The Association Between Witnessing Interparental Violence and Adolescents’ Anger Expression Styles

Abstract

The purpose of this research was to determine the association between witnessing interparental violence and anger expression styles in adolescents. Previous studies have generally focused on the attitudes to violence of individuals witnessing it. However, the present research specifically investigated the association between witnessing interparental violence and anger. The research was performed as a descriptive and correlational study. The research sample consisted of 1,000 adolescents aged 15 to 19 contacted via social media platforms using the convenience sample method. An online data collection form containing questions was prepared to determine adolescents’ sociodemographic characteristics and contained questions from the Witnessing Interparental Violence Scale and Trait Anger Expression Inventory. Statistical analysis was performed on SPSS 21.0 software. In all, 446 (44.6%) adolescents had witnessed interparental violence. Trait, externalized, and internalized anger scores were higher among adolescents who had witnessed interparental violence compared to those who had not. This research shows that witnessing interparental violence has significant effects on the individual’s trait anger and anger expression styles. We recommend that the effects of exposure to violence and witnessing interparental violence be compared and that witnessing violence in different cultural environments be evaluated in future studies.

Keywords

domestic violence interparental violence violence exposure witnessing interparental violence witnessing domestic violence

Introduction

Anger and Its Expression

Anger can be defined as an emotion capable of ranging from mild discomfort to severe rage and which prompts the individual to eradicate the causative stimuli in conditions such as obstruction, being threatened, or being exposed to injustice (Biaggio, 1989; Kafaji, 2013). Anger is a raw, universal, natural emotion that may be regarded as functional up to a certain point. It affects the individual’s psychological well-being, social and interpersonal relations, and acts of social violence (Haspolat & Şendağ, 2018). Anger is frequently perceived as invariably harmful, and there may be some substance to this because, in its raw, impulsive, biological form, its expression is frequently deeply hostile. However, corrective feedback is also important if relationships are to adapt and survive, and anger constitutes one component of such feedback (Butler et al., 2018).

Anger control refers to the acquisition of the ability to properly express it. The most appropriate method of controlling anger involves acceptance of anger and rational behavior. If anger cannot be openly expressed, it may be suppressed, displaced, or internalized (Brenning & Braet, 2013; Johnson, 2010). The expression of anger may take the form of internalization, externalization, or control. Internalization refers to anger being turned inward and suppressed by individuals who have problems in openly expressing it. By contrast, externalization refers to the verbal and active expression of anger, usually manifested as violence and aggressive behavior (Spielberger & Reheiser, 2009). In their study of American adults, Kitayama et al. (2015) determined a strong association between greater anger expression and increased behavioral health risks, with their deleterious impact on physical health. Another study from the United States showed that anger expression or externalization in adults can reduce perceived stress and thus improve physical health, while trait anger increases perceived stress and causes a decrease in bodily health (Yamaguchi et al., 2017). The results of an adolescent study showed that adults with histories of attempted suicide had higher trait anger and impulsivity scores (Liang et al., 2014; Liu et al., 2018). The targets, timing, and expression of anger are components learned through the social environment. Bandura (1978) described adult anger expression styles as deriving from modeling processes in childhood and youth.

Adolescence is a stage involving elements of biological development and major social role transitions. Studies have reported that adolescents are in search of an identity, experience transitions between emotions much more quickly and intensely during this time, and experience emotional turmoil in association with this. These have all been reported as reasons why individuals in adolescence are more easily angered. Failure to regulate anger can lead to severe problems in several spheres of adolescent life. Anger and anger control in adolescence are thus of special importance (Siyez & Tan Tuna, 2014). Various environmental factors influence the extent to which children and adolescents mold individual variations in terms of their disposition to exhibit aggressive behavior patterns and aggressive reactions under specific conditions (Krahé, 2013).

