Family Environment and Child-To-Parent Violence: The Role of Emotional Insecurity

Abstract

Child-to-parent violence (CPV) constitutes a serious social problem due to its short and long-term consequences, which not only directly affect the victim but also generate a rupture of the family system. In this study, direct and indirect effects of exposition to violence within the family, insecurity in the family system (manifested as disengagement and/or preoccupation), and justification of violence on CPV toward mothers and fathers were analyzed with structural equation modeling (SEM). Davies and Cummings emotional security theory (1994) was applied. A total of 904 high school students between 13 and 20 years old participated in this study. Information regarding each participant’s committed CPV was obtained from the Child-to-Parent Aggression Questionnaire. Emotional insecurity was assessed with the Security in the Family System scale. To assess exposition to violence and justification of violence, the Exposure to Violence Questionnaire and Irrational Beliefs Inventory for Adolescents were applied, respectively. Strong relationships between exposition to violence within the family, emotional insecurity, justification of violence, and CPV toward mothers and fathers were observed. The results show that adolescents who are exposed to violence at home are more aggressive in the future. In addition, this relationship is mediated, at least in part, by the justification of violence and emotional insecurity. These results suggest that prevention and treatment of CPV aggressors should focus on improving security within the survivors’ family system as well as modifying attitudes toward violence.

Keywords

child-to-parent violence family environment emotional insecurity exposition to violence violence justification adolescents

Introduction

Child-to-parent violence (CPV) is defined as “violence by which children act intentionally and consciously with the desire to cause their parents harm, damage and/or suffering, repeatedly, over time, and with the immediate purpose of obtaining power, control, and domination of their parents to get what they want” (Aroca, 2010, p. 136). Violent behaviors performed by the aggressor can be physical (push, punch, kick...) or psychological (threat, blackmail, insult, repeated screaming...).

Despite the growing interest in this social problem, research on its prevalence and characteristics is still scarce. Investigations of the Spanish Society for the Study of CPV show a continuous increase of this type of violence in Spain, rising from 2,683 cases reported in 2007 to 4,898 cases in 2015 (Pereira et al., 2017). The prevalence of this phenomenon is not precisely known, ranging internationally from 4% to 65% (Calvete et al., 2017; Lyons et al., 2015), mainly due to factors related to its definition and the instruments to evaluate it. In Spain, the data show a recent increase in the prevalence of this type of violence, establishing that up to 9% of adolescents admit having performed physical violence against their parents, whereas 91.2% have committed psychological violence (Del Hoyo-Bilbao et al., 2018). As some studies suggest that is occurring in the case of gender-based violence (Gulati & Kelly, 2020; Moreira & da Costa, 2020), CPV rates may be increasing due to the confinement situations caused by the current COVID-19 pandemic. As the outbreak spread across the world, nations began to close schools, shut down gatherings, and confine people to their homes. As a consequence of this confinement, a significant percentage of practitioners and families have reported an increase in violence against women episodes during lockdown.

Previous research has shown the existence of many variables that influence the commission of CPV. These factors can be divided into social, family, and personal. Among the social factors, poor integration in the community or peer aggression has been identified (Calvete et al., 2011; Rosado & Cantón-Cortés, 2018). Concerning family factors, the parents’ educational style, exposure to gender-based violence, and being a victim of child abuse have been associated with CPV (Papamichail & Bates, 2020; Suárez-Relinque et al., 2019). Finally, among personal variables, psychopathology, impulsivity, or alcohol and/or drug use have also been associated with higher rates of CPV (Rico et al., 2017). This research focuses on the study of the aggressor’s emotional security within the family as a possible antecedent of CPV, as well as emotional security´s family antecedents and consequents.

Emotional Security in the Family System

Emotional security within the family system refers to the sense of security, stability, and well-being that arises from family relationships perceived as positive and stable, even in the face of common stressors such as interparental conflict, is associated with children’s fewer psychological difficulties (Cantón-Cortés et al., 2020; Cummings et al., 2006), and is a fundamental and decisive aspect of children’s development within their family environment. In 1994, Davies and Cummings developed the EST, based on the attachment theory (Bowlby, 1969), originally elaborated to explain how interparental conflict influences children’s development.

However, when children are exposed to frightening behaviors, family members are inaccessible, or the family’s response to the child’s distress is inconsistent, then trust in the family, as a way to regain security, deteriorates. For example, the conflicts that parents may have in their marital relationship are a source of stress for the children, and this has obvious effects on their behavior and affective and cognitive responses. The result will be the active modification of reality to maintain their emotional security (Coe et al., 2017). In these cases, children can use the disengagement or preoccupation strategies to modify their family representations (Davies & Cummings, 1994). The strategy of preoccupation consists of being hypervigilant in family relationships, attending to those stressors that can occur in the family system. For its part, the disengagement strategy consists of distancing oneself from the family, especially at an emotional level.

The EST postulates that the physical and psychological resources used to maintain emotional security reduce the available resources for other development processes. Therefore, as a large previous body of research has confirmed, children who employ such disengagement or preoccupation strategies in order to maintain emotional security will be at increased risk of developing psychological and social difficulties. Studies have found relationships between disengagement/preoccupation strategies and the likelihood of presenting school problems, psychological distress, addictive behaviors, substance abuse, or even suicidal ideation (Barringer & Papp, 2020; Cantón-Cortés et al., 2020; Coe et al., 2017).

