Witnessing Intimate Partner Violence as a Child and Associated Consequences

Abstract

Intimate partner violence (IPV) continues to be a global problem. The increasing international research, focussing on children who witness IPV between their parents, indicates that these circumstances might influence children in different ways. Despite these efforts, little evidence stems from Germany. Using data from a German school student survey from 2017 and 2019 (N = 21,382), this paper aims to examine the consequences of witnessing IPV. The present paper takes a closer look at children’s violent behaviour, attitudes and quality of life while controlling for other potential influences (e.g. physical and psychological child abuse). Results indicate that IPV has a significant negative effect on children’s quality of life, in particular on children’s sense of security at home and children’s life satisfaction. No other effects were significant. In discussing these complex dynamics, the results of the present study highlight the importance of considering children who witness IPV as direct victims. A home with personal threats cannot provide emotional and physical security. Coping with this absence of a secure base at home may lead to the neglect of important developmental tasks during that time, which can have possible far-reaching implications on different areas of children’s lives (e.g. social competence). Further research examining the severity and duration of witnessing IPV within the context of a longitudinal design is recommended.

Keywords

intimate partner violence children witnessing consequences

Previous studies suggest that a high number of children are exposed to intimate partner violence (IPV) at home during their childhood (Osofsky, 2003; Straus, 1992). Prevalence rates are available, for example, from the United States (25.0%; Finkelhor et al., 2015) or the United Kingdom (24.0%; Radford et al., 2011). According to the Istanbul Convention, IPV includes ‘all acts of physical, sexual, psychological or economic violence (…) between former or current spouses or partners, whether or not the perpetrator shares or has shared the same residence with the victim’ (Article 3, paragraph b; Council of Europe, 2011), and IPV can also be bidirectional (e.g. Dokkedahl&Elklit, 2019).

Studies indicate that children growing up in violent homes have more problems (e.g. emotional, cognitive, behavioural and social) than children growing up in non-violent homes (e.g. Gustafsson et al., 2014; Herrenkohl et al., 2008; Zinzow et al., 2009), even if the children have not been subjected to violence themselves. Although there are certainly differences in the effects of self-experiencing versus witnessing violence in the home, the potential consequences of witnessing violence should not be underestimated. A number of authors even go so far as to say that distinctions between children self-experiencing violence or witnessing violence between their parents in the home should not be made (Bacchini& Esposito, 2020; Rydström et al., 2019) since they are victims in both cases.

Possible Consequences of IPV on Children’s Attitudes, Behaviour and Quality of Life

According to the biopsychosocial model, socio-environmental factors, in addition to biological and psychological factors, contribute to the development of health and disease in an interrelated manner (George & Engel, 1980). Witnessing IPV as a socio-environmental factor may influence children in different ways. Previous studies indicated that witnessing IPV in the home as a child can result in negative consequences regarding children’s attitudes, children’s quality of life (QoL) and children’s behaviour.

Attitudes

Perkins et al. (2012) observed that witnessing IPV as a child may compromise self-regulation (see also, e.g., Sullivan et al., 2007; van der Merwe& Dawes, 2000). Vetere (2011) explains this relationship using attachment theory, which suggests that the social and developmental context of the family serves as a learning platform for children to understand, name and regulate their affect. Witnessing IPV interferes with this learning process and has the potential result of confusion, hyper vigilant behaviour and poor emotion regulation. Clear behavioural strategies in stress situations can thus not be developed (Vetere, 2011). In this context, Vetere (2011) also mentioned that repeated fearful experiences, such as witnessing IPV, could increase the desire for warmth and affection, which may in turn lead to risky and sexually promiscuous behaviour.

In addition, Noble-Carr et al. (2019) observed a relativizing attitude towards violence when children witnessed IPV at home (e.g. children described domestic and family violence as fights or arguing; see also Karlsson et al., 2016; Ruel et al., 2020). Other studies found a connection between IPV and concepts of masculinity (e.g. Phillips & Phillips, 2010) or the production of rigid gender roles (e.g. women as responsible for household tasks and childcare, in comparison to men as heads of the family; Graham-Bermann&Brescoll, 2000).

Quality of Life

The World Health Organization (2012, p. 11) defined QoL as ‘a broad ranging concept incorporating in a complex way by the person’s physical health, psychological state, level of independence, social relationships, personal beliefs and their relationship to salient features of their environment’. Physical security and work satisfaction are two of the incorporated facets within the environment domain (The World Health Organization (WHO), 2012).

When witnessing IPV, studies reported a fear of future victimization and, in this context, feelings of insecurity in the home (e.g. Georgsson et al., 2011; McGee, 2000; Peled, 1998). Further, children’s cognitive development (e.g. Kliem et al., 2019) or school performance (e.g. DePrince et al., 2009; Jayasinghe et al., 2009; Kiesel et al., 2016) is described as being affected by these violent circumstances. Other studies show that children who witnessed IPV had lower life satisfaction in adolescence (Lepistö et al., 2011) and in adulthood (e.g. LaBrenz et al., 2019; Miller-Graff et al., 2016).

Behaviour

Finally, witnessing IPV is positively associated with child behaviour problems (e.g. Maneta et al., 2017; Martinez-Torteya et al., 2009; Meltzer et al., 2009; Pingley, 2017; Vu et al., 2016). In this context, some studies found an association between witnessing IPV and aggression (Beckmann, 2020; Holmes et al., 2015; Steketee et al., 2021), disruptive behaviour (Grasso et al., 2016) or juvenile delinquency (Lucia &Killias, 2011; Huang et al., 2015; see also Islam et al., 2017 for the ‘intergenerational transmission of violence’ hypothesis from Straus et al., 1980), whereas other studies have not found this association (e.g. Herrera & McCloskey, 2003).

Other Influencing Variables on Children’s Attitudes, Behaviour and Quality of Life

Studies observed that self-experiencing parental violence at home could influence children’s attitudes (e.g. Dubow et al., 2012; Howarth et al., 2016; Willems et al., 2018), as well as children’s quality of life (QoL; e.g. Koutselini&Valanidou, 2014; LaBrenz et al., 2019) or children’s (violent) behaviour (e.g. Davis et al., 2020; Steketee et al., 2021). Regarding other parental behaviour, studies indicated that effective parenting (e.g. monitoring the child’s behaviour and providing a supportive and available parent–child relationship) is linked to greater QoL in children (e.g. Petito& Cummins, 2000; Oberle et al., 2011; Raboteg-Saric&Sakic, 2014), better self-regulation in children (e.g. Lösel& Farrington, 2012; Wyman et al., 1999), positive attitudes (e.g. regarding altruism, mediated through emotional intelligence: Batool & Lewis, 2020 or regarding violent behaviour: e.g. Solomon et al., 2008) and decreased externalizing (Levendosky et al., 2003) or violent behaviour (e.g. Moreno-Ruiz et al., 2018; Muñiz-Rivas et al., 2019). Beyond parents, peers also play an important role in the life of adolescents. Elliott and Menard (1996), for example, described peer pressure as the strongest risk factor for juvenile delinquency (see also Lucia &Killias, 2011; Manzoni & Schwarzenegger, 2019). Other studies found that peers can have an influence on delinquent attitudes (e.g. Carson, 2013; Seddig, 2020) or QoL (e.g. Helseth & Misvaer, 2010; You, 2011).

Objectives

It is evident that IPV occurring in homes with children can place an enormous burden on these children. There are some studies describing the consequences of witnessing IPV, but little evidence stems from Germany. Whilst many studies have examined the impact of a violent home on children, only few studies have considered the impact of self-experienced parental violence and IPV separately. In contrast to previous studies, which often examined the influence of IPV on children’s lives whilst only controlling for a few other correlates, the present study goes further by controlling for a wide range of other influencing factors (e.g. parental physical and psychological violence, delinquent friends, parental warmth and parental monitoring during childhood). Especially the additional inclusion of the peer group as a potential influencing factor appears to be a novelty. This approach allows for the investigation of whether the impact of IPV has been previously overestimated. It can thus be analysed whether observing IPV alone, independent of the other influencing factors, is related to the different outcomes (violent behaviour, children’s attitudes and QoL). The present study uses a very large dataset from a German school survey (N = 21,382) to examine these relationships. The size of the dataset represents another advantage of the current study. The hypotheses are as follows:

H1: Witnessing IPV promotes the endorsement of risk-seeking tendencies, affinity for violence and concepts of masculinity.