The Effects of Witnessing Interparental Violence

The most common type of domestic violence is interparental violence, which refers to violence occurring between parents (van Rooij et al., 2015). A study investigating the effect of anger on the effect of witnessing interparental violence on dysphoric mood (anxiety or depression) reported that “although witnessing family violence is correlated with anxiety and depression, it loses its significance when controlling for the effects of anger feelings and expression.” Significant evidence exists to show a greater probability of higher anxiety and depression scores among children who witness interparental violence (Kitamura & Hasui, 2006). Physical violence in the family setting may result in psychological problems in children witnessing it. These children may develop a greater tendency to fighting and become both insecure and aggressive (Taşdan, 2009). There is considerable evidence that witnessing violence causes intergenerational effects (Forke et al., 2019). Witnessing violence may also result in an increased risk of exposure to violence in relationships in adolescence and adulthood (Forke et al., 2018; McKinney et al., 2009), and in the cycle of violence persisting and emerging subsequently (Ehrensaft et al., 2017). Witnesses may develop high levels of emotional dysregulation (Zilberstein, 2014) and aggressive behaviors (Gover et al., 2008) because of the weakening of the child–parent bond in case of interparental violence (Owen et al., 2009; Wright et al., 2009). Witnessing violence can severely impair individuals’ abilities to construct healthy relationships, even with their own offspring (Forke et al., 2019). Children have been reported to witness interparental violence at rates from 25% (Forke et al., 2018) to as high as 51% (Forke et al., 2019) and 59% (McDonald et al., 2006). It is estimated that 51% of adults witness interparental violence during their childhood, with girls representing 79% of such witnesses (Forke et al., 2019).

İnterparental violence also gives rise to adverse outcomes in terms of the child’s personality development. İbiloğlu (2012) suggested that, even if they are not directly exposed to violence, children who witness interparental physical violence may experience problems such as aggression, sleep disturbances, and eating problems. Witnessing interparental violence within the family, where children need to feel particularly secure, can adversely impact on their emotional development. Even if children are not directly subjected to violence in the home, witnessing it also inflicts deep wounds. Relatively, strong evidence exists to suggest that children are concomitantly exposed to direct abuse and domestic violence. Both appear to increase the probability of an extensive range of psychosocial problems for young people and young adults. The combined effects of these and other risk factors seem to exceed the effect of exposure to one risk alone, although there is less clarity concerning how much greater that effect is, or which combinations of risks are particularly deleterious (Herrenkohl et al., 2008). Children observe their parents’ behaviors in their family relationships, and a child who grows up in a family environment where violence is displayed will also learn to exhibit such behavior. If family members react to stresses, disappointments, and problems with anger and aggression, children may also respond with anger and aggression in adulthood to events comparable to those they experienced or observed as children (Özgentürk et al., 2012).

Several studies of violence agree that individuals raised in an environment where violence is displayed subsequently inflict violence on their own children, psychological or physical problems develop in children exposed to or witnessing violence, and such children may also have various psychosomatic symptoms, especially aggressive behavior (Bayındır, 2010). Children raised in homes affected by interparental violence have a greater risk of adjustment problems (Samuelson et al., 2012), internalizing and externalizing their problems (MacDonell, 2012), and psychopathologies throughout childhood. The maternal bond can also be impaired in women subjected to spousal violence, causing them to distance themselves from their children. Violence inflicted on the mother impairs the quality of the bond between mother and child and is reported to be capable of resulting in posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms in children (Boeckel et al., 2017). Children exposed to domestic violence are inevitably adversely affected by it. The requisite precautions should therefore be taken to ensure that children develop in a healthy manner and for the development of their identity and personality. Adolescents represent the future of society. Communities base their futures around well-raised individuals and endeavor to produce democratically minded adults who are healthy, well-educated and informed, free-thinking, and respectful of others’ opinions (Gürsoy, 2009).

Current Study

The majority of research has focused on the attitudes toward violence of individuals who witness it in childhood (Ayhan & Özkan, 2016; Kitamura & Hasui, 2006; Krahé, 2013; Taşdan, 2009). By contrast, the purpose of this research was to determine the association between witnessing interparental violence and anger expression styles in adolescents.