Although the EST is based on certain concepts of Bowlby’s attachment theory, several aspects set it apart. While the attachment theory focuses on the dyadic relationships between children and their parents, Davies and Cummings (1994) theory is based on the children’s perception of their family relationships, going beyond these dyadic relationships and thus taking into account the influence of the entire family system. In this sense, these authors establish that parental conflicts in the marital relationship can affect the children’s development. Therefore, in addition to attachment, the EST considers the characteristics of the family system and the conflicts that can occur within it that may affect the preservation of the children's emotional security (Forman & Davies, 2005).

However, despite the growing importance of EST nowadays, no study has so far analyzed the relationship between children’s emotional security and their commission of CPV. Although emotional security has not been studied in the context of CPV to date, we consider it to be a factor to be taken into account in the development of such aggressions. We propose that children who have a secure and strong family environment will develop adaptive strategies, such as communication and affection, which will lead to lower levels of CPV, but children within a conflictive family environment could develop strategies based on disengagement and preoccupation, resulting in a greater likelihood of committing CPV. Employment of disengagement and preoccupation strategies can deplete developmental resources and, in fact, according to the general strain theory (Agnew, 2006), CPV could have its origin in dysfunctional resources to cope with stress.

Exposure to Domestic Violence

However, children’s exposure to violence within the family must also be taken into account. Exposure to violence in general has been considered a key factor through which adolescents can learn aggressive behaviors and carry them out by imitation (Bandura, 1984). Exposure to violence has been broadly defined, considering direct exposure as being a victim of violence, as well as indirect exposure as witnessing violence (Buka et al., 2001).

Studies in the field of CPV have focused on the effects of exposure to violence at the family level. For instance, psychological and/or physical aggression between parents or parent-to-child correlates positively with a higher likelihood of performing CPV (Contreras & Cano, 2016; Loinaz & de Sousa, 2020). Concerning exposure to violence, besides finding that either direct or indirect exposure to domestic violence is associated with children’s performance of violence, other investigations have found that daughters are more frequently victims of maltreatment, and sons are exposed to gender-based violence (Carrasco, 2014). Other studies consider that witnessing violence in the family system is a more decisive factor for developing violent behaviors than being a victim of it (Calvete & Orue, 2013).

Justification of Violence

Another factor to consider as a precedent of CPV is the justification of violent behavior, that is, beliefs about the acceptability of violence. A child who is exposed to violent behavior may develop the belief that aggressive behavior is appropriate to resolve conflicts. Illarramendi and Luis (2014), for example, found a direct association between the justification of violence in adolescents and violent behavior toward peers.

With regard to CPV, some studies have found that children who engage in CPV are characterized by their tendency to justify violence (e.g., Cantón-Cortés et al., 2019). Calvete et al. (2014) also reported a direct link between the justification of violence and CPV, finding that this relationship is stronger in the case of verbal CPV. The results of other investigations show that there is a mediator effect of the justification of violence in the relationship between exposure to violence and aggressive behavior, such that, when children are witnesses or victims of violence in some area, they are more likely to accept violence, which in turn leads them to become more violent (Orue & Calvete, 2012).

Objectives

Despite the growing importance of the EST nowadays, to date, no study has analyzed the relationship between children’s emotional security and their commission of CPV. On the other hand, previous research has shown that exposure to domestic violence can lead to the justification of violent behavior in certain individuals, which in turn can increase the likelihood of performing CPV. To date, however, no study has attempted to analyze the family variables that explain the mechanism through which such exposure causes these behaviors to be justified. In addition to problems in socioemotional development, emotional insecurity could be associated with a greater justification of violence. As the strategies of preoccupation and disengagement, have been shown to deplete developmental resources (Forman & Davies, 2005), these strategies may also impair the adolescent’s ability to adaptively interpret the violent behaviors to which they have been exposed. As a result, the adolescent will tend to further justify violence.

Therefore, the main objective of this study was to analyze the direct and indirect effects of exposure to domestic violence, emotional insecurity in the family, and the justification of violence on CPV, both against the mother and the father, in a sample of adolescents, using SEM.

The specific objectives of this study were: (1) to analyze the relationship of exposure to domestic violence—as a victim and as a witness—with emotional insecurity in the family system, justification of violence, and CPV; (2) to analyze the relationship of emotional insecurity with the justification of violence and CPV; and (3) to analyze the relationship between the justification of violence and CPV.

It was hypothesized that exposure to domestic violence would be associated with higher levels of preoccupation and disengagement, as well as with higher levels of justification of violence and CPV. For its part, preoccupation and disengagement would be related to CPV both directly and indirectly through the justification of violence.

Method

Participants

The sample of this study consisted of 904 participants (471 boys and 433 girls). These participants came from seven Secondary Education Centers chosen randomly from southern Spain. Their ages ranged between 13 and 20 years (M = 15.29, SD = 1.11). Thus, 762 were between ages 13 and 16 (89.7%) and 140 were between 17 and 20 (15.4%).

Instruments

To obtain the sociodemographic data of the participants, a set of questions regarding the city of origin, sex, age, and school grade was included. A question on the marital status of the parents was also included.

Security in the family system Scale (SIFS).

