Parents’ Attitudes Toward Domestic Violence as a Risk Factor for Early Childhood Development: Testing an Actor–Partner Interdependence Model Using UNICEF MICS

Abstract

Purpose: While the importance of domestic violence has been examined in relation to parenting behaviors and child development, less is known about the link between justifying attitudes toward wife beating and parenting, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). This study employs an actor–partner interdependence mediation model to examine how parents’ justifying attitudes toward violence against women relate to their own (actor effects) and their partners’ (partner effects) level of parental involvement, which then influence their preschool children’s early development. Method: Using data from mothers, fathers, and children in 16,010 families residing in LMIC that participated in UNICEF’s Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey Waves 4-5-6 and a dyadic mediation modeling approach, we have examined the associations between maternal and paternal justification of violence against women, parental involvement, and children’s early development. Results: Results revealed that mothers’ greater justification of violence against themselves were associated with decreased level of maternal (actor effect) and paternal (partner effect) involvement, while fathers’ greater justification of violence against their wives was related to decreased paternal involvement (actor effect). Furthermore, mediation tests indicated that paternal justification of violence was negatively and indirectly associated with early childhood development through paternal involvement. Moreover, maternal justification of violence was negatively and indirectly associated with early childhood development through both maternal and paternal involvement. Conclusion: Mothers’ and fathers’ justifying attitudes toward domestic violence emerge as a possible risk factor for child development that can be addressed by preventive interventions.

Keywords

Justification of violence parental involvement early child development low- and middle-income countries Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey

Identifying factors related to parenting and early childhood development in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC)² is imperative as nearly half (49.6%) of 3- and 4-year-old children living in LMIC fail to meet their potential in the domains of cognitive, socio-emotional, and physical development (McCoy et al., 2016). A salient risk factor in this context is domestic violence (DV). In this study, we specifically focused on DV against women by men, as it constitutes a serious problem with global prevalence of 30% (Devries et al., 2013). The spill-over hypothesis postulates that negative interactions may transfer from marital to parent–child relations within a family system, as supported by meta-analytic findings on the significant association between overt marital conflict (physical and verbal aggression) and ineffective parenting (Erel & Burman, 1995; Krishnakumar & Buehler, 2000). Especially, mothers who experience physical domestic violence have been shown to be more likely to have decreased parental care such as lower warmth toward the child, decreased parenting effectiveness, less child-centered parenting, and higher controlling behavior (Levendosky & Graham-Bermann, 2001). Consequently, men’s DV toward women influence children’s maladjustment through parents’ use of harsh discipline and low parental involvement (Buehler & Gerard, 2002). Previous research also showed that men’s perpetration of DV is associated with their fathering behaviors. Fathers who engage in DV have been found to be less involved in activities with their children (Adhia & Jeong, 2019; Jeong et al., 2020), have lower parental confidence (Baker et al., 2001), and display increased hostile-coercive parenting behaviors (Fox & Benson, 2004).

Although the detrimental effects of the actual occurrence of DV and its role in parenting and child development are well documented in the literature (Hungerford et al., 2012; Renner & Boel-Studt, 2013), research on the effects of parents’ attitudes toward DV as an important risk factor to be addressed by preventive interventions is scarce. In this study, we aim to address this gap by investigating how men’s and women’s justifying attitudes toward DV may be related to parenting behaviors and early child development in LMIC.

Parental Involvement and Early Childhood Development in LMIC

Parental involvement and stimulation include several activities that support and stimulate children’s developmental processes, such as playing together with the child, reading with the child or storytelling, singing, drawing, and naming. By providing various opportunities for children to explore in a trustful environment, involved parenting supports children’s early development including literacy, cognitive, and social-emotional skills (Maggi et al., 2010). For example, a previous meta-analysis on print exposure in early childhood suggested that parents’ shared book reading is associated with better language development in preschool children (Mol & Bus, 2011). Similarly, another meta-analysis on father involvement in early ages found that the quantity of fathers’ positive engagement activities is associated with children’s increased general cognitive skills, lower levels of externalizing behavior, and better self-regulation and learning behaviors (McWayne et al., 2013). Furthermore, mothers’ and fathers’ greater involvement in home literacy activities has been found to longitudinally predict better reading and math skills and greater socio-emotional development including decreased negative behaviors and increased attention in preschool children (Baker, 2013).

The benefits of parental involvement are also shown among families living in LMIC. Several studies with LMIC samples examining the association between parental involvement and early childhood development found that mothers’ and fathers’ involvement in several activities with their preschool children were uniquely and positively associated with children’s literacy-numeracy, social-emotional, and learning development (Dede Yildirim & Roopnarine, 2017; Frongillo et al., 2017; Jeong et al., 2016, 2017; Tran et al., 2017). For example, Dede Yildirim and Roopnarine (2017) found that mothers’ and fathers’ engagement in activities supporting cognitive development such as reading books, naming, and counting with the child was positively associated with their 3- and 4-year-old children’s literacy skills in various Caribbean countries such as Dominican Republic, Belize, Barbados, and Guyana. They also reported that fathers’ but not mothers’ engagement in social activities such as playing with the child, singing songs, and taking the child outside is associated with children’s social development. Another study with a similar sample showed that children whose fathers were highly engaged in activities (i.e., 5–6 activities per day) received higher scores on the early childhood development index, compared to children whose fathers were moderately engaged (i.e., 1–4 activities per day) and children with unengaged fathers (Jeong et al., 2016). Similarly, in a cluster-randomized trial to test the causal and long-term effect of a responsive stimulation and nutrition intervention in Pakistan, it was found that 12-months-old infants whose mothers received a responsive stimulation intervention had significantly higher scores on cognitive, language, and motor development scales at 24 months of age compared to infants whose mothers received an enhanced nutrition intervention or control group infants (Yousafzai et al., 2014). Previous studies conducted in LMIC clearly indicated that, in such a context where children are subject to several adversities affecting their development, parental involvement critically contributes to children’s early development. Therefore, it is imperative to investigate the risk factors that may adversely impact parental involvement in this vulnerable context.

Attitudes Toward Domestic Violence as a Risk Factor for Impaired Parenting

One possible risk factor that may hinder parenting is attitudes toward DV. There are a couple of ways that attitudes toward DV could impact parents’ behavior. First, individuals’ actual behaviors are heavily influenced by their attitudes toward performing an act (Theory of Planned Behavior, Ajzen & Fishbein, 1970; 1977; Kernsmith, 2005). Findings from multiple countries showed that men’s justification of DV is one of the most significant predictors of men’s actual perpetration of DV (Abramsky et al., 2011; Flood & Pease, 2009; Hindin et al., 2008; Stith et al., 2004). In addition, women’s justifying attitudes toward DV may contribute to its continuity as previous studies showed that women’s condoning of DV is linked with women’s exposure to DV (Mugoya et al., 2015) and women who justify DV might be less likely to report it (Ali et al., 2019; Andersson et al., 2010). These destructive effects of DV on parenting and young children’s development have been consistently established by a large number of studies (Chiesa et al., 2018; Jeong et al., 2020).