H2: Witnessing IPV decreases children’s QoL (with a specific focus on life satisfaction, school performance and sense of security at home).

H3: Witnessing IPV increases the likelihood of violent behaviour.

Methods

Data Collection

The following analyses use data from ninth-grade students in the Lower Saxony, collected by the Criminological Research Institute of Lower Saxony by means of a repeated representative survey in 2017 and 2019. The survey is of a cross-sectional design and is mainly dedicated to the study of youth delinquency and its influencing factors, but also includes the topic of IPV and parental violence from the children’s perspective. For the survey, a stratified, random sample was drawn according to the prevalent school types. In 2017, the survey was conducted as a classic paper-pencil survey. This was also the case for one third of students in 2019, whereas the remaining two thirds of students completed the survey on school computers. In both settings, all survey conduction occurred within the context of the school class group and lasted for two school lessons (90 minutes). Survey guidance was delivered by a trained test leader and the class teacher. State school authorities of Lower Saxony approved the study in advance. The adolescents’ parents received a study information letter, along with a request for written consent for their child’s participation. Only students whose parents agreed to the survey could participate in the study. At the beginning, the pupils were informed that the survey was voluntary and anonymous and could be stopped at any time. Participants were also informed that they would not be disadvantaged if they did not participate and that they had the right to not answer questions. The school type composition of the sample deviates only slightly from the school type composition of the population. The small differences are compensated by weighting the data by school type.

Overall, a response rate of 59.2% (2017) and 41.4% (2019) was achieved for the surveys, meaning that a total of n = 8938 (2017) and n = 12,444 (2019) students took part in the survey (N = 21,382). Approximately half of the participants were female (49.9%), and half were male (50.1%). The sample was ethnically diverse since a considerable proportion of students had a migration background (29.7%), which means that these individuals were not born in Germany, and/or did not have German citizenship, or that this applied to at least one natural parent. This proportion roughly corresponds to the actual proportion of people aged 15 to 20 with a migration background in Lower Saxony in 2019 (Landesamt für Statistik Niedersachsen, 2020). The average age of the participants was 15 years (13-19 years). Although most of the students were aged between 14 and 15 years (81.6%), the age range was quite broad for two reasons. Firstly, the school starting age in Germany varies between five and 7 years. Secondly, German schools offer the possibility of repeating a grade level if the school marks are unsatisfactory or of skipping ahead a grade level if the school marks are exceptionally good. The proportion of students aged 17 or higher was very low (2.9%). While 34.3% of the interviewees attended a high school type, 59.8% attended an intermediate school and 5.8% a low school type. The types of school can be classified in accordance with the ISCED (International Standard Classification of Education). According to this categorization, students of the low and medium school types reach Lower Secondary Education (Level 2). Low school type pupils usually complete 9 years of schooling, whereas medium school type pupils usually complete 10 years of schooling. Pupils of the high school type reach Upper Secondary Education (Level 3) after 13 years of school. The different school types are about equally frequent in the sample as in the total population (see Bergmann et al., 2019; Krieg et al., 2020). Furthermore, 31.1% of students did not live with their two biological parents. In addition, 8.1% of the adolescents’ parents received government transfer payments, which is relatively similar to the rate of the whole state in 2019 (8.5%; Federal and State Statistical Offices, 2021).

Measuring Instruments

Dependent Variables

Table 1 shows the operationalization of the dependent variables with their respective mean value, median or modus as well as the standard deviation and internal reliability coefficient. The internal reliabilities of the scales were reasonable to high (for verbal classification see Taber, 2018).

Table 1.

Dependent Variables.

	Construct	Operationalization	Scale	M	SD	α
Violent behaviour		5 items; e.g. ‘Many people have deliberately beaten and injured someone when they were young. Have you ever done this in the last 12 months? Hit, kicked, choked or otherwise assaulted someone alone so that he or she was injured (e.g. a bleeding wound or a black eye)? No weapon or object was used’	0 [no]; 1 [yes]	0	—	—
Individual attitudes	Affinity for violence	4 items; example item:‘A little violence is just part of having fun’	1 [strongly disagree] to 4 [strongly agree]	1.65	.63	.76
	Masculinity norms legitimizing violence	4 items; example item: ‘A real man is ready to strike when someone talks badly about his family’	1 [strongly disagree] to 4 [strongly agree]	1.83	.66	.73
	Risk-seeking tendencies	4 items; example item: ‘I like to test my limits by doing something dangerous’	1 [strongly disagree] to 4 [strongly agree]	2.20	.78	.85
Quality of life	Life satisfaction	5 items; example item: ‘How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with your life in general?’	1 [not at all satisfied] to 4 [very satisfied]	3.18	.52	.62
	Sense of security at home	1 item; ‘How safe or unsafe do you feel in the following places? In my home’	0 [unsafe]; 1 [safe]	1	-	-
	School performance	3 items; ‘Please indicate your school grades in your last report for the following subjects: German, Maths, Biology’	1 [excellent] to 6 [insufficient]	2.96	.75	.70

Note. M= mean value or modus; SD = standard deviation.

Violent Behaviour

Violent behaviour was assessed through the perpetration of five offences: (1) robbery, (2) extortion, (3) assault with a weapon, (4) assault by several persons and (5) assault by an individual person, within the last twelve months. Students who had never perpetrated such an offence were assigned the value 0, while the value 1 was assigned to those adolescents who had perpetrated at least one of these offences. These items were developed by the Criminological Research Institute of Lower Saxony and are based on official criminal offences.

Individual Attitudes

Regarding individual attitudes, adolescents’ affinity for violence (Cronbach’s α = .76; items were developed by the Criminological Research Institute of Lower Saxony), masculinity norms legitimizing violence (Cronbach’s α = .74; Enzmann et al., 2004) and risk-seeking tendencies (Cronbach’s α = .85; Grasmick et al., 1993) were each measured on the basis of four items (see Table 1). The answers could be graded on a 4-point-scale, ranging from 1 ‘strongly disagree’ to 4 ‘strongly agree’ and were recoded into three respective mean value scales.

Quality of Life

QoL is measured in relation to the fields of life satisfaction, sense of security at home and school performance. All items were developed by the Criminological Research Institute of Lower Saxony. Life satisfaction is accessed using five items (Cronbach’s α = .62). The adolescents could rate their answer on a 4-point-scale from 1 ‘not at all satisfied’ to 4 ‘very satisfied’. The items were recoded into a mean value scale. Beyond that, the sense of security at home was assessed using one item which could be rated on a 4-point-scale from 1 ‘very unsafe’ to 4 ‘safe’. The answer was recoded into a dummy variable. Students who felt ‘very unsafe’ and ‘rather unsafe’ were given the value 0, while adolescents who felt ‘rather safe’ and ‘very safe’ were given the value 1. In terms of school performance, subject grades for German, Maths and Biology were combined to form a mean value scale (Cronbach’s α = .70). The students were required to report the grade they achieved on their last report based on the German grading system from 1 ‘excellent’ to 6 ‘insufficient’.

Independent Variables

Table 2 presents the operationalization of the independent variables with their respective mean value, median or modus as well as the standard deviation and internal reliability coefficient. The internal reliabilities of the scales were reasonable to high (for verbal classification, see Taber, 2018).

Table 2.

Independent Variables.