To assess the emotional security of children within their family system, Forman and Davies designed the SIFS scale (Forman & Davies, 2005). Thus, and based on the emotional security hypothesis (Davies & Cummings, 1994), these authors included the three strategies that children use to safeguard their emotional security: security, preoccupation, and disengagement. Only subscales of Preoccupation and Disengagement were used for this study. The Preoccupation subscale contains eight items to assess children's preoccupation about the future of their family and themselves (e.g., “I don't know what to do about what is happening in my family”). The Disengagement subscale is composed of seven items that measure children’s efforts to disassociate or distance themselves from their family system (e.g., “When something bad happens in my family, I wish I could live with a different relative”). Therefore, participants answered 15 items with five response alternatives, rated on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much).

Regarding the reliability of the instrument's subscales, the authors (Forman & Davies, 2005) found an internal consistency (Cronbach alpha) of .75 for Preoccupation, and .80 for Disengagement. In our study, the Cronbach alpha coefficients obtained for each scale were .87 for Preoccupation and .76 for Disengagement.

Justification of violence subscale from the “Escala de Creencias Irracionales para Adolescentes” (ECIA [adolescents’ irrational belief scale]).

This subscale consists of nine items that evaluate the justification of the use of violence, that is, adolescents’ approval of aggression in certain situations (e.g., “Sometimes they can hit us for our own good”) (Cardeñoso & Calvete, 2004). The items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much). Orue and Calvete (2010) found a Cronbach alpha coefficient of .89. In our study, Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was .80.

Cuestionario de Exposición a la Violencia (CEV [Exposure to Violence Questionnaire]).

This questionnaire assesses exposure both to direct and indirect violence in various contexts (school, neighborhood, home, and on television) (Orue & Calvete, 2010). The scale consists of 21 items, 9 of which evaluate direct exposure (i.e., the child is a victim of violence), and 10 indirect exposure (the child witnesses violent situations). Items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (never) to 4 (every day). In our study, we only used the items corresponding to domestic violence. Studies indicate Cronbach alpha coefficients of .80 for victimization at home, and .71 for witnessing domestic violence (Orue & Calvete, 2010). In our study, the internal consistency measured with the Cronbach alpha coefficient was .82 for victimization at home, and .68 for witnessing domestic violence.

Child-to-parent aggression questionnaire (CPAQ).

The CPAQ assesses violence performed by children and youth against their parents (Calvete et al., 2013). The questionnaire consists of 20 parallel items: 10 referring to the mother and 10 to the father. In each block of 10 items, 7 of them refer to psychological violence (e.g., “You yelled at your mother/father when you were angry”), and 3 to physical assaults (e.g., “You have pushed or hit your mother/father in a fight”). Participants should indicate how often they have committed these types of aggressions against their parents in the past year on a Likert scale: 0 (never, this has not happened in my relationship with my mother or father), 1 (this has happened rarely, 1 or 2 times), 2 (sometimes, it has occurred between 3 and 5 times), and 3 (very often, it has occurred 6 times or more). This instrument has high internal consistency, with a Cronbach alpha coefficient of .76 and .88 for physical violence against mothers and fathers, respectively, and .76 and .75 for psychological violence against mothers and fathers (Calvete et al., 2013). In our study, Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was .67 and .70 for physical violence against mothers and fathers, and .74 and .71 for psychological violence against mothers and fathers, respectively.

Procedure

First, the approval of the Ethical Committee of Experimentation of the University of Malaga was obtained; with registration number 44-2020-H. Permission was sought from the different schools in order to administer the survey within them. Thus, at each school, the first contact was held with the School Board and the Department of Educational Guidance, explaining the nature and objective of the research to obtain their consent. All the centers we contacted were willing to participate in the research. The questionnaire was applied in seven public schools in southern Spain.

The participants were requested to give their informed consent and were informed that the completion of the questionnaire was strictly confidential and voluntary, so none of them should specify data that could identify them. All the students who were requested to participate were willing to do so. The administration of the questionnaire was carried out in groups, in school classrooms, or the assembly hall, leaving a space between the participants to avoid influence between classmates. The questionnaires were completed in approximately 40 minutes. Confidentiality of the data was ensured through the assignment of a numeric code to each questionnaire.

This research did not use restrictive criteria in the assessment of CPV. It was evaluated on a scale that measures how often participants engaged in aggressive behavior toward their parents. This aimed to take into account all the responses on the CPV scale, both low and high incidence. As studies have found sex differences in the performance of CPV, adolescents’ sex was controlled in the SEM (Rosado et al., 2017). Li et al. (2016) found that self-reported, retrospective research may represent a reliable method of data collection of CPV aggressors, since many victims do not disclose information about the aggressions suffered.

Statistical Analyses

Analyses were performed based on SEM with the IBM AMOS version 24 software. For the purpose of the study, the variables of CPV (psychological and physical) were combined in the latent variables total CPV against the mother and total CPV against the father. Two SEMs were carried out, first using the variable of total CPV against the mother and, subsequently, total CPV against the father.

The analysis began with a model that included all direct and indirect relationships of witnessing and being a victim of domestic violence with total CPV, through the variables of emotional insecurity (disengagement and preoccupation) and justification of violence. The participant’s sex was controlled, including its relationships with each mediator (disengagement, preoccupation, and justification of violence) and with total CPV. Sex was dummy coded, such that 1 = male and 2 = female. The covariance between exposure to domestic violence and sex was also included.