Second and maybe more importantly, justifying attitudes toward DV is not only associated with the actual perpetration and victimization but also constitute resistance to changing violent practices and traditional gender roles. It is also a good indicator of gender inequity (Islam et al., 2015; Rani et al., 2004). Tolerating attitudes toward DV represents the subordination of women and men’s power over women. Such a power discrepancy in households is likely to create tension and interfere with parental functioning and child development. Supporting this view, one recent study conducted with a large sample of Ghanaian families found that parents’ high levels of justifying attitudes toward DV were associated with lower parental involvement in children’s learning activities such as reading to the child, assisting with the child’s schoolwork, or talking to child’s teacher about his/her progress (Kofinti et al., 2020). In line with this finding, another study conducted with married adults in Jordan found that high acceptance of DV was associated with lower family functioning (defined by acceptance, communication within family, expression of feelings, etc., Alzoubi & Ali, 2018). Taken together, previous studies suggested that justification of DV was associated with decreased parental involvement and increased dysfunction in the family. In the following section, we reviewed the related literature on why and how justifying attitudes toward DV might be related to paternal and maternal involvement.

Family as a System: Actor and Partner Effects

Father’s Justifying Attitudes Toward DV and Parental Involvement

Actor Effect. With regard to men’s commitment of DV and their parental involvement, in line with the spill-over hypothesis, men who engage in DV have been found to show lower feelings of fathering competence (Baker et al., 2001), higher levels of hostile-coercive parenting behavior (Fox & Benson, 2004), and were less engaged in parental stimulation (Adhia & Jeong, 2019). Harne (2002) showed that some fathers carried their violent relationships with their partners into their fathering practices through self-serving and manipulative intentions. Multi-cultural evidence also revealed that in a sample from six developing Asia-Pacific countries, fathers’ engagement in inter-partner violence was linked to a lower likelihood of helping with their children’s homework (Chan et al., 2017).

Beyond perpetration of the behavior, men’s justification of DV might be linked with decreased parental involvement because of these men’s stronger beliefs in gender roles. It was shown that men who justified DV endorsed more traditional gender roles in which women were the main caregivers in the family and men did not need to deal with children (Bhanot & Senn, 2007). Similarly, it was shown that men endorsing egalitarian gender roles were more likely to engage in caregiving practices for their children (Kato-Wallace et al., 2014). Therefore, by avoiding participating in the childcare, men who justify DV might be less likely to engage with their children.

Partner Effect. Men’s justification of DV is linked with women’s exposure to DV (Stith et al., 2004), that is closely linked to several physical and mental adverse outcomes for women (Beccaria et al., 2013; Ford-Gilboe et al., 2009). Among these, post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, and decreased self-esteem are found to be detrimental for women’s parental functioning as well (Ahlfs-Dunn & Huth-Bocks, 2016; Gustafsson et al., 2012; Hungerford et al., 2012). For example, Huang et al. (2010) found that the level of domestic violence that the mother experienced longitudinally predicted the decrease in positive discipline and the increase in negative parenting behaviors of mothers and these, in turn, were associated with greater internalizing and externalizing problems in preschool-aged children. Exposure to DV has also been found to be linked to children’s behavior problems through increased levels of parenting stress in mothers (Jeong et al., 2020; Renner & Boel-Studt, 2013).

On the other hand, another group of studies found that mothers may compensate for exposure to violence in their parenting interactions by having increased maternal sensitivity and involvement with their children (Letourneau et al., 2007). For example, Levendosky et al. (2003) found that although domestic violence was associated with decreased maternal psychological functioning, parenting effectiveness of mothers was positively associated with their experience of domestic violence, suggesting a compensatory effect. Another qualitative study showed that mothers who were experiencing domestic violence made greater efforts to provide security and nurturance to their children (Buchanan et al., 2014).

Although there is empirical support on the associations between men’s perpetration of violence and mother’s parenting, our knowledge of the reflection of men’s attitudes toward DV on mothers’ parenting practices is very limited. Greater justification of DV by men implies patriarchal privilege (Rani et al., 2004) and this privilege is likely to create an atmosphere where women are to be punished by their transgression, but men do not have to take responsibility for poor behavior. Such an unequal and unjust environment is likely to diminish mothers’ mental health and parental involvement. Justification of DV by men entails men’s greater dominance and control over household resources (Yount et al., 2018). This gender power imbalance might also prevent women from realizing and reaching their full potential by taking their autonomy away and put mothers in a disadvantaged status in terms of mental health and functioning.

Mother’s Justifying Attitudes Toward Domestic Violence and Parental Involvement

Actor Effect. Mothers who approved DV have been found to be more likely to engage in negative parenting behavior. For example, in a sample of mothers living in low- and middle-income countries, mothers who thought that a husband hitting his wife was acceptable in some situations were more likely to believe that physical punishment was necessary for child discipline and also reported greater use of harsh discipline strategies for their children (Lansford et al., 2013). This relationship between mothers’ justifying attitudes toward DV and their negative parenting behaviors have been explained by their empowerment. Women’s justifying attitudes toward DV have been evaluated as a negative indicator of women’s empowerment and specifically used to construct measures of women’s empowerment in several studies. And it has been shown to be related to mothers’ lacking power over their parental decision-making (Bui et al., 2018; Lépine & Strobl, 2013; Sado et al., 2014). Women’s justifying attitudes toward DV have been also shown to be linked to their greater endorsement of traditional gender roles. For instance, in a study conducted in 17 sub-Saharan countries, the percentage of mothers who reported that their husband is justified to hit them if they fail to take care of their children was relatively high (Uthman et al., 2009). Although this might increase maternal involvement, it also suggests that women’s acceptance of DV is related to acceptance of men’s dominant role as providers and women’s submissive role as caretakers (Mugoya et al., 2015). Therefore, women’s justification of DV may lead them to endorse more traditional gender roles, which makes it difficult to leave an abusive relationship where there is constant stress and hostility and detrimental for their maternal functioning (Amir-ud-Din et al., 2018; Jones, 1993). Although many women may want to continue their relationship and try to reduce or eliminate the violence, women’s justifying attitudes toward DV in an ongoing relationship may negatively contribute to the process.

Partner Effect. Acceptance of wife beating by women is known to further promote men’s endorsement of traditional gender roles by accepting and not challenging society’s beliefs about men’s superiority (Arënliu et al., 2019; Uthman et al., 2009). Fathering studies showed that encouragement and endorsement of higher traditional masculine beliefs were associated with lower levels of involved parenting behaviors for fathers due to the view that childcare was women’s duty (Dette-Hagenmeyer et al., 2014; Petts et al., 2018; Pleck, 2010; Russell, 1978). For example, in line with this view, mothers’ and fathers’ beliefs of traditional gender roles were found to be associated with fathers’ decreased involvement in child health care and decision-making (Zvara et al., 2013). By justifying DV, women may foster their husbands’ beliefs about traditional gender roles and, therefore, discourage fathers from participating in childcare, and this is likely to decrease fathers’ involvement with their young children.

Additionally, a growing body of evidence suggested that, in the context of domestic violence, maternal gatekeeping behaviors such as discouraging or preventing paternal engagement may be strategies for mothers to provide security for their children (Saini et al., 2017; Sano et al., 2008). Maternal gatekeeping or gate closing is generally defined as mothers’ attempts to inhibit fathers’ engagement in family work (Allen & Hawkins, 1999). In line with this view, it was found that mothers who were exposed to DV from their husbands showed greater gate closing behaviors to protect their children from fathers’ potential harsh/intrusive parenting behaviors (Zvara et al., 2016). Therefore, women’s justification of violence is likely to affect their beliefs regarding gender roles and their concerns of children’s exposure to violence; and as a result, mothers might inhibit fathers’ parental involvement.