Method

Research Model

A descriptive and correlational research model was employed.

Research Population and Sample

The research sample consisted of adolescents aged 15 to 19 living in a province in the southeast Anatolia region of Turkey and contacted using the convenience sample method. Since the province of southeast Anatolia where the research was conducted receives migration from other parts of Turkey, it is also home to different cultures. This province was selected on the assumption that it might provide a general perspective concerning the effects of witnessing violence in different cultures in Turkey. The inclusion criteria were that participants should have no problem in reading and understanding Turkish and be aged 15 to 19 years, parental consent to participation, and voluntary participation on the part of the adolescents taking part. Individuals failing to meet the inclusion criteria were excluded from the research. The sample calculation was made using the epi info package (Version 7.2.5.0). Since the population of the study was not known exactly, the calculation was made using the sampling method with an unknown population (by determining the maximum population number). To reach the maximum number of samples that could be reached, the prevalence was taken as 50% and the sample calculation was made. The analysis revealed that 653 adolescents would be required with a 5% margin of error and an alpha 99% confidence interval. The study was concluded with 1,000 individuals and thus has a confidence interval greater than 99%.

Participants

A total of 1,227 adolescents were contacted in the study. The study excluded 200 participants because they only ticked the option “I agree to participate in the research” without answering any questions, and an additional 27 participants did not respond to the majority of the questions. As a result, 1,000 adolescent respondents were included in the study. The mean age of the adolescents was 16.98 ± 1.17 years, 56.1% were female, 33.3% were 18 years of age, and 39.5% were in the final year of high school.

Research Time and Place

The research involved adolescents aged 15 to 19 years living in an urban center in a province in Anatolia, Turkey. The participants were contacted via WhatsApp and email through personal acquaintances and “story” and “new post” shares on social media platforms (e.g., WhatsApp, Instagram, and Twitter). Participants connected via their social media accounts were asked to share the link to the questionnaire with acquaintances who met the research inclusion criteria. All adolescents were sent links to an online questionnaire. When the participants clicked on the link, the first page of the questionnaire contained an informed consent form and brief details regarding the study and its aim, and in the event that they consented to take part, they declared this by ticking the appropriate box. Since education in Turkey was taking place online at the time of the research, the study data were also collected online.

Data Collection Tools

Sociodemographic Information Form

This was developed by the authors to determine the sociodemographic characteristics of the adolescents taking part. The form consisted of eight questions, seven aimed at determining the sociodemographic characteristics of the adolescents taking part in the study and one evaluating whether or not they had witnessed violence.

The Witnessing Interparental Violence Scale

Developed by Baldry (2003), the scale was adapted into Turkish by Sarıot (2011). The scale is intended to measure the amount of interparental violence witnessed. It consists of 10 items and 2 sub-dimensions—violence by the father toward the Mother (5 items; example item—Did your father hit your mother?) and violence by the mother toward the father (5 items; example item—Did your mother exhibit harmful behavior toward your father?). The scale does not have a specific time period and the questions are in the form of “Have you ever witnessed?” This is a five-point Likert-type scale, from 1 (Never) to 5 (Always). The internal consistency coefficient of the violence by the father toward the mother subscale was calculated as .85 and that of the violence by the mother toward the father subscale as .88. The total scale score was obtained by adding the violence by the father toward the mother and violence by the mother toward the father subscale scores. Higher scores are regarded as indicating more frequent witnessing of violence, and low scores as indicating less witnessing of violence (Sarıot, 2011). The Cronbach alpha coefficient of the witnessing interparental violence scale (WIVS) in this study was calculated at .90.