A global fit index is generated that provides a summary assessment of the model. residual mean square error approximation (RMSEA) with the 90% confidence interval (CI) was used to examine model fit. An RMSEA value ≤.05 indicates adequate fit. The Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and Tucker Lewis Index (TLI) were also applied. The minimum values of these indexes should be greater than .90, with values greater than .95 recommended for acceptance of the model (Kline, 2015). Asymptotically distribution-free (ADF) estimation was used to prevent multivariate nonnormality problems. Participants who failed to complete all of the questionnaires (n = 16, 1.76%) were removed from the analyses.

Results

All participants were enrolled in third and fourth grades of Compulsory Secondary Education (52.3%), first and second grade of high school (43.2%), or first and second grade of Vocational Training (4.3%). With regard parents’ marital status, most parents were married (70.1% of the sample), 20.9% were divorced or separated, 5% lived with a partner, .4% were single, in 2.8% of the families, one or both parents had died, and finally, .4% of the participants were adopted children.

Table 1 shows the descriptive data of the subscales of domestic violence, emotional insecurity, justification of violence, and CPV (psychological and physical, against the mother and the father). First, the percentage of participants who committed severe assaults on their parents was calculated. Following the suggestion of Calvete et al. (2013), the percentages of participants who reported threatening behavior, insults, blackmail, doing something to annoy their parents, disobeying an important order, or taking money without their permission on more than six occasions were considered severe psychological assaults. To assess severe physical aggression, the percentage of cases reporting physical assault on at least 3-5 occasions was considered. Thus, 25.4% acknowledged having committed serious psychological assaults against their mother and 20% against their father. Concerning severe physical aggression, 2.2% of the participants acknowledged that they had committed it against their mother, and 1.7% against their father.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics of Exposition to Violence, Emotional Insecurity in the Family System, Violence Justification, and Child-To-Parent Violence.

Variable	M	SD	Min.	Max.	Skewness	Kurtosis	N
Violence witness Violence victim SIFS preoccupation SIFS disengagement Violence justification CPV mother psychological Physical CPV father psychological Physical	1.51 1.58 16.59 12.08 26.35 .57 .05 .49 .04	2.36 2.51 6.87 5.20 8.06 .47 .21 .45 .18	0 0 8 7 12 0 0 0 0	12 12 40 30 60 2.57 3 2.57 2	2.03 1.87 .95 .89 .83 1.10 6.89 1.24 5.95	4.21 3.11 .46 .17 .94 1.01 65.38 1.61 42.10	904 904 904 904 904 900 900 893 892

A Pearson correlation matrix was then calculated to verify the pattern of relationships and identify those that were excessive (r > .90; Kline, 2015), indicating redundancy. As can be seen in Table 2, redundancy was not a problem. The pattern of correlations was as expected; there was a global relationship between the participant's sex, domestic violence, emotional insecurity, justification of violence, and the different types of violence against the mother and father.

Table 2.

Pearson Correlations of All of the Variables Examined in the Study.

Variable	1.	2.	3.	4.	5.	6.	7.	8.	9.	10
1. Sex 2. Violence witness 3. Violence victim 4. SIFS preoccupation 5. SIFS disengagement 6. Violence justification 7. CPVM psychological 8. CPVM physical 9. CPVF psychological 10. CPVF physical	.08* .04 .16^* .12^* −.15^*** .08^* .02 .00 −.03	.72^* .31^* .34^* .24^* .32^* .21^* .27^* .13^*	.31^* .34^* .24^* .34^* .23^* .25^* .11^***	.58^* .16^* .25^* .14^* .22^* .09^	.28^* .34^* .21^* .25^* .14^***	.34^* .14^* .30^* .13^*	.36^* .75^* .19^***	.21^* .65^*	.10^**

p < .05; ^**p < .01; ^***p < .001.

CPVM = child-to-parent violence toward mother; CPVF = child-to-parent violence toward father.

Initial Models

Regarding CPV against the mother, the model suggested that higher rates of exposure to violence as a victim and as a witness were both related to higher levels of disengagement (β = .18, p < .001 and β = .19, p < .001). Disengagement was related to higher levels of justification of violence (β = .24, p < .001), which was eventually associated with higher scores in total CPV against the mother (β = .27, p < .001).

On another hand, the model also showed several direct relationships of exposure to violence as a witness with the justification of violence (β = .11, p < .05) and of exposure as a victim with total CPV against the mother (β = .19, p < .01). Similarly, the direct relationship of disengagement with total CPV was significant (β = .24, p < .001). Finally, a relationship was found with the male sex and higher levels of disengagement and total CPV (β = .10, p < .01 and β = .10, p < .01), as well as the female sex with higher levels of justification of violence (β = −.19, p < .001). However, the relationships between preoccupation and justification of violence and total CPV were nonsignificant.

The model's fit index, χ²(5) = 7.79, p < .168, was as follows: RMSEA had a value of .025 (90% CI [.000, .057]), TLI = .95, and CFI = .99, within the recommended limits (Kline, 2015). The model predicted 34% of the variance of total CPV against the mother.