Construct	Operationalization	Scale	M	SD	α*
WitnessingPhysical IPV	2 items: It can also happen that parents often argue. How often has this happened at your house in the last 12 months?‘I witnessed one parent violently pushing or shaking the other one around’,‘I saw one parent hit the other’	1 [never]; 2 [1 or 2 times]; 3 [3 to 12 times]; 4 [several times per month]; 5 [once a week]; 6 [several times a week]	1.0	—	.85
Parental physical violence during childhood	6 items per parent; example item: ‘How many times did the following happen before you were 12 years old? Mother/father punched or kicked me’	1 [never]; 2 [1 or 2 times]; 3 [3 to 12 times]; 4 [several times per month]; 5 [once a week]; 6 [several times a week]	1.0	—	.88
Parental physical violence in the last 12 months	6 items per parent; example item: ‘In the last 12 months, how often did your parents beat you? Mother/father hit me with his fist or kicked me’	1 [never]; 2 [1 or 2 times]; 3 [3 to 12 times]; 4 [several times per month]; 5 [once a week]; 6 [several times a week]	1.0	—	.90
Parental psychological violence	1 item per parent; ‘How many times did the following happen before you were 12 years old? Mother/father called me “stupid”, “lazy”, or something similar’	1 [never]; 2 [1 or 2 times]; 3 [3 to 12 times]; 4 [several times per month]; 5 [once a week]; 6 [several times a week]	1.5	—	.75
Delinquent friends	2 items; How many friends do you have that have done this in the last 12 months? Number of friends who ‘hit and hurt another human being’, ‘took something from someone by force’	1 [zero]; 2 [one]; 3 [two]; 4 [three to five]; 5 [six to 10];6 [over 10]	1.0	—	.72
Parental warmth during childhood	6 Items per parent; example item: ‘Please think back to before you were 12 years old. How many times did this happen? Mother/father praised me when I had done something well’	1 [never]; 2 [seldom]; 3 [sometimes]; 4 [often];5 [very often]	4.11	.74	.90
Parental monitoring during childhood	3 Items per parent; example item: ‘Please think back to before you were 12 years old. How many times did this happen? Mother/father knew exactly where I was in my spare time’	1 [never]; 2 [seldom]; 3 [sometimes]; 4 [often];5 [very often]	4.02	.74	.73
Sex		0 [male]; 1 [female]	0	—	—
Parents living together	1 item; ‘Do you live with your two biological parents?’	0 [yes]; 1 [no]	0	—	—
School type		0 [low school type];1 [medium school type]; 2 [high school type]	1	—	—
Year		0 [2017]; 1 [2019]	1	—	—
Survey type		0 [paper-pencil]; 1 [online]	0	—	—

Note. M= depending on operationalization mean value (metric scale), median (ordinal scale) or modus (nominal scale); SD = standard deviation; *=in cases of a categorical operationalization we used McDonald’s omega (Ω; Trizano-Hermosilla& Alvarado, 2016) and in cases of two items we used the Spearman–Brown coefficient (Eisinga et al., 2013).

Witnessing IPV

Witnessing IPV was measured using two items that assess the extent to which students observed physical acts of aggression between their parents within the last twelve months (Spearman–Brown coefficient = .85). These items were developed by the Criminological Research Institute of Lower Saxony. The students answered if they (1) witnessed one parent violently pushing or shaking the other parent and (2) saw one parent hit the other parent. Answers were recorded on a 6-point-scale, ranging from 1 ‘never’ to 6 ‘several times a week’. The responses were combined to form a mean value scale.

Parental Physical Violence (Control Variable)

In order to (retrospectively) assess parental violence experienced during childhood, the current study used six items (per parent) from the German short version of the Conflict Tactic Scale I (CTS) (Straus, 1979; see also Wetzels, 1997). Using a 6-point-scale, ranging from 1 ‘never’ to 6 ‘several times a week’, the adolescents reported how often their father and mother had behaved violently towards them before the age of twelve. Following this, a mean value scale was formed (McDonald’s Ω = .88). Experiences of parental violence within the last twelve months were measured using the same questions and were operationalized in the same manner (McDonald’s Ω = .90).

Parental Psychological Violence (Control Variable)

Perceived levels of psychological violence were measured using one item (per parent) that assesses how often their mother and father called the students ‘stupid’, ‘lazy’, or something similar (CTS; Straus, 1979). The students could indicate their answers on a 6-point-scale, ranging from 1 ‘never’ to 6 ‘several times a week’. Following this, an average value for parental psychological violence was formed by means of constructing a mean value scale (McDonald’s Ω = .75).

Delinquent Friends (Control Variable)

The measurement for delinquent friends is based on two items that assess the number of friends who (1) hit and hurt another human being and (2) took something from someone by force. The students could indicate this on a 6-point-scale, ranging from 1 ‘zero’ to 6 ‘over 10’. The responses were combined to form a mean value scale (McDonald’s Ω = .72). These items were developed by the Criminological Research Institute of Lower Saxony.

Parental Warmth in Childhood (Control Variable)

Parental warmth during childhood was assessed using a scale inspired by the concept of parenting styles by Baumrind (1991). The students responded to six items (per parent) about how often the respective parent cared for them prior to the age of twelve. The students could rate their answers on a 5-point-scale, ranging from 1 ‘never’ to 5 ‘very often’. Following this, a mean value scale, which indicates the average care of the parents, was formed (Cronbach’s α = .90).

Parental Monitoring in Childhood (Control Variable)

To assess parental monitoring during childhood, the current study used three items (per parent) to enquire how many times the respective parent had monitored the child’s life before the age of twelve (Baumrind, 1991). The adolescents indicated their answers on a 5-point-scale, ranging from 1 ‘never’ to 5 ‘very often’. Following this, an average value for the parental monitoring was formed by constructing a mean value scale (Cronbach’s α = .73).

Additional Control Variables

In addition, adolescents’ age and whether they lived with their biological parents (0 = yes; 1 = no) were included in the analysis. The survey year (2017 = 0; 2019 = 1) and the survey type (0 = paper-pencil; 1 = online) were also included. Moreover, sex (0 = male; 1 = female) and the school type (1 = low, 2 = medium, and 3 = high) were also regarded as control variables. With regard to gender, in 2019, it was possible for the students to specify a ‘different gender’ as a third option. However, as this option was indicated by very few people (n = 89), it was excluded in the present sample.

Analytical Strategy

To assess if the outcome variables (violent behaviour, individual attitudes and QoL) are related to the independent variables examined in this study, Pearson’s correlation or Spearman’s Rho were calculated for all relevant variables. Correlation coefficients are presented in Table 3.

Table 3.

Correlations of the Independent and Dependent Variables (Pearson’s r and Spearman’s rho).

	Dependent variables
Independent variables	Violent behaviour	Affinity for violence	Masculinity norms legitimizing violence	Risk-seeking tendencies	Life satisfaction	Sense of security at home	School performance
Witnessing physical IPV	.07	.08	.08	.06	−.14	−.17	.05
Parental physical violence during childhood	.17	.17	.17	.16	−.24	−.21	.09
Parental physical violence in the last 12 months	.14	.15	.14	.12	−.17	−.19	.09
Parental psychological violence	.14	.18	.16	.16	−.23	−.11	.11
Delinquent friends	.37	.36	.32	.29	−.15.	−.09	.15
Parental warmth during childhood	−.10	−.14	−.09	−.13	.42	.17	−.12
Parental monitoring during childhood	−.09	−.16	−.10	−.14	.25	.10	−.10
Sex	−.15	−.32	−.27	−.19	−.12	−.04	−.11
Age	.08	.14	.14	.05	−.11	−.07	.18
Parents living together	.06	.03	.02	.05	−.16	−.05	.10
School type^a	−.09	−.14	−.16	−.04	.06	.07	−.16
Year	−.01	.09	.04	−04	.06	.01	−.04
Survey type	.00	.09	.06	−.01	.03	−.02	−.03

* p< .05; Grey and italics = non-significant.

^a Spearman’s rho.