Trait Anger Expression Inventory

Trait anger expression inventory (TAXI) was developed by Spielberger et al. (1983) for the purpose of determining students’ anger expression styles. It was originally known as the State-TAXI (STAE). The scale was adapted to Turkish, and its reliability and validity were studied by Özer (1994). This four-point Likert-type scale can be applied to adolescents and adults. TAXI consists of two parts: trait anger (10 items) and anger expression style (24 items). The anger expression style scale consists of three subscales, internalization of anger, externalization of anger, and anger control. Cronbach alpha coefficient values in the Turkish-language validity and reliability studies were .84 for the anger control dimension, .78 for the externalization of anger, and .62 for the internalization of anger (Özer, 1994). Higher trait anger subscale scores indicate a high level of anger, while high scores on the anger control subscale indicate that anger can be controlled. High scores on the externalization of anger subscale indicate that anger is easily expressed, and high scores on the internalization of anger subscale show that anger is suppressed (Savaşır,& Şahin, 1997). The Cronbach alpha coefficient for TAXI in the present research was .86.

Ethical Dimension

Approval for the study was granted by the Batman University non-interventional ethical committee (no. 24998744-050.99 dated 03.10.2020). Online consent was obtained from the adolescents taking part. These were first contacted through online platforms and were given information about the research. In the event that the adolescent consented to take part, an online address was requested through which the parents could be contacted. A link to an online consent form was subsequently sent to the address provided by the participant. This contained information explaining the voluntary nature of the participation, participants’ rights, and the aim of the study. Parents then approved the statement reading “I agree to my child’s taking part in the research” in the online questionnaire.

Data Analysis

Incomplete forms were excluded from the analysis. Statistical analyses were conducted on SPSS 21.0 software. Mean, number percentage distribution, and standard deviation values were calculated. Univariate analyses were applied (Student’s t-test and one-way analysis of variance [ANOVA] for parametric tests, and the Mann–Whitney U test, ANOVA, or the Kruskal–Wallis test for nonparametric tests). Multiple linear regression analysis was used to determine the relationships between the variables.

Results

Sociodemographic Characteristics and Witnessing Violence Status

In all, 446 (44.6%) of the adolescents in this research had witnessed interparental violence. In addition, 80.1% regarded their income level as average and 92.8% were not in paid work, while the fathers of 49.3% and the mothers of 60.2% were elementary school graduates (Tables 2 and 3).

While no significant association was observed between witnessing interparental violence and sex, age, or number of siblings, significant relationships were observed with income status, being in paid employment, and maternal and paternal education levels (Table 1).

Table 1.

Differences in the Demographic Characteristics for Those Who Have and Have not been Witnessed Interparental Violence.

Demographic Characteristics	Witnessing Interparental Violence (n)	Interparental Violence Without Witnesses (n)	p
Gender
Female	254	307	.627
Male	192	247
Age (years)
15	80	84
16	59	83	.346
17	123	177
18	153	180
19	31	30
Perceived income status
Low	63	34
Average	336	465	.000
High	47	55
Paid employment status
Working	41	31
Not working	405	523	.029
Number of siblings
Only child	120	155
One sibling	147	208	.168
Two siblings	100	118
Three or more	79	73
Paternal education level
Illiterate	10	4
Literate	20	9
Elementary school graduate	220	272	.014
High school graduate	97	126
University graduate	99	143
Maternal education level
Illiterate	36	21
Literate	34	19
Elementary school graduate	254	347	.001
High school graduate	75	94
University graduate	47	73

No gender difference was observed in terms of witnessing violence. Witnessing maternal violence against the father was more common among adolescents aged 15 compared to those aged 16, 18, or 19. Adolescents in the low-income group exhibited higher witnessing violence scores than those in the high-income group. Witnessing paternal violence against the mother was more common in the low-income group, while witnessing maternal violence against the father was more common in the low-income group compared to the moderate-income group. Working adolescents exhibited higher witnessing of interparental violence, paternal violence against the mother, and maternal violence against the father scores. No association was determined between the number of children in the family and witnessing violence. Total witnessing violence, maternal violence against the father, and paternal violence against the mother scores were higher among adolescents with fathers who were illiterate or only literate. Rates of witnessing interparental violence and witnessing paternal violence against the mother were higher among adolescents with mothers who were illiterate or only literate. Witnessing maternal violence against the father was more common among adolescents with mothers who were only literate compared to the other education groups (Table 2).