With regard to CPV against the father, the model suggested that higher rates of exposure to violence, both in the form of a victim and in the form of a witness, were related to higher levels of preoccupation (β = .19, p < .001 and β = .17, p < .01, respectively) and disengagement (β = .20, p < .001 and β = .18, p < .001, respectively). For its part, disengagement was related to higher levels of justification of violence (β = .24, p < .001), which was eventually associated with higher scores in total CPV against the father (β = .26, p < .001). On another hand, preoccupation was directly related to higher scores in total CPV (β = .10, p < .05).

The model also showed a number of direct relationships between exposure to violence as a witness and justification of violence (β = .11, p < .05) and total CPV against the father (β = .16, p < .05). Similarly, the direct relationship between disengagement and total CPV (β = .09, p < .05) was significant. Finally, relationship between the male sex and higher levels of preoccupation and disengagement was found (β = .14, p < .001 and β = .10, p < .01), as well as between the female sex and higher levels of justification of violence (β = −.19, p < .001). However, the other relationships of the model (preoccupation and justification of violence, being a victim of domestic violence and justification of violence and total CPV, and sex and CPV) were nonsignificant.

The fit index of the model of violence against the father, χ²(5) = 4.21, p < .519, was as follows: The RMSEA had a value of .001 (90% CI [.000, .043]), TLI = .99, and CFI = .99, also within the recommended limits (Kline, 2015). In this case, the model predicted 22% of the variance of total CPV against the father.

The next goal was to determine the simplest model that fit the data in the best possible way. Concerning the model of total CPV against the mother, the relationships between preoccupation and justification of violence and total CPV were nonsignificant, so the variable of preoccupation and all its relationships were removed from the model. The nonsignificant relationships between exposure to violence as a victim and justification of violence, and exposure as a witness and total CPV were also eliminated from the model. Concerning the model of total CPV against the father, the relationships between preoccupation and justification of violence, being a victim of domestic violence and justification of violence and total CPV, and sex and CPV were removed from the model because they were nonsignificant.

Final Models

Once the nonsignificant relationships were removed, the total CPV models against the mother and father were recalculated. The final model of violence against the mother is shown in Figure 1. Regarding the final fit index of the model, χ²(6) = 12.75, p < .057, the RMSEA was .035 (90% CI [.004, .063]), CFI .97, and TLI .90. Table 3 shows the effects of the predictor variables on total CPV against the mother in this final model. Removing the nonsignificant relationships did not reduce the strength of the remaining relationships of the model. The final model predicted 32% of the variance of total CPV. Figure 1.

Predictive model of CPV toward mothers (final model). Rectangles represent observed variables and ovals standardized coefficients.

Table 3.

Standardized Effects of Sex, Exposition to Violence, Emotional Insecurity, and Violence Justification on CPV Toward Mother (Final Model).

	Standardized Effects
	Indirect Effects	Direct Effects	Total Effects
Sex	–.02	.11**	.08
Violence victim	.05	.23***	.28
Violence witness	.11		.11
SIFS disengagement	.07	.25***	.32
Violence justification		.29***	.29

Notes. Values are standardized regression coefficients.

^*p < .05; ^**p < .01; ^***p < .001.

The final model of violence against the father is shown in Figure 2. Regarding the final fit index of the model, χ²(8) = 5.23, p < .732, the RMSEA remained at .001 (90% CI [.000, .029]). The CFI and TLI indexes also remained at .99. Table 4 shows the effects of the predictor variables on the total CPV against the father in the last model. As in the case of CPV against the mother, the elimination of the nonsignificant relationships did not reduce the strength of the remaining relationships of the model. The final model, like the initial model, predicted 23% of the variance of total CPV. Figure 2.

Predictive model of CPV toward father (final model). Rectangles represent observed variables and ovals represe standardized coefficients.

Table 4.

Standardized Effects of Sex, Exposition to Violence, Emotional Insecurity, and Violence Justification on CPV Toward Father (Final Model).

	Standardized Effects
	Indirect Effects	Direct Effects	Total Effects
SexViolence victimViolence witnessSIFS disengagementSIFS preoccupationViolence justification	−.02.05.11.06	.21^**.10^.11^.26^**	−.02.05.32.16.11.26

Notes. Values are standardized regression coefficients.

^*p < .05; ^**p < .01; ^***p < .001.

Discussion

This study provides results that can contribute to understanding the phenomenon of CPV. The main objective of the investigation was to examine which variables could be predicting factors for abuse against parents. The mediating role of emotional insecurity (disengagement and preoccupation) and the justification of violence in the relationship between exposure to domestic violence (as a victim or a witness) and CPV against the mother and father were analyzed.

CPV Model Against the Mother

Concerning the first specific objective of the study, which was to analyze the role of exposure to domestic violence, a relationship was found between being a victim and a witness of violence with disengagement from the family system. The increase in levels of disengagement caused by witnessing violence is consistent with the EST, which states that exposure to family conflict increases the levels of insecurity in the family system (Forman & Davies, 2005). The relationship found between victimization at home and disengagement was not found in other studies such as that of Jobe-Shields et al. (2017). However, this difference may be due to the authors’ focus on a specific type of violence, child sexual abuse. On the contrary, no effect was found on the strategy of preoccupation. There was also a direct link between witnessing violence and justification of violent behavior, but no connection in the case of being a victim of violence. Orue and Calvete (2012) did find a link to the justification of violence in both cases. Finally, there was also a direct link between victimization at home and CPV against the mother, but this relationship was not found in the case of exposure to violence as a witness. Thus, the effect of witnessing violence on CPV toward mother is completely mediated by emotional insecurity and justification of violence. Again, Orue and Calvete (2012) found that both types of exposure to violence were related to aggressive behavior. Contreras and Cano (2016) found a direct relationship between both types of victimization and CPV too. The difference in this outcome may be because, in our study, the effect of exposure to violence as a witness is fully mediated by disengagement and justification of violence. The analysis of the total effects of exposure as a witness and as a victim showed that the latter was higher than the former, in contradiction to the result found by Calvete and Orue (2013), who reported that witnessing violence in the family system is a more decisive factor for the development of violent behaviors than being a victim of violence.