To assess if witnessing physical IPV as a child has a significant relationship with the above-mentioned areas (violent behaviour, individual attitudes and QoL), while controlling for the influence of other factors (parental physical and psychological violence, delinquent friends, parental warmth, parental monitoring during childhood, sex, age, parents living together, school type, survey year and survey type), linear and logistic regression analyses were performed. The sample was reduced due to missing values in the dependent and/or independent variables (if any variable contained at least one missing value, the case was excluded). The statistical assumptions of the respective regression were checked in advance. The results of the regression were not distorted through multicollinearity (all tolerance values < .1; all Variance Inflation Factors ≤ 7).

Results

Bivariate Analyses

Almost all of the correlations were significant and of small to large size (r = .02 to .42); only some associations with the control variables (sex, living with parents, year of the survey and survey type) were non-significant. The correlation between witnessing physical IPV and the dependent variables lies between r =−.17 and r = .05. The strongest relationships for witnessing physical IPV exist in the form of associations with life satisfaction (r =−.14) and sense of security at home (r =−.17).

Multivariate Analysis

The proportion of variance that can be explained by the predictors in the linear regression models is between 8% (R² = .08 for school performance) and 25% (Nagelkerke’s pseudo R² = .25 for violent behaviour). For the logistic regression analyses, the Hosmer–Lemeshow test was further computed to indicate the model fit due to the methodological shortcomings of the pseudo R² (Hemmert et al., 2018). Regarding the regression model in which violent behaviour served as the outcome variable, the Hosmer–Lemeshow test produced a statistically significant result (χ² (8) = 48.42, p < .001), thereby indicating a poor model fit. The model that includes sense of security at home as the outcome variable has a good model fit (χ² (8) = 8.77, p> .05).

As seen in Table 4, several predictors show significant associations with the dependent variables. The following presentation of results focusses on the independent variable witnessing physical IPV. Witnessing physical IPV has a negative effect on life satisfaction and sense of security at home when controlling for other variables (parental physical and psychological violence, delinquent friends, parental warmth, parental monitoring during childhood, sex, age, parents living together, school type, survey year and survey type). Thus, when witnessing physical IPV increases by 1 unit on the 6-point-scale, the life satisfaction of youths decreases by .05 units on the 4-point-scale (b =−.05, SE = .01, p< .001). Other significant effects in this model included parental physical violence (last 12 months), parental psychological violence, delinquent friends, parental warmth in childhood, sex, age, parents living together and the survey year (see Table 4). Compared to these variables (and considering the standardized coefficients in this context), witnessing physical IPV (b* =−.03) has a small significant effect on life satisfaction in adolescents besides parental physical violence within the last 12 months (b* =−.02).

Table 4.

Regression Analyses on the Effect of IPV on Violent Behaviour, Individual Attitudes and Quality of Life (While Controlling for the Influence of Other Factors).

Outcome variable
		Individual attitudes						Quality of life
	Violent behaviour	Affinity for violence		Masculinity norms legitimizing violence		Risk-seeking tendencies		Life satisfaction		Sense of security at home	School performance
Predictor	OR (SE)	b (SE)	b*	b (SE)	b*	b (SE)	b*	b (SE)	b*	OR (SE)	b (SE)	b*
Witnessing physical IPV	1.03 (.07)	.02 (.01)	.01	.02 (.01)	.01	.01 (.02)	.00	−.05^*** (.01)	−.03^***	.74^*** (.06)	−.01 (.02)	−.01
Parental physical violence (childhood)	1.25^** (.07)	.04^** (.01)	.02^**	.05^*** (.01)	.03^***	.06^*** (.02)	.03^***	−.01 (.01)	−.01	.77^** (.08)	−.01 (.02)	−.00
Parental physical violence (last 12 months)	.90 (.11)	.04 (.02)	.02	.05 (.02)	.02^*	−.01 (.03)	−.00	−.05^** (.02)	−.02^**	.76^* (.12)	.02 (.03)	.01
Parental psychological violence	1.23^*** (.03)	.04^*** (.00)	.07^***	.05^*** (.00)	.09^***	.07^*** (.01)	.11^***	−.05^*** (.00)	−.11^***	.90^* (.04)	.05^*** (.01)	.08^***
Delinquent friends (reference: zero)	2.40^*** (.03)	.21^*** (.01)	.26^***	.21^*** (.01)	.24^***	.23^*** (.01)	.22^***	−.05^*** (.01)	−.08^***	.84^** (.05)	.08^*** (.01)	.09^***
Parental warmth in childhood	.92 (.06)	−.03^*** (.01)	−.03^***	−.01 (.01)	−.01	−.01 (.01)	−.01	.24^*** (.01)	.34^***	2.33^*** (.08)	−.04^*** (.01)	−.04^***
Parental monitoring in childhood	.95 (.05)	−.05^*** (.01)	−.05^***	−.00 (.01)	−.00	−.07^*** (.01)	−.07^***	−.00 (.01)	−.00	.92 (.08)	−.02^* (.01)	−.02^*
Sex (reference: male)	2.72^*** (.07)	−.32^*** (.01)	−.25^***	−.28^*** (.01)	−.21^***	−.23^*** (.01)	.−14^***	−.14 (.01)	−.13^***	1.85^*** (.12)	−.10^*** (.01)	−.07^***
Age	.13^** (.05)	.04^*** (.01)	.04^***	.06^*** (.01)	.06^***	.01 (.01)	01	−.05^*** (.01)	−.07^***	.81^** (.07)	.15^*** (.01)	.13^***
Parents living together	1.25^** (.07)	−.03^** (.01)	−.02^**	−.03^** (.01)	−.02^**	.04^** (.01)	.02^**	−.07^*** (.01)	−.06^***	.94 (.12)	.08^*** (.01)	.05^***
School type (reference low)
MediumHigh	1.04 (.14)1.43^* (.15)	−.09^* (.02)−.16^* (−02)	−.07^*−.12^*	−.10^*** (.02)−.22 (.02)	−.08^*−.16^*	.03 (.03).06 (.03)	.02.04^*	.00 (.02).00 (.02)	.00.00	.48^* (.18).34^* (.21)	.02 (.03)−.15^*** (.03)	.01–.09^***
Survey year	1.20^* (.09)	.06^*** (.01)	.04^***	−.02 (.01)	−.02	−.14^*** (.02)	−.09^***	.09^*** (.01)	.09	.56^** (.17)	−.11^*** (.02)	−.07^***
Survey type	1.02 (.09)	.04^*** (.01)	.03^***	.08^*** (.01)	.06^***	.04^* (.01)	.02^*	−.00 (.01)	−.00	1.50^* (.17)	.00 (.01)	.00
Constant	.00^*** (.72)	1.50^*** (.11)		1.03^*** (.11)		2.1^2*** (.14)		3.48^*** (.09)		695,06^*** (1.06)	.97^*** (.14)
Observations	18.760	19.127		19.013		19.154		19.150		19.121	18.952
(Nagelkerke) R²	.251	.225		.183		.126		.227		.185	.083
(Nagelkerke) R² (without IPV)	.256	.224		.182		.125		.227		.175	.082

Note. A reduce sample is indicated because of missing values.

* p< .05, ** p< .01, *** p< .00.

Further, the chance of feeling safe at home decreases by .74 when witnessing physical IPV increases by one unit on the 6-point-scale (OR = .74, SE = .06, p< .001). Other significant effects in this model included parental physical violence (childhood, last 12 months), parental psychological violence, delinquent friends, parental warmth in childhood, sex, age, school type (medium, high), survey year and survey type (see Table 4).

A comparison between the variance explanation when including witnessing physical IPV as a predictor versus not including witnessing physical IPV shows that including witnessing physical IPV increases the variance explanation of the model that includes sense of security at home as the outcome variable, but not in the model that includes life satisfaction as the dependent variable.

Regarding the influence of witnessing physical IPV on the other outcome variables, witnessing physical IPV shows no significant effect when controlling for the other variables. In the models that include violent behaviour, affinity for violence, masculinity norms legitimizing violence and risk-seeking tendencies as outcome variables, variables relating to sex and delinquent friends had the strongest influence (see Table 4). However, in the model that includes school performance as the outcome variable, adolescents’ school type (high) and age had the greatest effect (see Table 4).