Table 2.

A Comparison of Adolescents’ Sociodemographic Characteristics and Witnessing Intrafamilial Violence Scores.

Demographic Characteristics	Number Percentage	Witnessing Interparental Violence Scale Total Score Mean ± SD	Witnessing Father’s Violence Toward the Mother Mean ± SD	Witnessing Mother’s Violence Toward the Father Mean ± SD
Gender
Female	561 (56.1)	12.52 ± 4.47^a	6.52 ± 2.65^a	5.99 ± 2.16^a
Male	439 (43.9)	12.90 ± 4.96^a	6.69 ± 2.82^a	6.21 ± 2.46^a
Test value		t = −1.291; p = .203	t = −.961; p = .337	t = −1.528; p = .133
Age (years)
15	164 (16.4)	13.38 ± 5.23^a	6.73 ± 2.68^a	6.64 ± 2.75^a
16	142 (14.2)	12.14 ± 3.71^a	6.50 ± 2.49^a	5.63 ± 1.55^a
17	300 (30.0)	12.87 ± 5.22^a	6.67 ± 2.98^a	6.20 ± 2.51^a
18	333 (33.3)	12.59 ± 4.53^a	6.57 ± 2.70^a	6.02 ± 2.23^a
19	61 (6.1)	11.77 ± 2.76^a	6.22 ± 2.17^a	5.54 ± 1.00^a
Test value		f = 2.116; p = .077	f = 493; p = .741	f = 4.97; p = .001*
Perceived income status
Low	97 (9.7)	15.29 ± 6.56^a	8.39 ± 3.82^a	6.90 ± 3.16^a
Average	801 (80.1)	12.32 ± 4.25^a	6.37 ± 2.44^a	5.95 ± 2.12^a
High	102 (10.2)	13.10 ± 5.15^a	6.69 ± 3.00^a	6.41 ± 2.51^a
Test value		f = 18.40; p = .00 **	f = 24.88; p = .002 **	f = 8.63; p = .00 **
Paid employment status
Working	72 (7.2)	15.44 ± 6.75^a	7.80 ± 3.43^a	7.63 ± 3.63^a
Not working	928 (92.8)	12.47 ± 4.43^a	6.50 ± 2.64^a	5.97 ± 2.12^a
Test value		t = 5.22; p = .00**	t = 3.91; p = .00**	t = 6.01; p = .00**
Number of siblings
Only child	275 (27.5)	12.37 ± 4.36^a	6.39 ± 2.51^a	5.99 ± 2.15^a
One sibling	355 (35.5)	12.54 ± 4.43^a	6.55 ± 2.60^a	5.99 ± 2.12^a
Two siblings	218 (21.8)	12.75 ± 4.73^a	6.57 ± 2.67^a	6.17 ± 2.36^a
Three or more	152 (15.2)	13.50 ± 5.69^a	7.11 ± 3.34^a	6.38 ± 2.80^a
Test value		f = 2.03; p = .107	f = 2.35; p = .07	f = 1.33; p = .26
Paternal education level
Illiterate	14 (1.4)	15.50 ± 6.69^a	7.78 ± 3.35^a	7.71 ± 3.56^a
Literate	29 (2.9)	15.96 ± 6.18^a	8.68 ± 3.48^a	7.27 ± 3.28a
Elementary school graduate	493 (49.3)	12.62 ± 4.69^a	6.64 ± 2.82^a	5.98 ± 2.22^a
High school graduate	223 (22.3)	12.52 ± 4.58^a	6.48 ± 2.65^a	6.03 ± 2.24^a
University graduate	241 (24.1)	12.43 ± 4.29^a	6.30 ± 2.31^a	6.13 ± 2.24^a
Test value		f = 5.126; p = .00 **	f = 5.866; p = .00 **	f = 4.041; p = .003 **
Maternal education level
Illiterate	57 (5.7)	14.63 ± 5.66^a	8.05 ± 3.45^a	6.57 ± 2.69^a
Literate	54 (5.4)	15.86 ± 6.83^a	8.28 ± 3.67^a	7.58 ± 3.75^a
Elementary school graduate	602 (60.2)	12.23 ± 4.23^a	6.34 ± 2.47^a	5.88 ± 2.05^a
High school graduate	169 (16.9)	12.91 ± 4.80^a	6.70 ± 2.87^a	6.20 ± 2.26^a
University graduate	118 (11.8)	12.34 ± 4.40^a	6.27 ± 2.39^a	6.06 ± 2.22^a
Test value		f = 10.54; p = .00**	f = 11.24; p = .00**	f = 7.70; p = .00**