With regard to the second objective of the study, this is the first research that has analyzed the role of emotional insecurity in the context of CPV. We found that disengagement from the family system (but not preoccupation) was related both to justification of violence and CPV against the mother. These results are consistent with a multitude of studies that establish a relationship between feeling disengaged in the family and a worse adaptation of the child and more problematic behaviors (Barringer & Papp, 2020). Therefore, these results are consistent with the EST because, as Davies and Cummings (1994) proposed, children achieve emotional security within the family when they establish strong bonds but if this does not occur, it leads to the development of strategies for coping with stress that implies children’s poorer adjustment.

Concerning the last objective, a direct link was found between justification of violence and performing CPV. This result coincides with that obtained in studies such as that of Cantón-Cortés et al. (2019) or Calvete et al. (2014), which also found a relationship between acceptance of violence and CPV.

Finally, regarding participants’ sex, a significant relationship was found between the female sex and the use of the disengagement strategy, as well as performing more CPV. Also, an association between the male sex and greater justification for violence was found. Concerning these results, some research has found that girls use the disengagement strategy to a greater extent to preserve their emotional security (López et al., 2012). On the other hand, the relationship we found between the female sex and CPV may be because, in our sample, the most frequent type of violence was psychological and, as previous research has shown, although boys perform more physical violence, girls carry out more psychological violence (Ibabe & Jaureguizar, 2011).

CPV Model Against the Father

Concerning the model of CPV against the father, as in the previous model, a relationship between exposure to violence (as a witness or a victim) was found not only with disengagement in the family system but also with preoccupation. Similarly, as in the CPV model against the mother, a direct association was found between being a witness of violence and justifying violent behavior. There was also a link between exposure to violence as a witness and performing CPV, but this relationship was not found in the case of exposure to violence as a victim, contrary to what was observed in the previous model. In this case, the effect of being victim at home on CPV toward was completely mediated by emotional insecurity and justification of violence. These results coincide with those obtained in other investigations linking exposure to marital violence as a witness with a greater likelihood of performing CPV (Ibabe & Jaureguizar, 2011). Unlike the previous model, the analysis of the total effects of exposure as a victim and as a witness showed that the effect of latter was greater than that of the former, the study of Calvete and Orue (2013) supporting this result.

As in the first model, disengagement showed an association with justification of violence, and this result is consistent with other studies finding that emotional insecurity in the family system constitutes a risk factor for the development of negative attitudes in children (Cantón et al., 2010). There was also a direct link not only between the use of the disengagement strategy but also between preoccupation and the performance of CPV.

Again, as in the CPV model against the mother, a direct link was found between the justification of violence and the performance of CPV, coinciding with previous research (Cantón-Cortés et al., 2019; Calvete et al. 2014).

Finally, as regards the participants’ sex, a relationship was found between the female sex and the use of the preoccupation strategy, in addition to disengagement from the family system, as in the model of violence against the mother. These results coincide with other research finding that the differences are not in the impact of marital conflict on the children, but in their response to such conflict, using different strategies based on sex (López et al., 2012), with these studies proposing that girls use the disengagement strategy to a greater extent. On the other hand, an association was found between the female sex and more justification of violent behavior although, unlike the previous model, no direct relationship was found between the participant’s sex and the performance of CPV.

Although it contributes to the understanding of the phenomenon of CPV, this research presents various limitations that we must take into account when interpreting the results. First, it is a correlational design, which means that causal associations cannot be established between the different variables studied. The study should, therefore, be replicated using longitudinal designs to understand causal relationships.

Another limitation is that this is a purely retrospective investigation, which could mean that participants do not fully remember the information requested. However, some research supports the validity of studies with such characteristics (Hardt & Rutter, 2004). Moreover, the study information was collected through a single informant, and we did not evaluate the parents to avoid biases of social desirability and to obtain a broader view of the variables related to the family environment.

Another limitation of the study arises from the fact that the participants were Secondary Education Centers students and, consequently, the generalization to the population at large must be made very cautiously. Family, social, and psychological relevant characteristics for CPV may be different among other groups. For example, the psychosocial predictors of CPV may be different in aggressors from the judicial system. However, because only a minority of CPV victims discloses aggressions, there remains a need for studies including participants from non-judicial contexts.

However, despite these limitations, the study contributes to increasing knowledge about the phenomenon of violence against parents. The results show that adolescents who are exposed to violence are more aggressive in the future. These results are consistent with previous studies (Contreras & Cano, 2016; Loinaz & de Sousa, 2020) and support the theory of social learning (Bandura, 1986). In addition, the results indicate that this relationship is mediated, at least in part, by the justification of violence and emotional insecurity, being this the first investigation that has analyzed the latter variable in the context of CPV. These results suggest that prevention and treatment of CPV aggressors should focus on improving security within the survivors’ family system as well as modifying attitudes toward violence.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article: This research was funded by a grant from the Spanish Ministry of Education and Science awarded to the first author and the University of Malaga awarded to the second author.