Present Study

Justifying attitudes toward DV against women may significantly hinder mothers’ and fathers’ involvement in parenting activities through reinforcing traditional gender roles and negatively affecting parents’ functioning and involvement. This can eventually have a negative impact on children’s development. Investigating the justification of DV in LMIC in the context of parenting is especially important as LMIC are reported to have highly salient traditional gender norms and very high levels of acceptance of DV (Jewkes et al., 2002; Rani et al., 2004; Tran et al., 2016). Additionally, this investigation carries crucial importance as children living in LMIC may be subject to higher risk of inadequate family care that is found to be more likely to occur in low SES families in general, such as provision of books and play materials by parents, parents’ number of activities with child, and violent parental discipline practices (Frongillo et al., 2017). Yet, the literature on DV and parenting is mostly focused on the actual behavior. Additionally, policy and intervention efforts regarding men’s perpetration of DV in families in LMIC often attempt to change the behavior. However, justifying attitudes toward DV may be considered as a crucial risk factor for decreased maternal well-being and involvement and child development, to be addressed in early prevention efforts.

Another limitation of the DV and parenting literature was that few studies have used a dyadic approach, which accounts for the partners’ influence on each other’s parental involvement. In this study, we considered family as a dynamic system and use a dyadic interaction model. Specifically, we tested to which extent mothers’ and fathers’ justifying attitudes toward DV influenced their own and partners’ parental involvement, which then influenced their preschool children’s early development, by employing dyadic mediation modeling to data from 19 nationally representative LMIC samples. This study aimed to contribute to the emerging empirical support for promoting child development in LMIC by examining the effects of this largely ignored risk factor for lower parental involvement. We predicted that (a) fathers’ justifying attitudes would be negatively associated with their own involvement (i.e., actor effect, path a in Figure 1) and also (b) father’s justification of DV would be negatively associated with maternal involvement (i.e., partner effect, path a’ in Figure 1). Similarly for mothers, we predicted that (c) mothers’ justification of DV would be negatively associated with their own involvement (i.e., actor effect, path b in Figure 1) and also (d) mothers’ justifying attitudes toward DV would be negatively associated with paternal involvement (i.e., partner effect, path b’ in Figure 1). And in turn, maternal and paternal involvement would be positively linked with children’s scores on the early child development index.

Figure 1.

Proposed model. Note. a = actor effect on fathering, a’ = partner effect on mothering, b = actor effect on mothering, and b’ = partner effect on fathering.

Method

Participants and Data

We used the data from the Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICS) carried out by the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF; UNICEF, 2011) to generate evidence on the well-being of children and women. Five waves of MICS data collection have been completed since 1995. Surveys and measurements were administered in face-to-face interviews by trained interviewers. In each round of MICS¹, a nationally representative sample of households was selected by using the cluster-sampling technique. In this study, data from 19 low- and middle-income countries from three MICS rounds were conducted between 2010 and 2017, including families with 3–5 years old children (36–59 months). Country selection was restricted to include only LMIC determined by the cutoffs of the Human Development Index (HDI) defined by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) (UNDP, 2015). Specifically, the countries included in the current study were Benin (n = 879), Mauritania (n = 657), Malawi (n = 1337), Senegal (n = 292), Cote D'Ivoire (n = 794), Guinea-Bissau (n = 475), Mali (n = 1347), Guyana (n = 261), Congo (n = 830), Swaziland (Eswatini) (n = 80), Sao Tome (n = 329), Cameroon (n = 702), Nigeria (n = 3075), Sierra Leone (n = 1054), Moldova (n = 122), Lao People’s Democratic Republic (n = 1782), Ghana (n = 589), Central African Republic (n = 1077), and Togo (n = 328). Although MICS was administered in many countries over the years, we have only included the countries in which the data on study variables were available. Therefore, the data from four countries (Togo, Ghana, African Republic, and Moldova) collected during MICS round 4 (between 2010 and 2012), 13 countries (Benin, Mauritania, Malawi, Senegal, Cote D'Ivoire, Guinea-Bissau, Mali, Guyana, Congo, Swaziland, Sao Tome, Cameroon, and Nigeria) collected during MICS round 5 (between 2013 and 2017), and two countries (Lao People’s Democratic Republic and Sierra Leone) collected during MICS round 6 (in 2017) were excluded. If the data were collected from the same country in more than one round, then we have included only the most recent data from that country.

For families with more than one child aged between 35 and 59 months, we have only included the older child into our sample. Due to a large number of missing values on men’s justification of DV, families with missing values on this variable were excluded (n = 13,285). The final dataset included data from 16,010 families living in 19 low- and middle-income countries. Of the whole sample, 48.6% of the children were girls and 50% were 4 year-olds. 44.8% of the mothers and 35.8% of the fathers had no formal education, 28.4% of the mothers and 29.3% of the fathers had primary school education as the highest education level, 20.3% of the mothers and 24.1% of the fathers had secondary school education as the highest education level, and 6.4% of the mothers and 10.8% of the fathers had high school education or higher level. 26.6% of the families were living in the poorest quintile, 23.2% were living in the second poorest quintile, 19% were living in the middle quintile, 15.9% were living in the fourth quintile, and 15.3% of the households were living in the richest quintile in their countries. The mean age for mothers was 29.68 (SD = 6.16) with a range of 15–49, and the mean age for fathers was 36.42 (SD = 6.98) with a range of 16–59. Finally, in 96.8% of the households, the head of the household was identified as male.

Measures

Early childhood development index

The mother or the primary caregiver of the child was asked to answer the questions on the child’s development and abilities. Ten binary items covering four developmental domains were used to assess early child development. The items were developed and selected by UNICEF based on a previous pilot testing conducted in Jordan, the Philippines, and Kenya (2011). Three items were used to measure language-cognitive development (i.e., whether the child knows the name and recognize the symbols of all numbers from 1 to 10, whether the child can identify or name at least ten letters of the alphabet, and whether the child can read at least four simple, popular words) and three items were used to assess the socio-emotional development (i.e., whether the child gets along well with others; whether the child kicks, bites, or hits others; and whether the child gets distracted easily). Finally, two items were used to measure physical development (i.e., whether the child can pick up a small object with two fingers, like a stick, or a rock from the ground and whether the child is sometimes too sick to play) and two items were measuring approaches to learning (i.e., whether the child follows simple directions on how to do something and whether the child is able to do something independently when given something to do). ECDI was found to be valid across many LMIC (McCoy et al., 2016). Several previous studies using MICS data also used ECDI total score as a child outcome (Jeong et al., 2016, 2017). All items were scored 1 (yes) or 0 (no), and the total score for one child ranged between 0 and 10. The mean score of ECDI was 5.55 (SD = 1.83).

Parental Involvement

Mothers were asked to report if the mother and the father of the child engaged in the six parental activities such as reading books, telling stories, singing songs, taking the child outside, playing with the child and naming, counting, and drawing with the child in the last 3 days. These items were developed and found to be valid during MICS round 3 (Hamadani et al., 2010; Kariger et al., 2012). The answer for each activity was coded either 1 (yes) or 0 (no). The possible range of parental involvement was 0–6, with an average of 1.94 (SD = 1.9) and 1.14 (SD = 1.56) for mothers and fathers, respectively.

