel

Wall

M. M.

Okuda

Limosin

Blanco

(2015). Childhood maltreatment and risk of intimate partner violence: A national study. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 69, 42–49.

37.

Miranda-Pérez

Sanz-Gavillon

A. C.

(2015). Understanding violence against women as a public problem in post-dictatorships: A comparative study of Spain and Chile. Enfances, Familles, Générations, 22, 114–135.

38.

Moffit

T. E.

Krueger

R. F.

Caspi

Fagan

(2000). Partner abuse and general crime: How are they the same? How are they different? Criminology, 38, 199–232.

39.

Poulsen

(2018). The role of corporal punishment of children in the perpetuation of intimate partner violence in Australia. Children Australia, 43, 32–41.

40.

Richards

T. N.

Tillyer

M. S.

Wright

E. M.

(2017). Intimate partner violence and the overlap of perpetration and victimization: Considering the influence of physical, sexual, and emotional abuse in childhood. Child Abuse & Neglect, 67, 240–248.

41.

Singh

Tolman

Walton

Chermack

Cunningham

(2014). Characteristics of men who perpetrate intimate partner violence. Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine, 27, 661–668.

42.

Smith-Marek

E. N.

Cafferky

C. B.

Dharnidharka

Mallory

A. B.

Domínguez

High

… Méndez

(2015). Effects of childhood experiences of family violence on adult partner violence: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 7, 498–519.

43.

Song

Wenzel

S. L.

Kim

J. Y.

Nam

(2017). Experience of domestic violence during childhood, intimate partner violence, and the deterrent effect of awareness of legal consequences. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 32, 357–372.

44.

Spencer

C. M.

Stith

S. M.

Cafferky

(2019). Risk markers for physical intimate partner violence victimization: A meta-analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 44, 8–17.

45.

Steel

A. L.

Watkins

L. E.

DiLillo

(2017). Physical abuse in childhood as a predictor of intimate partner violence perpetration among dating couples: The role of negative affect during conflict. Partner Abuse, 8, 204–219.

46.

Wareham

Boots

D. P.

Chavez

J. M.

(2009). A test of social learning and intergenerational transmission among batterers. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37, 163–173.

47.

Watt

M. E.

Scrandis

D. A.

(2013). Traumatic childhood experiences in the lives of male perpetrators of female intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28, 2813–2830.

48.

World Health Organization. (2013). Global and regional estimates of violence against women: Prevalence and health effects of intimate partner violence and non-partner sexual violence. http://www.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/85239/1/9789241564625_eng.pdf

49.

World Health Organization. (2017). Violence against women. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/violence-against-women