Show variations based on Duncan’s multiple range test.

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

The Relationship Between Anger and Sociodemographic Characteristics

Adolescents’ mean TAXI scores were 21.23 ± 6.83 for trait anger, 16.43 ± 4.11 for internalized anger, 16.69 ± 5.02 for externalized anger, and 19.76 ± 5.11 for anger control. Adolescents who had witnessed interparental violence exhibited higher trait, externalized, and internalized anger scores than those who had not witnessed such violence. No difference was observed in anger control scores between adolescents who had or had not witnessed interparental violence (Table 3).

Table 3.

A Comparison of Adolescents’ Sociodemographic Characteristics and TAXI Scores.

Sociodemographic Characteristics	Number Percentage	Trait anger Mean ± SD	Internalized Anger Mean ± SD	Externalized Anger Mean ± SD	Anger Control Mean ± SD
Witnessed violence
Yes	446 (44.6)	23.19 ± 6.36^a	17.64 ± 3.95^a	18.11 ± 4.84^a	19.44 ± 4.57^a
No	554 (55.4)	19.82 ± 6.83^a	15.45 ± 3.96^a	15.54 ± 4.86^a	20.01 ± 5.49^a
Test value		t = −7.99**; p = .000	t = −8.69**; p = .000	t = −8.32**; p =. 000	t = 1.74*; p = .076
Gender
Female	561(56.1)	20.94 ± 6.60^a	16.34 ± 4.03^a	16.21 ± 4.98	19.56 ± 5.21
Male	439(43.9)	21.82 ± 7.09^a	16.53 ± 4.19^a	17.29 ± 5.01	20.01 ± 4.97
Test value		t = −2.03; p = .042	t = −.702; p = .483	t = −3.35; p = .001	t = −.35; p = .175
Age (years)
15	164 (16.4)	21.23 ± 6.42^a	16.96 ± 4.65^a	17.33 ± 5.50^a	19.26 ± 5.52^a
16	142 (14.2)	21.79 ± 7.01^a	16.59 ± 4.09^a	17.13 ± 5.14^a	19.22 ± 4.78^a
17	300 (30.0)	20.05 ± 4.43^a	15.91 ± 4.48^a	15.71 ± 5.04^b	19.40 ± 4.98^a
18	333 (33.3)	22.08 ± 6.38^a	16.57 ± 3.56^a	16.96 ± 4.68^a	16.57 ± 3.56^a
19	61 (6.1)	2.62 ± 5.88^a	16.32 ± 3.04^a	17.27 ± 4.40^a	16.32 ± 3.04^a
Test value		f = 4.406; p = .002	f = 2.05; p = .084	f = 4.32*; p = .002	f = 3.25; p = .011
Perceived income status
Low	97 (9.7)	22.51 ± 7.10^a	17.03 ± 4.87^a	17.86 ± 5.68^a	18.25 ± 5.09^a
Average	801 (80.1)	21.19±6.73^a	16.41 ± 4.03^a	16.57 ± 4.95^a	20.05 ± 5.07^a
High	102 (10.2)	21.21 ± 7.29^a	16.04 ± 3.89^a	16.49 ± 4.74^a	18.92 ± 5.12^a
Test value		f = 1.62; p = .198	f = 1.51; p = .220	f = 2.96*; p = .521	f = 6.96**; p = .001
Paid employment status
Working	72 (7.2)	22.09 ± 6.06^a	17.44 ± 4.54^a	18.06 ± 4.87^a	19.11 ± 4.39^a