Attitudes Justifying Physical Domestic Violence Against Women

Men and women were separately asked about their attitudes regarding if violence against women is justified in given situations. In five fixed response yes/no questions, mothers and fathers were asked for a husband, whether it is justifiable to hit or beat his wife in certain situations such as: (1) if she goes out without telling him, (2) if she neglects children, (3) if she argues with husband, (4) if she refuses sex with husband, and (5) if she burns the food. Answers were coded as 1 (yes) and 0 (no), higher scores indicating greater justification of violence against women. The possible range for attitudes justifying violence against women was 0–5, with a mean of 1.25 (SD = 1.7) and 0.67 (SD = 1.30) for women and men, respectively.

Demographic and control variables. In addition to ECDI, parental involvement and attitudes justifying violence against women, age (in months) and sex of the child, age of the mother and father, maternal and paternal education levels, child’s attendance to early childhood education program, and the wealth index of each family were also recorded. The wealth index score was available in each country’s own dataset based on several country-specific household assets, including access to electricity, ownership of assets, and wall and roof materials using the methodology described in Filmer and Pritchett (2001). The wealth index score ranged between 1 (poorest) and 5 (richest) (see Table 1 for country-specific descriptives).

Table 1.

Means and Standard Deviations of Paternal and Maternal Justification of Domestic Violence (DV), Involvement, Education, Children’s Early Childhood Development Index (ECDI), Child Age, and Wealth Index Score by Country.

Country	Mothers’ justification of DV	Fathers’ justification of DV	Maternal involvement	Paternal involvement	Early childhood development	Maternal education	Paternal education	Child’s age in months	% of children attending early child education program	Wealth index
1. Benin	.98 (1.56)	.34 (.94)	1.66 (1.79)	.90 (1.41)	5.22 (1.7)	1.54 (.87)	1.97 (1.08)	47.63 (6.73)	15	3.09 (1.5)
2. Mauritania	.97 (1.72)	.46 (1.1)	2.03 (1.97)	1.04 (1.5)	5.42 (1.83)	2.45 (1.03)	2.48 (1.1)	47.44 (6.84)	14.9	2.89 (1.48)
3. Malawi	.25 (.79)	.09 (.45)	1.57 (1.54)	.84 (1.32)	5.38 (1.74)	2.04 (.53)	2.23 (.6)	47.45 (6.78)	36.6	2.96 (1.33)
4. Senegal	.35 (.91)	.14 (.61)	2.03 (1.68)	.98 (1.35)	5.65 (1.6)	1.97 (.87)	2.19 (.98)	47.35 (6.86)	46.2	2.73 (1.33)
5. Cote D’Ivoire	1.46 (1.85)	.58 (1.25)	1.56 (1.47)	1.06 (1.33)	5.23 (1.5)	1.35 (.63)	1.62 (.87)	47.11 (6.49)	11	2.35 (1.29)
6. Guinea-Bissau	1.18 (1.58)	.65 (1.27)	.91 (1.1)	.36 (.79)	5.03 (1.46)	1.46 (.66)	1.86 (.77)	47.07 (6.7)	9.7	2.47 (1.28)
7. Mali	2.13 (1.72)	1.05 (1.38)	1.78 (1.9)	.82 (1.33)	5.25 (1.6)	1.4 (.82)	1.54 (.96)	46.93 (6.81)	7	2.95 (1.43)
8. Guyana	.22 (.73)	.20 (.71)	4.07 (1.96)	2.31 (2.1)	7.43 (1.77)	3.47 (1.03)	3.49 (.92)	47.79 (6.65)	60.2	2.57 (1.49)
9. Congo	1.91 (1.85)	.93 (1.33)	2.22 (1.91)	1.29 (1.65)	5.43 (1.6)	2.57 (.82)	2.95 (.81)	48.48 (6.79)	24.9	2.17 (1.32)
10. Swaziland	.18 (.61)	.18 (.52)	1.53 (1.67)	.8 (1.3)	5.61 (1.45)	2.35 (.96)	2.46 (1.1)	47.48 (6.93)	22.5	2.6 (1.4)
11. Sao Tome	.51 (1.07)	.15 (.49)	1.8 (1.7)	.89 (1.37)	5.37 (1.86)	2.2 (.58)	2.41 (.57)	47.56 (7.08)	39.2	2.65 (1.34)
12. Cameroon	1.05 (1.48)	.71 (1.21)	1.49 (1.64)	.75 1.2)	5.76 (1.62)	2.05 (.82)	2.33 (.83)	47.52 (7)	32.5	2.87 (1.38)
13. Nigeria	.99 (1.58)	.39 (1)	2.57 (2.12)	1.46 (1.79)	5.74 (2.12)	2.01 (1.04)	2.29 (1.1)	47.54 (6.83)	39.7	2.88 (1.44)
14. Sierra Leone	2.14 (1.94)	1.15 (1.76)	1.75 (1.85)	1.2 (1.59)	4.94 (1.82)	1.39 (.7)	1.5 (.79)	47.8 (6.81)	8.6	2.46 (1.28)
15. Moldova	.21 (.71)	.11 (.34)	4.43 (1.68)	2.3 (1.88)	6.85 (1.38)	3.06 (.92)	2.97 (.9)	48.05 (7.1)	82.8	3.51 (1.46)
16. Lao People’s Democratic Republic	.9 (1.47)	.5 (1.19)	1.89 (1.93)	1.42 (1.67)	6.57 (1.57)	2.12 (.93)	2.52 (.91)	47.05 (6.7)	31	2.56 (1.4)
17. Ghana	1.59 (1.75)	.84 (1.38)	1.09 (1.37)	.80 (1.27)	6 (1.53)	1.73 (.96)	1.87 (1.05)	47.08 (6.84)	54	2.09 (1.38)
18. Central African Republic	2.54 (1.79)	2.11 (1.75)	1.81 (1.69)	1.27 (1.48)	4.68 (1.5)	1.63 (.65)	2.14 (.65)	46.58 (6.63)	2.9	2.63 (1.24)
19. Togo	1.24 (1.65)	.74 (1.28)	1.61 (1.51)	.83 (1.25)	4.73 (1.47)	1.5 (.6)	2.02 (.78)	46.84 (6.97)	24.4	2.51 (1.33)

Note. Range for scale of each variable were as following: mother’s and father’s justification of violence=1–5 (number of justified actions of violence by men), maternal and paternal involvement=0–6 (number of activities), Early Childhood Development Score=0–10, maternal and paternal education=1–4 (1=no formal education, 2=primary school, 3=secondary school, 4=high school and higher), child’s age (in months)=35–59, wealth index=1–5(1=poorest quintile in the country, 5=richest quintile in the country).

Data Analysis

MPlus structural equation modeling software was used to test the actor–partner interdependence model (APIM) (Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2010). APIM is designed to examine interdependence within interpersonal relationships, showing both individual and partner effects. In these dyadic models, exogenous variables (i.e., women’s and men’s justification of violence) are correlated with each other (Cook & Kenny, 2005). Mother’s and father’s education levels, child’s attendance to early childhood education program (ECE), child’s age in months, and the wealth index of the family were added to the model as control variables. Correlation between error terms of maternal and paternal involvement was added to the model as described in APIMs, and covariances between all independent variables (including control variables) were freely estimated in the model. As we do not expect full-mediation, direct paths from attitudes justifying DV were also included in the model, leading to a just identified model (see Coutts et al., 2019 for examples and syntax on dyadic mediation analysis).