Discussion

Considering that the COVID-19 pandemic potentially increases the risk of IPV (e.g. van Gelder et al., 2020), possible consequences of this kind of violence should be taken even more seriously. The main finding of the present study is that witnessing physical IPV has a significant negative effect on children’s sense of security at home. Thus, hypothesis 2 can be at least partly confirmed. An association between witnessing IPV and feelings of insecurity at home was also observed in other studies (e.g. Georgsson et al., 2011). Given that parental protection and having a personal safe place, along with trusting the people around them, are the most important associations with safety according to children (Fattore et al., 2009), this finding is unsurprising. In this context, feeling safe at home is positively associated with children’s well-being (Lee &Yoo, 2015; The Children’s Society, 2014) and overall life satisfaction (Steckermeier, 2019). For The World Health Organization (2012), safety is also a main facet within the concept of QoL. An emphasis is placed on the importance of safety at home for children’s lives. The home should thus be a place without personal threats that provides emotional and physical security for children (Fattore et al., 2009). Growing up in a home where children witness parental IPV conflicts with this ideal. According to the spillover-hypothesis, which states that the experience of negative stressors within one system directly transfers to another (Erel&Burman, 1995), feeling unsafe in one domain may spill over to another domain. In this context, studies show a positive association between safety at home, school safety and neighbourhood safety (Lee &Yoo, 2015). It stands to reason that children who do not feel safe at home will also experience insecurity in other areas of their lives. More specifically, studies found that children who witness IPV at home are much more likely to experience polyvictimisation, for example, bullying (e.g. Lepistö et al., 2011; Lucas et al., 2016).

In accordance with hypothesis 2, witnessing physical IPV has a small yet significant negative effect on children’s life satisfaction. Other studies also show that the family environment plays a crucial role regarding adolescents’ life satisfaction (e.g. Lepistö et al., 2011; Ni et al., 2021). In light of the small negative effect of witnessing physical IPV on children’s life satisfaction found in the present study, it is important to remember that the present study also controlled for experiences of parental violence as an important influencing factor on children’s lives. However, in the present study, the variance explanation of the model including life satisfaction as the dependent variable could not be improved through integrating witnessing physical IPV as an independent variable. In this context, the mediating role of the sense of security at home regarding the effect of witnessing physical IPV on children’s life satisfaction is conceivable. It appears even more plausible when considering the positive association between feelings of security at home and overall life satisfaction, found by Steckermeier (2019). This relationship should be further explored in mediation analyses.

Furthermore, the present study examined the relationship between witnessing physical IPV and general life satisfaction, which consists of five domains that were not examined more closely. However, it is possible that witnessing physical IPV has a lesser effect on school satisfaction, but a greater effect on social relationship satisfaction. Thus, future studies should conduct differentiated analyses on life satisfaction.

In contrast to hypotheses 1 and 3, as well as to some other studies (e.g. Lucia &Killias, 2011; Noble-Carr et al., 2019; Phillips & Phillips, 2010), but in line with Herrera and McCloskey (2003; for violent behaviour), witnessing physical IPV shows no significant effect within the model that includes violent behaviour, affinity for violence and masculinity norms legitimizing violence as dependent variables in the present study. In these models, delinquent friends (as the independent variable) provided the most important influence. This finding is unsurprising as peers seem to have a much greater influence on juvenile delinquency (e.g. Lucia &Killias, 2011; Manzoni & Schwarzenegger, 2019), antisocial behaviour (e.g. Khaliq&Rasool, 2019) and attitudes (e.g. Seddig, 2020) in comparison to witnessing IPV. Another finding of the present study was that self-experiencing parental violence during childhood had a greater effect than self-experiencing parental violence within the last 12 months. Witnessing physical IPV, however, was only measured in relation to the last 12 months. At this point, it can thus only be suspected that the effect of witnessing physical IPV during childhood would be greater. Vu et al., 2016 also point out that witnessing IPV has different effects on internalizing and externalizing behaviour according to whether witnessing IPV was measured during childhood or adolescence. Further studies should thus integrate witnessing IPV during childhood in order to consider possible long-lasting effects. In this context, longitudinal studies that additionally include the severity and duration of witnessing IPV, as well as an exposure to violence within different settings (e.g. school, peer groups or neighbourhoods), are preferable since multiple exposure has a strong effect on predicting adolescents’ problems (Mrug&Windle, 2010). Regarding this, Bacchini and Esposito (2020) noted that witnessing neighbourhood and school violence had a greater association with antisocial behaviour than witnessing IPV at home. Especially the model that includes violent behaviour as the dependent variable should thus be reconsidered with the inclusion of these suggestions, as the Hosmer–Lemeshow test indicated a poor model fit of the model.

Furthermore, in contrast to hypothesis 1 and the remarks of Vetere (2011), the present study does not show a significant effect of witnessing physical IPV on risk-seeking tendencies. The most important influencing variable within the model that includes risk-seeking tendencies as the dependent variable was the number of delinquent friends, which confirms the results of other studies (e.g. Silva et al., 2017). The present findings suggest that the influence of other factors is more critical for the existence of risk-seeking tendencies than witnessing physical IPV. It is also conceivable that other domains of low self-control identified by Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990), for example, self-centeredness, are more affected by experiences of witnessing IPV. Using a cluster analysis, Wegemer (2020) found that participants in the self-centred cluster had the highest level of depressive symptoms compared to the other four clusters (selfless, selfless materialist, interdependent insider and self-centred non-materialist). Regarding the association between exposure to IPV and higher depression rates (Herrera &Stuewig, 2017), the role of depression as a mediator within the effect of witnessing IPV on children’s self-centeredness is conceivable. This relationship should be further explored in mediation analyses.

Moreover, in contrast to hypothesis 2, no significant effect of witnessing physical IPV was observed in the model that includes school performance as the dependent variable. This is surprising as previous studies found that witnessing IPV affects cognitive development (e.g. Kliem et al., 2019) and school performance (e.g. DePrince et al., 2009). One possible explanation might be that other factors (e.g. school type) play a more important role and conceal the effect of witnessing physical IPV. Future studies should focus on the influence of witnessing IPV on school performance in a differentiated manner; for example, separate models according to school type, along with individual consideration of various subject grades. The present study examined the relationship between witnessing physical IPV and general school performance, which consisted of three subjects (German, Maths and Biology). Detailed examinations of these subjects, however, were not carried out. Based on findings that witnessing IPV affects cognitive development (e.g. Kliem et al., 2019), a differentiated analysis could investigate whether IPV has an equal impact on all subjects or whether isolated subjects that require more cognitive performance are more greatly affected.

Limitations

In light of several methodological considerations, cautious conclusions must be drawn from this study. First, it must be pointed out that this is a cross-sectional survey that can identify correlations but cannot map causal relationships. Statements are thus limited to arguing that witnessing physical IPV and the other independent variables are related (or not related) to violent behaviour, individual attitudes or QoL, but not whether they are causally responsible. Therefore it is possible that the temporal order of violent behaviour and witnessing physical IPV is violated. Only the findings regarding parental physical and psychological violence during childhood can be interpreted as approximately causal since adolescents reported instances before the age of twelve. However, conclusions relating to these variables rely on the assumption of correct recall.

Secondly, some variables in the current study were measured using a very small number of items. This is reflected in the operationalization of variables such as physical IPV, which only used two items that, of course, only cover a limited range of behaviours. In future studies, a more precise measurement using a greater number of items would be desirable. Beyond that, it would also be interesting to include other forms of IPV (i.e. other than physical IPV). In addition, life satisfaction was also measured using a small scale. Since Cronbach’s alpha is affected by the number of items (Cortina, 1993), this could explain why the scale for life satisfaction showed a rather low alpha reliability. Future studies should employ more extensive validated scales, which would increase the comparability of studies conducted in this area.

Third, the study design only allowed for the surveying of ninth-grade students, meaning that reliable statements are limited to this age group.