Not working	928 (92.8)	21.26 ± 6.88^a	16.35 ± 4.06^a	16.58 ± 5.01^a	19.81 ± 5.16^a
Test value		t = .990; p = .322	t = 2.18*; p = .029	t = 2.42*; p = .161	t = −1.12; p = .261
Number of siblings
Only child	275 (27.5)	20.62 ± 7.10^a	16.13 ± 4.00^a	16.48 ± 4.77^a	20.72 ± 5.54^a
One sibling	355 (35.5)	21.55 ± 6.72^a	16.50 ± 4.12a	16.56 ± 4.86^a	19.39 ± 4.69^a
Two siblings	218 (21.8)	21.66 ± 7.11^a	16.72 ± 4.38^a	16.99 ± 5.42^a	19.27 ± 5.06^a
Three or more	152 (15.2)	21.59 ± 6.08^a	16.36 ± 3.82^a	16.92 ± 5.23^a	19.60 ± 5.10^a
Test value		f = 1.35; p = .256	f = .922; p = .429	f = .611; p = .608	f = 4.60; p = .003*
Paternal education level
Illiterate	14 (1.4)	23.78 ± 7.28^a	17.64 ± 4.57^a	19.85 ± 5.85^a	17.50 ± 5.77^a
Literate	29 (2.9)	21.62 ± 6.94^a	16.13 ± 3.99^a	16.17 ± 4.43^a	18.75 ± 5.15^a
Elementary school graduate	493 (49.3)	21.86 ± 6.88^a	16.51 ± 4.14^a	16.85 ± 5.09 ^a	19.60 ± 5.00^a
High school graduate	223 (22.3)	20.82 ± 6.72^a	16.47 ± 3.83^a	16.63 ± 4.70^a	20.17 ± 5.17^a
University graduate	241 (24.1)	20.52 ± 6.71^a	16.17 ± 4.26^a	16.29 ± 5.12^a	19.96 ± 5.21^a
Test value		f = 2.35; p = .531	f = 0.626; p = .644	f = 1.99; p = .941	f = 1.53; p = .182
Maternal education level
Illiterate	57 (5.7)	23.12 ± 6.97^a	16.42 ± 3.26^a	18.33 ± 5.20^a	17.50 ± 5.77^a
Literate	54 (5.4)	22.28 ± 6.24^a	16.81 ± 4.08^a	17.60 ± 4.88^a	18.75 ± 5.15^a
Elementary school graduate	602 (60.2)	21.42 ± 6.78^a	16.41 ± 4.08^a	16.67 ± 5.07^a	19.60 ± 5.00^a
High school graduate	169 (16.9)	20.96 ± 6.91^a	16.46 ± 4.13^a	16.44 ± 4.48^a	20.17 ± 5.17^a
University graduate	118 (11.8)	20.05 ± 6.98^a	16.27 ± 4.60^a	15.90 ± 5.29^a	19.96 ± 5.21^a
Test value		f = 2.41; p = 0.47	f = 0.16; p = 0.95	f = 2.80; p = .002*	f = 1.53; p = .183

Show variations based on Duncan’s multiple range test.

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

Trait anger scores and externalized anger scores were higher among male adolescents than females. No difference was observed between the sexes in terms of internalized anger or anger control scores. Seventeen-year-old adolescents had higher trait anger expression scores than 18-year-olds. No difference was determined between the age groups in terms of internalized anger scores. Adolescents aged 15, 16, and 18 registered higher externalized anger scores than those aged 17. Adolescents aged 18 registered lower anger control scores than those aged 17 (Table 3).