Finally, all analyses accounted for the sampling weights. Countries selected their samples based on the available recent national census. Each region in the country was divided into strata and clusters of households. Therefore, to account for the unequal probability of selection by region, cluster, and household, and to address non-response, data weights were calculated by the MICS team. We have used the children’s data weight in our analysis following previous studies using MICS data (Dede Yildirim & Roopnarine, 2017; Frongillo et al., 2017). Furthermore, we have used p ≤ .001 as criteria for statistical significance due to large sample size.

Results

Bivariate correlations between study variables revealed that there was a positive correlation between men’s and women’s justification of violence and a positive correlation between paternal and maternal involvement, r = .25 and r = .48, respectively, for men and women. Moreover, there were negative correlations between parental justification of violence and parental involvement for both parents, and with early childhood development score. Furthermore, mother and father involvements were positively correlated with ECDI score, r = .22 and r = .20, respectively. Finally, all control variables were correlated with the ECDI scores of children (Table 2).

Table 2.

Correlations among study variables.

Variables	Mean (SD)Range	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1. Women’s justification for domestic violence	1.25 (1.7) 0–5	-
2. Men’s justification of domestic violence	.67 (1.3)0–5	.25***	-
3. Mother involvement	1.94 (1.9)0–6	-.08***	-.03***	-
4. Father involvement	1.14 (1.56)0–6	-.05***	-.03***	.48***	-
5. Early childhood development score	5.55 (1.83)0–10	-.11***	-.09***	.22***	.20***	-
6. Maternal education	1.88 (.95)1–4	-.20***	-.14***	.32***	.22***	.32***	-
7. Paternal education	2.05 (1.08)1–4	-.16***	-.12***	.26***	.22***	.25***	.64***	-
8. Child age (in months)	47.37 (6.79)35–59	-.001	-.02*	.01	.02*	.15***	.02*	.02*	-
9. Attendance to early childhood education (1=no, 2=yes)	1.31 (.46)	-.18***	-.14***	.26***	.22***	.44***	.43***	.34***	.14***	-
10. Wealth index	2.7 (1.41)1–5	-.15***	-.13***	.25***	.17***	.28***	.44***	.44***	.01	.37***

*p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.

The results of the tested model showed that father’s justification of violence against women was negatively associated with his own parental involvement (actor effect, B = −.04, SE = .01, p = .001, and β = −.03). However, no association was found between father’s justification of violence and his partner’s involvement (partner effect, B = −.04, SE = .01, p = .02, and β = −.03). We found that mother’s justification of violence against women was negatively associated with her own parental involvement (actor effect, B = −.09, SE = .01, p < .001, and β = −.08), and it was also negatively associated with her partner’s parental involvement (partner effect, B = −.05, SE = .01, p < .001, and β = −.05). As expected, both paternal involvement (B = .09, SE = .01, p < .001, β = .07) and maternal involvement (B = .04, SE = .01, p <.001, β = .05) were positively associated with ECDI score (Figure 2). R² values indicated that variance explained for paternal involvement, maternal involvement, and ECD were .005, .009, and .215, respectively.

Figure 2.

Model results. Note. Unstandardized beta weights and standard errors are presented. Control variables are mother’s and father’s education, child’s age, child’s attendance to early childhood education program, and household wealth index. Covariances between exogenous variables were estimated but not shown on the figure for simplicity. Solid lines indicate statistical significance at p ≤ .001. ** p < .01, *** p ≤ .001.

Indirect effects indicated that the association between father’s justification of violence and early childhood development score was mediated by their own parental involvement (indirect effect = −.004, p < .001, β = −.002, bias-corrected 95% CI: −.005 to −.002) but was not mediated by their partner’s parental involvement (indirect effect = −.002, p = .002, β = −.002, bias-corrected 95% CI: −.003 to −.001). Paternal involvement mediated 7% of the association between father’s justification of violence and child development. In addition, the association between mother’s justification of violence and early childhood development score was mediated by both mother’s own involvement (indirect effect = −.004, p < .001, β = −.004, bias-corrected 95% CI: −.005 to −.002) and paternal involvement (indirect effect = −.005, p < .001, β = −.004, bias-corrected 95% CI: −.004 to −.003). For the link between mother’s justification of violence and child development, maternal involvement mediated 9% and paternal involvement mediated 11.6% of this association.

Discussion

This study has investigated the associations between parents’ justifying attitudes toward violence against women, parental involvement, and early childhood development using data from large, nationally representative samples from 19 LMIC. Findings showed that fathers’ attitudes toward violence are negatively associated with paternal involvement while mothers’ attitudes toward violence are negatively associated with both maternal and paternal involvement in childcare. More specifically, greater justification of violence against women predicted decreased paternal involvement in men (actor effect); and in women, greater justification of violence against women predicted both decreased levels of maternal and paternal involvement (actor and partner effects). Moreover, paternal involvement mediated the link between paternal and maternal attitudes toward violence and child development, while maternal involvement only mediated the link between maternal attitudes toward violence and child development score. Our results suggest that justifying attitudes toward violence against women is a possible risk factor for ineffective parenting and child development in LMIC. Although previous literature demonstrated that experiencing violence negatively affects mothering, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first study investigating attitudes toward violence and parenting in relation to preschool children’s development with a dyadic mediation perspective. In our study, not only men’s but women’s justification of violence against women had a negative association with involved parenting. With regard to the partner effect of fathers, there was no significant association between fathers’ justification of DV and maternal involvement. One explanation for this lack of association can be the fathers' report of low levels of justification of violence in general. One previous study shows that for men, tolerance to partner violence is associated with unwillingness to report it (Gracia & Herrera, 2006). It is possible that fathers in our sample were hesitant to reflect their true level of tolerant attitudes toward violence against women due to social desirability. In some countries in our sample, justification levels are under one for both women and men, and in most of the countries, the mean scores are similar to previous findings. Previous studies using the same justification of domestic violence scale also found these low levels of justification for both men and women (Sardinha & Catalán, 2018).

Our findings were in line with previous studies which have suggested that DV is detrimental to parenting for both mothers and fathers (Chan et al., 2017; Jeong et al., 2020; Levendosky & Graham-Bermann, 2001) and which have identified justifying violence against women as a risk factor for negative parenting behaviors, such as harsh discipline in mothers (Lansford et al., 2013). Current findings extend the previous literature by establishing justifying DV against women as a risk factor for negative parenting behaviors such as decreased parental involvement of both mothers and fathers. Our results also re-emphasize the importance of parental involvement in LMIC. In line with previous studies (Dede Yildirim & Roopnarine, 2017; Frongillo et al., 2017; Tran et al., 2017), in our sample, we have found that fathers’ and mothers’ number of stimulating activities with their preschool-aged children predicted better early childhood development.

One strength of this study was the use of large, nationally representative data from LMICs, which are generally underrepresented in the literature of child development and parenting. Investigation of risk factors for child development in LMIC is crucial since millions of children who live in LMIC are exposed to multiple adversities such as poverty, lack of various stimulation, and education (Lu et al., 2016). One of these major adversities is violence. Although there is variability at the country level, in most LMICs, there is a high level of violence against women accompanied by a high level of its acceptance (Tran et al., 2016). Results from the current study suggest that fathers’ level of justification of DV was negatively associated with their involvement with their children, and similarly, mothers’ greater acceptance of DV might be damaging not only in their own parenting but also in paternal involvement. Programs aiming to increase parental involvement and early childhood development in LMIC might benefit from addressing components such as attitudes toward domestic violence against women as this construct is related to social norms around caregiving for fathers and has major implications for women’s psychological and physical health. Changing attitudes about acceptability of violence is a difficult and long-term work because these attitudes are rooted in patriarchal ideology evident in many societies, especially in LMICs. It should be noted that countries in our sample were mostly low on gender inequality index and the residing women justified violence more than men. Therefore, results of this study must be evaluated with caution since mechanisms proposed and tested in here might not be applicable to countries with greater gender equality.