Fourth, as in all survey studies, data may have been falsified by respondents due to processes of social desirability or deliberate deception. In this study, however, such processes were kept to a minimum by informing participating students about the underlying data protection mechanisms (e.g. anonymized survey, no feedback to parents, school or teachers) in detail.

Fifth, although the response rate can be considered satisfactory across both survey points, it is possible that particularly delinquent students disproportionately often did not participate in the survey due to disciplinary measures (e.g. exclusion from class, expulsion from school) or truancy.

Sixth, it was not possible to include all influencing factors in the models; future studies should address this. For example, depression may constitute a mediating variable when considering that exposure to IPV leads to higher depression rates and depression is considered a risk factor for violent behaviour (Herrera &Stuewig, 2017). Another possible mediation is the parent-child attachment. Children witnessing IPV at home might have weaker bonds of attachment to their parents and are therefore at a higher risk of antisocial behaviour (Sousa et al., 2011; see also Vetere, 2011)

Finally, it should be positively highlighted that since the study is a representative survey in the German federal state of Lower Saxony, a quite diverse sample was reached (e.g. representative sample of students with a migration background, from different school types, and with parents who receive government transfer payments). Although the effects of self-experiencing and witnessing parental violence can be expected to be negative in all countries, the unique nature of German law compared to, for example, the U.S. must be emphasized at this point. In 2000, the German Bundestag established the right to freedom from violence in §1631 BGB (Germany): ‘Children have the right to a non-violent upbringing. Physical punishments, psychological injuries and other degrading measures are inadmissible’. In the U.S. corporal punishment, such as the spanking of children, is not illegal in any state. Furthermore, Germany ratified the Istanbul Convention in 2018 to protect victims of violence, whereas in other countries (e.g. Russia) such liabilities are not present. The Istanbul Convention emphasizes in the preamble that children are also victims in circumstances of witnessing familial violence. Generalizations to non-German samples must thus be done with caution. Cross-national studies on the effects of self-experiencing or witnessing parental violence in childhood can only be recommended at this point.

Conclusion

The present study provides an initial approach to examine the consequences of witnessing physical IPV at home as a child, whilst controlling for parental physical and psychological violence, delinquent friends, parental warmth and monitoring during childhood. Thus far, in Germany, no studies have been carried out that address the consequences of witnessing IPV whilst controlling for these important influencing factors. In the present study with N = 21,382 German school students, witnessing physical IPV has a significant negative effect on children’s sense of security at home. Thus, a home with personal threats cannot provide emotional and physical security. Further considerations relating to the effect of the absence of a secure base on children’s well-being and overall life satisfaction highlight the recommendation to consider children witnessing IPV as direct victims. Practitioners should integrate these implications into their work by creating a secure environment for these children, thereby improving their lives.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to all participating schools, students, and teachers, as well as test administrators. The authors would also like to thank Solveig Haselbach for providing English correction on a previous draft.

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: The Ministry of Science and Culture of Lower Saxony, Germany supported the survey. No conditions whatsoever were imposed with the financing.

ORCID iDs

Anja Stiller

Yvonne Krieg

Author Biographies

Anja Stiller works as a research assistant at the Criminological Research Institute of Lower Saxony in Hannover (Germany). Her research focuses on violent crime, family life and autism.

CarolinNeubert works as a research assistant at the Criminological Research Institute of Lower Saxony in Hannover (Germany). Her research focuses on qualitative methodologies, interpersonal violence and family sociology.

Yvonne Krieg works as a research assistant at the Criminological Research Institute of Lower Saxony in Hannover (Germany). Her research focuses on right-wing extremism, conspiracy narratives and youth delinquency.

References

Bacchini

Esposito

(2020). Growing up in violent contexts: Differential effects of community, family, and school violence on child adjustment. In Balvin

Christie

D. J.

(Eds.), Peace Psychology Book Series. Children and Peace (pp. 157–171). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22176-8_10

Batool

S. S.

Lewis

C. A.

(2020). Does positive parenting predict pro-social behavior and friendship quality among adolescents? Emotional intelligence as a mediator. Current Psychology, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-00719-y

Baumrind

(1991). The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance use. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 11(1), 56–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431691111004

Beckmann

(2020). Exposure to family violence and adolescent aggression in multiple social contexts: Classroom social resources as moderators. Journal of Family Violence, 35(4), 471–484. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-019-00102-x

Bergmann

M. C.

Kliem

Krieg

Beckmann

(2019). . Jugendliche in Niedersachsen. Ergebnisse des Niedersachsensurveys 2017 (KFN-Forschungsberichte No. 144). Hannover: KFN.

Carson

D. C.

(2013). Perceptions of prosocial and delinquent peer behavior and the effect on delinquent attitudes: A longitudinal study. Journal of Criminal Justice, 41(3), 151–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2013.01.005

Cortina

J. M.

(1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 98––104. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.1.98

Council of Europe . (2011). Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence. https://rm.coe.int/168046031c

Davis

J. P.

Ingram

K. M.

Merrin

G. J.

Espelage

D. L.

(2020). Exposure to parental and community violence and the relationship to bullying perpetration and victimization among early adolescents: A parallel process growth mixture latent transition analysis. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 61(1), 77–89. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjop.12493

10.

DePrince

A. P.

Weinzierl

K. M.

Combs

M. D.

(2009). Executive function performance and trauma exposure in a community sample of children. Child Abuse & Neglect, 33(6), 353–361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2008.08.002

11.

Dokkedahl

Elklit

(2019). Understanding the mutual partner dynamic of intimate partner violence: A review. Partner Abuse, 10(3), 298–335. https://doi.org/10.1891/1946-6560.10.3.298

12.

Dubow

E. F.

Boxer

Huesmann

L. R.

Landau

Dvir

Shikaki

Ginges

(2012). Cumulative effects of exposure to violence on posttraumatic stress in Palestinian and Israeli youth. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 41(6), 837–844. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2012.675571

13.

Eisinga

Grotenhuis

M. t.

Pelzer

(2013). The reliability of a two-item scale: Pearson, Cronbach, or Spearman-Brown? International Journal of Public Health, 58(4), 637–642. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00038-012-0416-3

14.

Elliott

D. S.

Menard

(1996). Delinquent friends and delinquent behavior: Temporal and developmental patterns. In Hawkins

D. J.

(Eds.), Delinquency and crime: Current theories (pp. 28–67). Cambridge University Press.

15.

Enzmann

Brettfeld

Wetzels

(2004). Männlichkeitsnormen und die Kultur der Ehre. Empirische Prüfung eines theoretischen Modells zur Erklärung erhöhter Delinquenzraten jugendlicher Migranten. In Oberwittler

Karstedt

(Eds.), Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie Sonderhefte: Bd. 43. Soziologie der Kriminalität (pp. 240–263). VS Verl. für Sozialwiss.

16.

Erel

Burman

(1995). Interrelatedness of marital relations and parent-child relations: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 118(1), 108–132. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.118.1.108

17.

Fattore

Mason

Watson

(2009). When children are asked about their well-being: Towards a framework for guiding policy. Child Indicators Research, 2(1), 57–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-008-9025-3

18.

Federal and State Statistical Offices (2021). Mindestsicherungsquote, Bundesländer nach Geschlecht. Wiesbaden: Federal and State Statistical Offices. https://www.statistikportal.de/de/sbe/ergebnisse/mindestsicherung/b-11-mindestsicherungsquote.

19.

Finkelhor

Turner

H. A.

Shattuck

Hamby

S. L.

(2015). Prevalence of childhood exposure to violence, crime, and abuse: Results from the national survey of children’s exposure to violence. JAMA Pediatrics, 169(8), 746–754. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.0676

20.

George

Engel

(1980). The clinical application of the biopsychosocial model. American Journal of Psychiatry, 137(5), 535–544. https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.137.5.535

21.

Georgsson

Almqvist

Broberg

A. G.

(2011). Naming the unmentionable: How children exposed to intimate partner violence articulate their experiences. Journal of Family Violence, 26(2), 117–129. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896‐010‐9349‐x

22.