ORCID iDs

Ana Ruiz-Fernández

David Cantón-Cortés

Author Biographies

Miriam Junco-Guerrero, MPhil, is a research assistant from the Developmental Psychology Department at the University of Malaga, Spain. Her areas of interest include the impact of exposure to violence among children and child-to-parent aggression predictors.

Ana Ruiz-Fernández, MPhil, is a research assistant from the Developmental Psychology Department at the University of Malaga, Spain. His main criminological research interests focus on the social and individual predictors of child-to-parent violence among adolescents.

David Cantón-Cortés, PhD, is a Professor of Developmental Psychology at the University of Malaga, Spain. He earned his PhD from the University of Granada. His research interests focus on the area of family violence, specially child sexual abuse and child-to-parent violence.

References

Agnew

(2006). General strain theory: Current status and directions for further research. In Cullen

F. T.

, Wright

J. P.

, & Blevins

K. R.

(Eds.), Advances in criminological theory: Vol.15. Taking stock: The status of criminological theory (pp. 101–123). Transaction Publishers.

Aroca

(2010). La violencia filio-parental: Una aproximación a sus claves [Child-to-parent violence: An approach to its keys] [Doctoral dissertation]. Universidad de Valencia.

Bandura

(1984). Teoría del aprendizaje social (2nd ed.). [Social learning theory]. España-Calpe.

Barringer

, & Papp

L.M.

(2020). Family emotional security and problem drinking among young adult males in romantic relationships. The Family Journal , 28, 300–305. https://doi.org/10.1177/1066480720932835.

Bowlby

(1969). Attachment and loss. Vol. 1: Attachment . Hogarth Press.

Buka

S. L.

, Stichick

T. L.

, Birdthistle

, & Earls

F. J.

(2001). Youth exposure to violence: Prevalence, risks and consequences. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 71 , 298–310. https://doi.org/10.1037/0002-9432.71.3.298.

Calvete

, Gámez-Guadix

, Orue

, González-Diez

, de Arroyabe

E. L.

, Sampedro

, Pereira

, Zubizarreta

, & Borrajo

(2013). The adolescent child-to-parent aggression questionnaire: An examination of aggressions against parents in Spanish adolescents. Journal of Adolescence , 36, 1077–1081. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2013.08.017.

Calvete

, & Orue

(2013). Cognitive mechanisms of the transmission of violence: Exploring gender differences among adolescents exposed to family violence. Journal of Family Violence, 28 , 73–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-012-9472-y.

Calvete

, Orue

, & González-Cabrera

(2017). Violencia filio-parental: Comparando lo que informan los adolescentes y sus progenitores [Child-to-parent violence: Comparing adolescent-reports with parent-reports]. Revista de Psicología Clínica Con Niños y Adolescentes , 4, 9–15.

10.

Calvete

, Orue

, & Sampedro

(2014). Violencia filio-parental en la adolescencia: Características ambientales y personales [Child to parent violence in adolescence: Environmental and individual characteristics]. Journal for the Study of Education and Development, 34 , 349–363. https://doi.org/10.1174/021037011797238577.

11.

Cantón

, Cortés

M.R.

, & Cantón-Cortés

(2010). Apego, seguridad en el sistema familiar y actitudes ante la vida [Apego, seguridad en el sistema familiar y actitudes ante la vida]. International Journal of Developmental and Educational Psychology , 2, 251.

12.

Cantón-Cortés

, Cortés

M.R.

, & Cantón

(2020). Child sexual abuse and suicidal ideation: The differential role of attachment and emotional security in the family system. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , 17, 3163. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17093163.

13.

Cantón-Cortés

, Junco-Guerrero

, & Ruiz-Fernández

(2019). Justification of violence and security in the family system as predictors of child-to-parent violence . Proceedings of the XII Congreso Internacional de Psicología Jurídica y Forense [XII International Conference on Legal and Forensic Psychology]. Santiago de Compostela.

14.

Cardeñoso

, & Calvete

(2004). Desarrollo de un inventario de creencias irracionales para adolescentes [Development of an irrational beliefs inventory for adolescents]. Psicología Conductual Revista Internacional de Psicología Clínica de la Salud , 12, 289–304.

15.

Carrasco

(2014). Violencia filio-parental: Características personales y familiares de una muestra de servicios sociales [Child to Parent Violence: Individual and family characteristics in a sample of cases at a Social Services Centre]. Trabajo Social Hoy, 73 , 63–78. https://doi.org/10.12960/TSH.2014.0016.

16.

Coe

J. L.

, Davies

P. T.

, & Sturge-Apple

M. L.

(2017). The multivariate roles of family instability and interparental conflict in predicting children’s representations of insecurity in the family system and early school adjustment problems. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 45 , 211–224. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-016-0164-6.

17.

Contreras

L. M.

, & Cano

M. C.

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

18.

Cummings

E. M.

, Schermerhorn

A. C.

, Davies

P. T.

, Goeke-Morey

M. C.

, & Cummings

J. S.

(2006). Interparental discord and child adjustment: Prospective investigations of emotional security as an explanatory mechanism. Child Development, 77 , 132–152. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00861.x.