It should be noted that the effect sizes detected in this study are considered to be small; however, effect sizes tend to be smaller in large sample studies compared to average or small scale studies and also in developmental research compared to other sub-disciplines (Schäfer & Schwarz, 2019). Therefore, usual benchmarks of small, medium, and large effects may not accurately represent the practical importance of the findings and can be misleading (Schäfer & Schwarz, 2019). Even small effects may contribute to policy making to maximize the developmental potential of children (McCartney & Rosenthal, 2000).

The current study has also several limitations, especially related to the dataset used. First, the associations described in the current study are based on cross-sectional data which is not appropriate to draw cause and effect relationships. For example, it is also possible that greater involvement in childcare would promote gender equality and lower approval for violence against women. However, this explanation is not likely, given the gender roles and attitudes are attained starting from very early ages and parenthood is experienced much later in adult life. Second, given the large sample size and coverage of multiple topics about child development, the measures used in MICS were generally not in-depth in nature. Several variables were measured as dichotomous, which leads to limited variability. Moreover, in MICS, although attitudes toward violence were reported by both mothers and fathers, parental involvement and child development were both mothers’ reports. Having multiple reports (from mothers and fathers) would have increased the confidence in the measurements. Especially, mothers’ reports on paternal involvement might not always be accurate and consequently, the bias results by undermining the actual father involvement (Charles et al., 2018). Third, similar to the reporting of actual perpetration of violence, approval of DV is generally underreported due to social desirability (Gracia & Herrera, 2006). For example, in a previous study conducted with 809 adults in Ethiopia, it was found that when asked directly by an interviewer about justification of DV, adults (especially men) reported lower levels of approving attitudes compared to when asked indirectly (Gibson et al., 2020). Therefore, we believe that social desirability may have been an influential factor when participants reported their level of justifying attitudes toward DV, and it is likely that the level of justification of violence against women is higher than reported. Furthermore, the measure of justification of violence in MICS focused on only physical violence against women; however, individuals might justify other types of violence such as verbal, psychological, sexual, or economic which were not included in the attitude assessment of the current study but may still contribute to this risk factor. Finally, information on relevant constructs for this study, such as marital satisfaction and conflict, was not available in the dataset.

Future studies would benefit from longitudinal designs and they should include in-depth measures of constructs used in this study for a more precise interpretation of these associations and recommendations for practice. The covariates used in the current study were limited to the available data collected in MICS. In future studies, in addition to attitudes toward violence against women, actual perpetration and victimization can be added to the model to investigate the independent predictive power of attitudes. Further investigation of different mechanisms is also needed in explaining the association between justifying violence against women and child development. Previous studies showed that domestic violence has detrimental effects on both the victim and the perpetrator (Chan et al., 2017; Jeong et al., 2020). Attitudes toward violence against women may be a risk factor for decreased parental mental health, which is also critical for parenting and early childhood development. Programs aiming to foster parental involvement might benefit from including prevention-focused modules addressing attitudes toward DV against women. Changing attitudes toward DV involves long-term efforts as these attitudes are rooted in the patriarchal ideology evident in many societies, especially in LMIC. However, this construct seems to be related to the social norms around fathers’ caregiving and has major implications for women’s empowerment and early childhood development. The current study presents empirical evidence for a targeted opportunity to transform these beliefs on violence against women as part of programmatic efforts promoting men’s and women’s roles as more involved parents.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Gamze Turunç

Notes

Author Biographies

Gamze Turunç is a doctoral candidate in developmental psychology at Koç University. Her research focuses on the well-being and socio-cognitive development of preschool children, and the determinants of parental involvement, quality, and well-being.

Yasemin Kisbu-Sakarya is assistant professor of psychology at Koç University. Her research interests include statistical mediation analysis, evaluation methods, and transportability and adaptability studies to bring effective programs on child development to countries different from where they originated.

References

Abramsky

Watts

C. H.

Garcia-Moreno

Devries

Kiss

Ellsberg

Heise

(2011). What factors are associated with recent intimate partner violence? Findings from the WHO multi-country study on women’s health and domestic violence. BMC Public Health, 11(1), 109. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-11-109

Adhia

Jeong

(2019). Fathers’ perpetration of intimate partner violence and parenting during early childhood: Results from the fragile families and child wellbeing study. Child Abuse & Neglect, 96, 104103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2019.104103.

Ahlfs-Dunn

S. M.

Huth-Bocks

A. C.

(2016). Intimate partner violence involving children and the parenting role: Associations with maternal outcomes. Journal of Family Violence, 31(3), 387–399. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-015-9791-x

Ajzen

Fishbein

(1970). The prediction of behavior from attitudinal and normative variables. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 6(4), 466–487. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(70)90057-0

Ajzen

Fishbein

(1977). Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 84(5), 888–918. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.84.5.888

Ali

P. A.

O’Cathain

Croot

(2019). Not managing expectations: A grounded theory of intimate partner violence from the perspective of Pakistani people. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 34(19), 4085–4113. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260516672939

Allen

S. M.

Hawkins

A. J.

(1999). Maternal gatekeeping: Mothers’ beliefs and behaviors that inhibit greater father involvement in family work. Journal of Marriage and Family, 61(1), 199–212. https://doi.org/10.2307/353894

Alzoubi

F. A.

Ali

R. A.

(2018). Jordanian men’s and women’s attitudes toward intimate partner violence and its correlates with family functioning and demographics. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(5–6), NP2883–NP907. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518769368

Amir-ud-Din

Fatima

Aziz

(2018). Is attitudinal acceptance of violence a risk factor? An analysis of domestic violence against women in Pakistan. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(7–8), NP4514–NP4541. https://doi.org/10,1177/0886260518787809

10.

Andersson

Cockcroft

Ansari

Omer

Ansari

N. M.

Khan

Chaudhry

U. U.

(2010). Barriers to disclosing and reporting violence among women in Pakistan: Findings from a national household survey and focus group discussions. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25(11), 1965–1985. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260509354512

11.

Arënliu

Kelmendi

Bërxulli

(2019). Socio-demographic associates of tolerant attitudes toward intimate partner violence against women in Kosovo. The Social Science Journal, 58(1), 95–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2019.03.009

12.

Baker

C. E.

(2013). Fathers’ and mothers’ home literacy involvement and children's cognitive and social emotional development: Implications for family literacy programs. Applied Developmental Science, 17(4), 184–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2013.836034

13.

Baker

C. K.

Perilla

J. L.

Norris

F. H.

(2001). Parenting stress and parenting competence among Latino men who batter. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16(4), 1139–1157. https://doi.org/10.1177/088626001016011003

14.

Beccaria

Dawson

Gorman

Harris

J. A.

Hossain

(2013). Nursing student’s perceptions and understanding of intimate partner violence. Nurse Education Today, 33(8), 907–911. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2012.08.004

15.

Bhanot

Senn

C. Y.

(2007). Attitudes towards violence against women in men of south Asian ancestry: Are acculturation and gender role attitudes important factors? Journal of Family Violence, 22(1), 25–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-006-9060-0

16.