Gottfredson

M. R.

Hirschi

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

23.

Graham-Bermann

S. A.

Brescoll

(2000). Gender, power, and violence: Assessing the family stereotypes of the children of batterers. Journal of Family Psychology, 14(4), 600–612. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.14.4.600

24.

Grasmick

H. G.

Charles

Brusik

R. J.

Arneklev

B. J.

(1993). Testing the core empirical implications of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30(1), 5–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427893030001002

25.

Grasso

D. J.

Henry

Kestler

Nieto

Wakschlag

L. S.

Briggs-Gowan

M. J.

(2016). Harsh parenting as a potential mediator of the association between intimate partner violence and child disruptive behavior in families with young children. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 31(11), 2102–2126. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515572472

26.

Gustafsson

H. C.

Barnett

M. A.

Towe-Goodman

N. R.

Mills-Koonce

W. R.

Cox

M. J.

(2014). Family violence and children’s behavior problems: Independent contributions of intimate partner and child-directed physical aggression. Journal of Family Violence, 29(7), 773–781. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-014-9628-z

27.

Helseth

Misvaer

(2010). Adolescents’ perceptions of quality of life: What it is and what matters. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 19(9–10), 1454–1461. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2009.03069.x

28.

Hemmert

G. A. J.

Schons

L. M.

Wieseke

Schimmelpfennig

(2018). Log-likelihood-based Pseudo-R2 in logistic regression: Deriving sample-sensitive benchmarks. Sociological Methods & Research, 47(3), 507–531. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124116638107

29.

Herrenkohl

T. I.

Sousa

Tajima

E. A.

Herrenkohl

R. C.

Moylan

C. A.

(2008). Intersection of child abuse and children’s exposure to domestic violence. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 9(2), 84–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838008314797

30.

Herrera

V. M.

McCloskey

L. A.

(2003). Sexual abuse, family violence, and female delinquency: Findings from a longitudinal study. Violence and Victims, 18(3), 319–334. https://doi.org/10.1891/vivi.2003.18.3.319

31.

Herrera

V. M.

Stuewig

(2017). Gender differences in pathways to delinquency: The impact of family relationships and adolescentdepression. Journal of Developmental and Life-Course Criminology, 3(2), 221–240. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40865-016-0052-3

32.

Holmes

M. R.

Voith

L. A.

Gromoske

A. N.

(2015). Lasting effect of intimate partner violence exposure during preschool on aggressive behavior and prosocial skills. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30(10), 1651–1670. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260514552441

33.

Howarth

Moore

T. H. M.

Welton

N. J.

Lewis

Stanley

MacMillan

Shaw

Hester

Bryden

Feder

(2016). IMPRoving outcomes for children exposed to domestic ViolencE (IMPROVE): An evidence synthesis. https://doi.org/10.3310/phr04100

34.

Huang

C. C.

Vikse

J. H.

(2015). Children’s exposure to intimate partner violence and early delinquency. Journal of Family Violence, 30(8), 953–965. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-015-9727-5

35.

Islam

M. J.

Rahman

Broidy

Haque

S. E.

Saw

Y. M.

Duc

N. H. C.

Haque

M. N.

Rahman

M. M.

Islam

M. R.

Mostofa

M. G.

(2017). Assessing the link between witnessing inter-parental violence and the perpetration of intimate partner violence in Bangladesh. BMC Public Health, 17(1), 183. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-017-4067-4

36.

Jayasinghe

Jayawardena

Perera

(2009). Influence of intimate partner violence on behaviour, psychological status and school performance of children in Sri Lanka. Journal of Family Studies, 15(3), 274–283. https://doi.org/10.5172/jfs.15.3.274

37.

Karlsson

M. E.

Temple

J. R.

Weston

V. D.

(2016). Witnessing interparental violence and acceptance of dating violence as predictors for teen dating violence victimization. Violence Against Women, 22(5), 625–646. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801215605920

38.

Khaliq

Rasool

(2019). Causes of students’ antisocial behavior at secondary level schools. The Spark, 4(1), 116–148.

39.

Kiesel

L. R.

Piescher

K. N.

Edleson

J. L.

(2016). The relationship between child maltreatment, intimate partner violence exposure, and academic performance. Journal of Public Child Welfare, 10(4), 434–456. https://doi.org10.1080/15548732.2016.1209150

40.

Kliem

Kirchmann-Kallas

Stiller

Jungmann

(2019). Einfluss von Partnergewalt auf die kindliche kognitive Entwicklung – Ergebnisse der Begleitforschung zum Hausbesuchsprogramm „Pro Kind“ [Impact of Intimate Partner Violence on Child‘s Cognitive Development - Results from the Evaluation of the Home Visiting Program „Pro Kind“]. Praxis der Kinderpsychologie und Kinderpsychiatrie, 68(1), 63–80. https://doi.org/10.13109/prkk.2019.68.1.63

41.

Koutselini

Valanidou

(2014). Children living with violence against their mothers: The side effects on their behaviour, self-image and school performance. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 22(2), 213–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2013.815259

42.

Krieg

Rook

Beckmann

Kliem

(2020). Jugendliche in Niedersachsen. Ergebnisse des Niedersachsensurveys 2019 (KFN- Forschungsberichte No. 154). Hannover: KFN.

43.

LaBrenz

C. A.

Dell

P. J.

Fong

Liu

(2021). Happily ever after? Life satisfaction after childhood exposure to violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(13–14), NP6747–NP6766. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518820706

44.

Lee

B. J.

Yoo

M. S.

(2015). Family, school, and community correlates of children’s subjective well-being: An international comparative study. Child Indicators Research, 8(1), 151–175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-014-9285-z

45.

Lepistö

Luukkaala

Paavilainen

(2011). Witnessing and experiencing domestic violence: A descriptive study of adolescents. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 25(1), 70–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6712.2010.00792.x

46.

Levendosky

A. A.

Huth-Bocks

A. C.

Shapiro

D. L.

Semel

M. A.

(2003). The impact of domestic violence on the maternal-child relationship and preschool-age children’s functioning. Journal of Family Psychology, 17(3), 275–287. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.17.3.275

47.

Lösel

Farrington

D. P.

(2012). Direct protective and buffering protective factors in the development of youth violence. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 43(2), 8–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2012.04.029

48.

Lucas

Jernbro

Tindberg

Janson

(2016). Bully, bullied and abused. Associations between violence at home and bullying in childhood. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 44(1), 27–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/1403494815610238

49.

Lucia

Killias

(2011). Gewalt und belastende Kindheitserlebnisse. Neue Aspekte anhand der internationalen Self-report Studie (IRSD-2). Trauma & Gewalt, 5(1), 36–44.

50.

Maneta

E. K.

White

Mezzacappa

(2017). Parent-child aggression, adult-partner violence, and child outcomes: A prospective, population-based study. Child Abuse & Neglect, 68(June), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2017.03.017.

51.

Manzoni

Schwarzenegger

(2019). The influence of earlier parental violence on Juvenile Delinquency: The role of social bonds, self-control, delinquent peer association and moral values as mediators. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 25(3), 225–239. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-018-9392-3

52.

Martinez-Torteya

Anne Bogat

Eye

A. v.

Levendosky

A. A.

(2009). Resilience among children exposed to domestic violence: The role of risk and protective factors. Child Development, 80(2), 562–577. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01279.x

53.

McGee

(2000). Childhood experiences of domestic violence. Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

54.

Meltzer

Doos

Vostanis

Ford

Goodman

(2009). The mental health of children who witness domestic violence. Child & Family Social Work, 14(4), 491–501. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2206.2009.00633.x

55.

Miller-Graff

L. E.

Cater

Å. K.

Howell

K. H.

Graham-Bermann

S. A.

(2016). Parent-child warmth as a potential mediator of childhood exposure to intimate partner violence and positive adulthood functioning. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 29(3), 259–273. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2015.1028030

56.

Moreno-Ruiz

Estévez

Jiménez

T. I.

Murgui

(2018). Parenting style and reactive and proactive adolescent violence: Evidence from Spain. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(12), 2634. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15122634

57.