19.

Davies

P. T.

, & Cummings

E. M.

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

20.

Del Hoyo-Bilbao

, Gámez-Guadix

, & Calvete

(2018). Corporal punishment by parents and child-to-parent aggression in Spanish adolescents. Anales de Psicología, 34 , 108–116. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.6018/analesps.34.1.259601.

21.

Forman

E. M.

, & Davies

P. T.

(2005). Assessing children’s appraisals of security in the family system: The development of the Security in the Family System (SIFS) scales. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46 , 900–916. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2004.00385.x.

22.

Gulati

, & Kelly

B. D.

(2020). Domestic violence against women and the COVID-19 pandemic: What is the role of psychiatry? International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 71 , 101594. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2020.101594.

23.

Hardt

, & Rutter

(2004). Validity of adult retrospective reports of adverse childhood experiences: Review of the evidence. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45 , 260–273. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2004.00218.x.

24.

Ibabe

, & Jaureguizar

(2011). ¿Hasta qué punto la violencia filioparental es bidireccional? [Is child to parent violence bidirectional?] Anales de Psicología, 27 , 265–277.

25.

Illarramendi

G. L.

, & Luis

K. A.

(2014). Relación entre el sexo, la exposición a la violencia, la justificación de la violencia y el comportamiento violento en adolescentes [Relación entre el sexo, la exposición a la violencia, la justificación de la violencia y el comportamiento violento en adolescentes ]. Universidad Católica Andrés Bello.

26.

Jobe-Shields

, Williams

, & Hardt

(2017). Predictors of emotional security in survivors of interpersonal violence. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 26 , 2834–2842. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-017-0799-0.

27.

Kline

R. B.

(2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling . The Guilford Press.

28.

, D’Arcy

, & Meng

(2016). Maltreatment in childhood substantially increases the risk of adult depression and anxiety in prospective cohort studies: Systematic review, meta-analysis, and proportional attributable fractions. Psychological Medicine, 46 , 717–730. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291715002743.

29.

Loinaz

, & de Sousa

A. M.

(2020). Assessing risk and protective factors in clinical and judicial child-to-parent violence cases. The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 12 , 43–51. https://doi.org/10.5093/ejpalc2020a5.

30.

López

, Sánchez

, & Mendiri

(2012). Adolescents and destructive interparental conflict: Impact on the perception of the family system and differences by adolescents’ type of family, age and sex. Universitas Psychologica , 11, 1255–1262.

31.

Lyons

, Bell

, Fréchette

, & Romano

(2015). Child-to-parent violence: Frequency and family correlates. Journal of Family Violence, 30 , 729–742. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-015-9716-8.

32.

Moreira

D. N.

, & da Costa

M. P.

(2020). The impact of the Covid-19 pandemic in the precipitation of intimate partner violence. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 71, 101606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2020.101606.

33.

Orue

, & Calvete

(2010). Elaboración y validación de un cuestionario para medir la exposición a la violencia en infancia y adolescencia [Development and validation of a questionnaire to measure exposure to violence in childhood and adolescence]. International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 10 , 279–292.

34.

Orue

, & Calvete

(2012). La justificación de la violencia como mediador de la relación entre la exposición a la violencia y la conducta agresiva en infancia [Justification of violence as a mediator between exposure to violence and aggressive behavior in children]. Psicothema, 24 , 42–47.

35.

Orue

, Calvete

, & Fernández-González

(2019). Early maladaptive schemas and social information processing in child-to-parent aggression. Journal of Interpersonal Violence . https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260519831395.

36.

Papamichail

, & Bates

E. A.

(2020). “I want my mum to know that i am a good guy …”: A thematic analysis of the accounts of adolescents who exhibit child-to-parent violence in the United Kingdom. Journal of Interpersonal Violence . https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260520926317

37.

Pereira

, Loinaz

, Del Hoyo-Bilbao

, Arrospide

, Bertino

, Calvo

, Mar

, & Gutiérrez

M. M.

(2017). Propuesta de definición de violencia filio-parental: Consenso de la sociedad española para el estudio de la violencia filio-parental (SEVIFIP) [Proposal for a definition of child-to-parent violence: Consensus of the Spanish society for the study of violence]. Papeles del Psicólogo, 38, 216–223. https://doi.org/10.23923/pap.psicol2017.2839.

38.

Rico

, Rosado

, & Cantón-Cortés

(2017). Impulsiveness and child-to-parent violence: The role of aggressor’s sex. Spanish Journal of Psychology, 20 , 1–11. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1017/sjp.2017.15.

39.

Rosado

, & Cantón-Cortés

(2018). Violencia filio-parental: Un modelo de factores individuales y sociales [Child-to-parent violence: A model of individual and social factors ]. Editorial Académica Española.

40.

Rosado

, Rico

, & Cantón-Cortés

(2017). Influence of psychopathology on the perpetration of child-to-parent violence: Differences as a function of sex. Anales de Psicología, 33 , 243–251. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.6018/analesps.33.2.240061.

41.

Suárez-Relinque

, del Moral

, León-Moreno

, & Callejas

J. E.

(2019). Child-to-parent violence: Which parenting style is more protective? A study with Spanish adolescents. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16 , 1320. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.3390/ijerph16081320.