Buchanan

Power

Verity

(2014). The effects of domestic violence on the formation of relationships between women and their babies: “I was too busy protecting my baby to attach”. Journal of Family Violence, 29(7), 713–724. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-014-9630-5

17.

Buehler

Gerard

J. M.

(2002). Marital conflict, ineffective parenting, and children’s and adolescents’ maladjustment. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64(1), 78–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00078.x

18.

Bui

Q. N.

Hoang

T. X.

N. T.

(2018). The effect of domestic violence against women on child welfare in Vietnam. Children and Youth Services Review, 94, 709-719. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.09.024.

19.

Chan

K. L.

Emery

C. R.

Fulu

Tolman

R. M.

(2017). Association among father involvement, partner violence, and paternal health: UN multi-country cross-sectional study on men and violence. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 52(5), 671–679. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2016.12.017

20.

Charles

Spielfogel

Gorman-Smith

Schoeny

Henry

Tolan

(2018). Disagreement in parental reports of father involvement. Journal of Family Issues, 39(2), 328–351. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X16644639

21.

Chiesa

A. E.

Kallechey

Harlaar

Ford

C. R.

Garrido

E. F.

Betts

W. R.

Maguire

(2018). Intimate partner violence victimization and parenting: A systematic review. Child Abuse & Neglect, 80, 285-300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2018.03.028l.

22.

Cook

W. L.

Kenny

D. A.

(2005). The actor-partner interdependence model: A model of bidirectional effects in developmental studies. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29(2), 101–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/01650250444000405

23.

Coutts

J. J.

Hayes

A. F.

Jiang

(2019). Easy statistical mediation analysis with distinguishable dyadic data. Journal of Communication, 69(6), 612–649. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqz034

24.

Dede Yildirim

Roopnarine

J. L.

(2017). Paternal and maternal engagement across six Caribbean countries and childhood outcomes. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 53, 64-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2017.08.007.

25.

Dette-Hagenmeyer

D. E.

Erzinger

A. B.

Reichle

(2014). The changing role of the father in the family. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 11(2), 129–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2014.883313

26.

Devries

K. M.

Mak

J. Y.

Garcia-Moreno

Petzold

Child

J. C.

Falder

Lim

Bacchus

L. J.

Engell

R. E.

Rosenfeld

Pallitto

Vos

Abrahams

Watts

C. H.

(2013). The global prevalence of intimate partner violence against women. Science, 340(6140), 1527–1528. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1240937

27.

Erel

Burman

(1995). Interrelatedness of marital relations and parent-child relations: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 118(1), 106–132. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.118.1.108

28.

Filmer

Pritchett

L. H.

(2001). Estimating wealth effects without expenditure data or tears: An application to educational enrollments in states of India. Demography, 38(1), 115–132. https://doi.org/10.2307/3088292

29.

Flood

Pease

(2009). Factors influencing attitudes to violence against women. Trauma Violence Abuse, 10(2), 125–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838009334131

30.

Ford-Gilboe

Wuest

Varcoe

Davies

Merritt-Gray

Campbell

Wilk

(2009). Modeling the effects of intimate partner violence and access to resources on women’s health in the early years after leaving an abusive partner. Social Science & Medicine, 68(6), 1021–1029. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.01.003

31.

Fox

G. L.

Benson

M. L.

(2004). Violent men, bad dads? Fathering profiles of men involved in intimate partner violence. In Day

R. D.

Lamb

M. E.

(Eds), Conceptualizing and measuring father involvement: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

32.

Frongillo

E. A.

Kulkarni

Basnet

de Castro

(2017). Family care behaviors and early childhood development in low- and middle-income countries. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 26(10064), 3036–3044. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-017-0816-3

33.

Gibson

M. A.

Gurmu

Cobo

Rueda

M. M.

Scott

I. M.

(2020). Measuring hidden support for physical intimate partner violence: A list randomization experiment in south-central Ethiopia. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260520914546.

34.

Gracia

Herrera

(2006). Public attitudes toward reporting partner violence against women and reporting behavior. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68(3), 759–768. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2006.00288.x

35.

Gustafsson

H. C.

Cox

M. J.

Blair

(2012). Maternal parenting as a mediator of the relationship between intimate partner violence and effortful control. Journal of Family Psychology, 26(1), 115. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026283

36.

Hamadani

J. D.

Tofail

Hilaly

Huda

S. N.

Engle

Grantham-McGregor

S. M.

(2010). Use of family care indicators and their relationship with child development in Bangladesh. Journal of Health, Population, and Nutrition, 28(1), 23–33. https://doi.org/10.3329/jhpn.v28i1.4520

37.

Harne

(2002). Nouveaux pères, violence et garde des enfants. Nouvelles Questions Féministes, 21(2), 8–30. https://doi.org/10.3917/nqf.212.000810.3917/nqf.212.0008

38.

Hindin

M. J.

Kishor

Ansara

D. L.

(2008). Intimate partner violence among couples in 10 DHS countries: Predictors and health outcomes. https://dhsprogram.com/pubs/pdf/AS18/AS18.pdf.

39.

Huang

C. C.

Wang

L. R.

Warrener

(2010). Effects of domestic violence on behavior problems of preschool-aged children: Do maternal mental health and parenting mediate the effects?. Children and Youth Services Review, 32(10), 1317–1323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2010.04.024

40.

Hungerford

Wait

S. K.

Fritz

A. M.

Clements

C. M.

(2012). Exposure to intimate partner violence and children’s psychological adjustment, cognitive functioning, and social competence: A review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17(4), 373–382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2012.04.002

41.

Islam

T. M.

Tareque

M. I.

Sugawa

Kawahara

(2015). Correlates of intimate partner violence against women in Bangladesh. Journal of Family Violence, 30(4), 433–444. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-015-9683-0

42.

Jeong

Adhia

Bhatia

McCoy

D. C.

Yousafzai

A. K.

(2020). Intimate partner violence, maternal and paternal parenting, and early child development. Pediatrics, 145(6), e20192955. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2019-2955

43.

Jeong

McCoy

D. C.

Fink

(2017). Pathways between paternal and maternal education, caregivers’ support for learning, and early child development in 44 low-and middle-income countries. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 41, 136-148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2017.07.001.

44.

Jeong

McCoy

D. C.

Yousafzai

A. K.

Salhi

Fink

(2016). Paternal stimulation and early child development in low- and middle-income countries. Pediatrics, 138(4), e20161357. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2016-1357

45.

Jewkes

Levin

Penn-Kekana

(2002). Risk factors for domestic violence: Findings from a South African cross-sectional study. Social Science & Medicine, 55(9), 1603–1617. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(01)00294-5

46.

Jones

R. K.

(1993). Female victim perceptions of the causes of male spouse abuse. Sociological Inquiry, 63(3), 351–361. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1993.tb00315.x

47.

Kariger

Frongilo

E. A.

Engle

Britto

P. M. R.

Sywulka

S. M.

Menon

(2012). Indicators of family care for development for use in multicountry surveys. Journal of Health, Population and Nutrition, 30(4), 472-486. https://doi.org/10.3329/jhpn.v30i4.13417.

48.

Kato-Wallace

Barker

Eads

Levtov

(2014). Global pathways to men’s caregiving: Mixed methods findings from the international men and gender equality survey and the men who care study. Global Public Health, 9(6), 706–722. https://doi.org/10.1080/17441692.2014.921829

49.