Mrug

Windle

(2010). Prospective effects of violence exposure across multiple contexts on early adolescents’ internalizing and externalizing problems. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 51(8), 953–961. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2010.02222.x

58.

Muñiz-Rivas

Vera

Povedano-Díaz

(2019). Parental style, dating violence and gender. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(15), 2722. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16152722

59.

Wang

(2021). The impact of family environment on the life satisfaction among young adults with personality as a mediator. , 120, 105653. Children and Youth Services Review, 120(105653). DOI:10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105653.

60.

Noble-Carr

Moore

McArthur

(2021). The nature and extent of qualitative research conducted with children about their experiences of domestic violence: Findings from a meta-synthesis. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 22(4), 928–943. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838019888885

61.

Oberle

Schonert-Reichl

K. A.

Zumbo

B. D.

(2011). Life satisfaction in early adolescence: Personal, neighborhood, school, family, and peer influences. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40(7), 889–901. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-010-9599-1

62.

Osofsky

J. D.

(2003). Prevalence of children’s exposure to domestic violence and child maltreatment: Implications for prevention and intervention. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 6(3), 161–170. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024958332093

63.

Peled

(1998). The experience of living with violence for preadolescent children of battered women. Youth & Society, 29(4), 395–430. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X98029004001

64.

Perkins

S. C.

Cortina

K. S.

Smith-Darden

J. P.

Graham-Bermann

S. A.

(2012). The mediating role of self-regulation between intrafamilial violence and mental health adjustment in incarcerated male adolescents. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27(7), 1199–1224. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260511425240

65.

Petito

Cummins

R. A.

(2000). Quality of life in adolescence: The role of perceived control, parenting style, and social support. Behaviour Change, 17(3), 196–207. https://doi.org/10.1375/bech.17.3.196

66.

Phillips

D. A.

(2010). Learning from youth exposed to domestic violence: Decentering DV and the primacy of gender stereotypes. Violence Against Women, 16(3), 291–312. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801209359193

67.

Pingley

(2017). The impact of witnessing domestic violence on children: A systematic review. Sophia, the St. Catherine University repository website. https://sophia.stkate.edu/msw_papers/776

68.

Raboteg-Saric

Sakic

(2014). Relations of parenting styles and friendship quality to self-esteem, life satisfaction and happiness in adolescents. Applied Research Quality Life, 9(3), 749–765. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-013-9268-0

69.

Radford

Corral

Bradley

Fisher

Bassett

Howat

Collishaw

(2011). Child abuse and neglect in the UK today. NSPCC.

70.

Ruel

Lavoie

Hébert

Blais

(2020). Gender’s role in exposure to interparental violence, acceptance of violence, self-efficacy, and physical teen dating violence among Quebec adolescents. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 35(15–16), 3079–3101. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517707311

71.

Rydström

L.-L.

Edhborg

Ring Jakobsson

Kabir

Z. N.

(2019). Young witnesses of intimate partner violence: Screening and intervention. Global Health Action, 12(1), 1638054. https://doi.org/10.1080/16549716.2019.1638054

72.

Seddig

(2020). Individual attitudes toward deviant behavior and perceived attitudes of friends: Self-stereotyping and social projection in adolescence and emerging adulthood. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 49(3), 664–677. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-019-01123-x

73.

Silva

Patrianakos

Chein

Steinberg

(2017). Joint effects of peer presence and fatigue on risk and reward processing in late adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 46(9), 1878–1890. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-017-0690-8

74.

Solomon

B. S.

Bradshaw

C. P.

Wright

Cheng

T. L.

(2008). Youth and parental attitudes toward fighting. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23(4), 544–560. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260507312947

75.

Sousa

Herrenkohl

T. I.

Moylan

C. A.

Tajima

E. A.

Klika

J. B.

Herrenkohl

R. C.

Russo

M. J.

(2011). Longitudinal study on the effects of child abuse and children’s exposure to domestic violence, parent-child attachments, and antisocial behavior in adolescence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(1), 111–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260510362883

76.

Steckermeier

L. C.

(2019). Better safe than sorry. Does agency moderate the relevance of safety perceptions for the subjective well-being of young children? Child Indicators Research, 12(1), 29–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-017-9519-y

77.

Steketee

Aussems

Marshall

I. H.

(2021). Exploring the impact of child maltreatment and interparental violence on violent delinquency in an international sample. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(13-14), NP7319–NP7349. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518823291

78.

Straus

M. A.

(1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The conflict tactics (CT) scales. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41(1), 75–88. https://doi.org/10.2307/351733

79.

Straus

M. A.

(1992). Children as witnesses to marital violence: A risk factor for lifelong problems among a nationally.

80.

Straus

M. A.

Gelles

R. J.

Steinmetz

S. K.

(1980). Behind closed doors: Violence in American families. Anchor/Doubleday.

81.

Sullivan

T. N.

Farrell

A. D.

Kliewer

Vulin-Reynolds

Valois

R. F.

(2007). Exposure to violence in early adolescence. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 27(3), 296–323. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431607302008

82.

Taber

K. S.

(2018). The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Research in Science Education, 48(6), 1273–1296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2

83.

The Children’s Society . (2014). The good childhood report 2014. https://www.childrenssociety.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/the_good_childhood_report_2014_-_final.pdf

84.

The World Health Organization . (2012). The World health organization quality of life (WHOQOL). http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/77932/WHO_HIS_HSI_Rev.2012.03_eng.pdf?sequence=1

85.

Trizano-Hermosilla

Alvarado

J. M.

(2016). Best alternatives to cronbach’s alpha reliability in realistic conditions: Congeneric and asymmetrical measurements. Frontiers in Psychology, 7(34), 769. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00769

86.

van der Merwe

Dawes

(2000). Prosocial and antisocial tendencies in children exposed to community violence. Southern African Journal of Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 12(1), 19–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/16826108.2000.9632365

87.

van Gelder

Peterman

Potts

O’Donnell

Thompson

Shah

Oertelt-Prigione

(2020). Gender and COVID-19 working groupCOVID-19: Reducing the risk of infection might increase the risk of intimate partner violence. EClinicalMedicine, 21(April), 100348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100348.

88.

Vetere

(2011). Children who witness violence at home. In Rapley

Moncrieff

Dillon

(Eds.), De-Medicalizing Misery (pp. 110–122). Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230342507_9

89.

N. L.

Jouriles

E. N.

McDonald

Rosenfield

(2016). Children’s exposure to intimate partner violence: A meta-analysis of longitudinal associations with child adjustment problems. Clinical Psychology Review, 46(June), 25-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2016.04.003.

90.

Wegemer

C. M.

(2020). Selflessness, depression, and neuroticism: An interactionist perspective on the effects of self-transcendence, perspective-taking, and materialism. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 523950. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.523950

91.

Wetzels

(1997). Gewalterfahrungen in der Kindheit: Sexueller Mißbrauch, körperliche Mißhandlung und deren langfristige Konsequenzen (1. Aufl.). Baden-Baden: Nomos-Verlagsgesellschaft.

92.

Willems

Y. E.

J. B.

Hendriks

A. M.

Bartels

Finkenauer

(2018). The relationship between family violence and self-control in adolescence: A multi-level meta-analysis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(11), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15112468

93.

Wyman

P. A.

Cowen

E. L.

Work

W. C.

Hoyt-Meyers

(1999). Caregiving and developmental factors differentiating young at-risk urban children showing resilient versus stress-affected outcomes: A replication and extension. Child Development, 70(3), 645–659. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00047

94.

You

(2011). Peer influence and adolescents’ school engagement. Procedia–Social and Behavioral Sciences, 29(2011), 829-835. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.311.

95.

Zinzow

H. M.

Ruggiero

K. J.

Resnick

Hanson

Smith

Saunders

Kilpatrick

(2009). Prevalence and mental health correlates of witnessed parental and community violence in a national sample of adolescents. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 50(4), 441–450. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2008.02004.x