Kernsmith

(2005). Treating perpetrators of domestic violence: Gender differences in the applicability of the theory of planned behavior. Sex Roles, 52(11), 757–770. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-005-4197-5

50.

Kofinti

R. E.

Ewusie

E.-A.

Kwaah

C. Y.

Asmah

E. E.

(2020). Effects of parental attitudes toward spousal violence on early childhood development and learning support among Ghanaian children. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260520934425.

51.

Krishnakumar

Buehler

(2000). Interparental conflict and parenting behaviors: A meta‐analytic review. Family Relations, 49(1), 25–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2000.00025.x

52.

Lansford

J. E.

Deater-Deckard

Bornstein

M. H.

Putnick

D. L.

Bradley

R. H.

(2013). Attitudes justifying domestic violence predict endorsement of corporal punishment and physical and psychological aggression towards children: A study in 25 low- and middle-income countries. The Journal of Pediatrics, 164(5), 1208–1213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2013.11.060

53.

Lépine

Strobl

(2013). The effect of women’s bargaining power on child nutrition in rural Senegal. World Development, 45(2), 17–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2012.12.018

54.

Letourneau

N. L.

Fedick

C. B.

Willms

J. D.

(2007). Mothering and domestic violence: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Family Violence, 22(8), 649–659. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-007-9099-6

55.

Levendosky

A. A.

Graham-Bermann

S. A.

(2001). Parenting in battered women: The effects of domestic violence on women and their children. Journal of Family Violence, 16(2), 171–192. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011111003373

56.

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

57.

Black

M. M.

Richter

L. M.

(2016). Risk of poor development in young children in low-income and middle-income countries: An estimation and analysis at the global, regional, and country level. The Lancet Global Health, 4(12), 916–922. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(1630266-2)

58.

Maggi

Irwin

L. J.

Siddiqi

Hertzman

(2010). The social determinants of early child development: An overview. Journal of paediatrics and Child health, 46(11), 627–635. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1754.2010.01817.x

59.

McCartney

Rosenthal

(2000). Effect size, practical importance, and social policy for children. Child Development, 71(1), 173–180. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00131

60.

McCoy

D. C.

Peet

E. D.

Ezzati

Danaei

Black

M. M.

Sudfeld

C. R.

Fawzi

Fink

(2016). Early childhood developmental status in low- and middle-income countries: National, regional, and global prevalence estimates using predictive modeling. PLoS Medicine, 13(6), e1002034. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002034

61.

McWayne

Downer

J. T.

Campos

Harris

R. D.

(2013). Father involvement during early childhood and its association with children’s early learning: A meta-analysis. Early Education & Development, 24(6), 898–922. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2013.746932

62.

Mol

Bus

A. G.

(2011). To read or not to read: A meta-analysis of print exposure from infancy to early adulthood. Psychological Bulletin, 137(2), 267–296. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021890

63.

Mugoya

G. C.

Witte

T. H.

Ernst

K. C.

(2015). Sociocultural and victimization factors that impact attitudes toward intimate partner violence among Kenyan women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30(16), 2851–2871. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260514554287

64.

Muthén

L. K.

Muthén

B. O.

(1998-2010). Mplus user's guide (Sixth Edition): Muthén & Muthén.

65.

Petts

R. J.

Shafer

K. M.

Essig

(2018). Does adherence to masculine norms shape fathering behavior? Journal of Marriage and Family, 80(3), 704–720. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12476

66.

Pleck

J. H.

(2010). Fatherhood and masculinity. In Lamb

M. E.

(Ed), The role of the father in child development (5th ed., pp. 27–57): John Wiley.

67.

Rani

Bonu

Diop-Sidibe

(2004). An empirical investigation of attitudes towards wife-beating among men and women in seven sub-Saharan African countries. African Journal of Reproductive Health, 8(3), 116–136. https://doi.org/10.2307/3583398

68.

Renner

L. M.

Boel-Studt

(2013). The relation between intimate partner violence, parenting stress, and child behavior problems. Journal of Family Violence, 28(2), 201–212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-012-9477-6

69.

Russell

(1978). The father role and its relation to masculinity, femininity, and androgyny (pp. 1174–1181). Child Development. https://doi.org/10.2307/1128757

70.

Sado

Spaho

Hotchkiss

D. R.

(2014). The influence of women’s empowerment on maternal health care utilization: Evidence from Albania. Social Science & Medicine, 114C(2014), 169–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.05.047

71.

Saini

M. A.

Drozd

L. M.

Olesen

N. W.

(2017). Adaptive and maladaptive gatekeeping behaviors and attitudes: Implications for child outcomes after separation and divorce. Family Court Review, 55(2), 260–272. https://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12276

72.

Sano

Richards

L. N.

Zvonkovic

A. M.

(2008). Are mothers really “gatekeepers” of children? Rural mothers’ perceptions of nonresident fathers’ involvement in low-income families. Journal of Family Issues, 29(12), 1701–1723. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X08321543

73.

Sardinha

Catalán

H. E. N.

(2018). Attitudes towards domestic violence in 49 low- and middle-income countries: A gendered analysis of prevalence and country-level correlates. PloS One, 13(10), e0206101. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0206101

74.

Schäfer

Schwarz

M. A.

(2019). The meaningfulness of effect sizes in psychological research: Differences between sub-disciplines and the impact of potential biases. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 813. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00813.

75.

Stith

S. M.

Smith

D. B.

Penn

C. E.

Ward

D. B.

Tritt

(2004). Intimate partner physical abuse perpetration and victimization risk factors: A meta-analytic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10(1), 65–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2003.09.001

76.

Tran

T. D.

Luchters

Fisher

(2017). Early childhood development: impact of national human development, family poverty, parenting practices and access to early childhood education. Child: Care, Health and Development, 43(3), 415–426. https://doi.org/10.1111/cch.12395

77.

Tran

T. D.

Nguyen

Fisher

(2016). Attitudes towards intimate partner violence against women among women and men in 39 low-and middle-income countries. PloS One, 11(11), e0167438. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0167438

78.

UNDP (2015). Human development index (HDI). From United Nations Development Program.

79.

United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) (2011). Multiple indicator cluster Survey manual MICS4: UNICEF.

80.

Uthman

O. A.

Lawoko

Moradi

(2009). Factors associated with attitudes towards intimate partner violence against women: A comparative analysis of 17 sub-Saharan countries. BMC International Health and Human Rights, 9(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893- 3200.17.3.275

81.

Yount

K. M.

James-Hawkins

Cheong

Y. F.

Naved

R. T.

(2018). Men’s perpetration of partner violence in Bangladesh: Community gender norms and violence in childhood. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 19(1), 117. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000069

82.

Yousafzai

A. K.

Rasheed

M. A.

Rizvi

Armstrong

Bhutta

Z. A.

(2014). Effect of integrated responsive stimulation and nutrition interventions in the lady health worker programme in Pakistan on child development, growth, and health outcomes: A cluster-randomised factorial effectiveness trial. The Lancet, 384(9950), 1282–1293. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60455-4

83.

Zvara

B. J.

Roger Mills‐Koonce

Cox

(2016). Amp; family life project key contributors intimate partner violence, maternal gatekeeping, and child conduct problems. Family Relations, 65(5), 647–660. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12221

84.

Zvara

B. J.

Schoppe‐Sullivan

S. J.

Dush

C. K.

(2013). Fathers’ involvement in child health care: Associations with prenatal involvement, parents’ beliefs, and maternal gatekeeping. Family Relations, 62(4), 649–661. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.120