Adolescents who regarded their income levels as low registered lower anger control scores than those regarding their incomes as average. Adolescents regarding their income as low also had higher externalized anger scores than those regarding their income levels as average (Table 3).

No association was determined between adolescents’ paid employment status and trait anxiety levels. Adolescents in paid employment exhibited higher internalized anger scores than non-working adolescents. Working adolescents also had higher externalized anger scores than non-working adolescents. No difference was determined between working and non-working adolescents in terms of trait anger expression scores (Table 3).

No significant relationship was determined between paternal education levels and trait, internalized, or externalized anger scores or anger control. Adolescents with illiterate mothers exhibited lower trait anger scores than those with university graduate mothers. No correlation was observed between maternal education levels and internalized anger. Externalized anger scores were higher among adolescents with illiterate mothers than those with university graduate mothers. Adolescents with illiterate mothers registered lower anger control scores than those with elementary school or university graduate mothers. No relationship was observed between adolescents’ sibling numbers and trait anger, internalized anger, or externalized anger scores. However, adolescents with no siblings registered higher anger control scores than those from two- or three-children families (Table 3).

The Effect on Anger of Witnessing Violence

For the multiple linear regression analysis aiming to determine the determinants of anger expression style, total witnessing interparental violence score, age, gender, paid employment status, maternal education level, paternal education level, and number of siblings were selected as explanatory variables. (F: 8.407; p: .000). Total score of witnessing violence was found to be a significant predictor of anger expression style (F: 8.407; p: .000). The scores of witnessing violence explained. 054% of the variance in anger expression scores (ß: .212). No significant relationship was found between the other independent variables included in the model and anger expression style (Table 4).

Table 4.

Multiple Linear Regression Analysis of the Variables that can Affect the Anger Expression Style.

TAXI scores	B	SD	ß	T	P	R	R ²	F	P
Total witnessing interparental violence score	.371	.057	.212	6.542	.000	.247	.054	8.407	.000
Gender	.561	.454	.040	1.238	.216
Age	.351	.194	.059	1.109	.071
Paid employment status	−.111	.558	−.007	−.198	.843
Maternal education level	−.283	.232	−.054	−1.220	.223
Paternal education level	−.246	.222	−.049	−1.105	.269
Number of siblings	.106	.226	.016	.470	.638
Durbin–Watson:1.588; Constant: 11.927

TAXI = trait anger expression inventory.

Discussion

Adolescence is when anger most frequently emerges (Siyez & Tan Tuna, 2014). Witnessing interparental violence scores is an important predictor of anger and behavioral patterns involving anger in adolescents (Ayhan & Özkan, 2016; Genç et al., 2017). The purpose of this research was to determine the association between witnessing interparental violence and anger expression styles in adolescents.

The Effect on Anger of Witnessing Interparental Violence

Trait anger, internalized anger, and externalized anger scores increased in line with witnessing interparental violence scores. In addition, witnessing paternal violence against the mother was observed to reduce anger control. The findings of previous studies of adolescents who had witnessed interparental violence support those of the present research. For example, Forke et al. (2018) reported a higher rate of future violence among children who witnessed violence in their families (Forke et al., 2018). Studies of male students at university (Moretti et al., 2006) and high school (Temple et al., 2013) who had witnessed their mothers being exposed to interparental violence also revealed higher rates of violence in those students’ own romantic relationships. The results of these studies are consistent with those of the present research in terms of indicating that adolescents who witness interparental violence have a greater tendency to exhibit aggressive behavior themselves. In addition, Kitamura and Hasui (2006) determined higher anxiety and depression scores among adolescents witnessing interparental violence, that anxiety scores explained individuals’ trait anger, externalized anger, and anger control scores, and that depression scores had a positive effect on trait anger and internalized anger, and a negative impact on externalized anger and anger control. When exposed to threatening scenes, children may react first with anger and subsequently with a dysphoric mental state. Since anger is one of the most important preconditions for the emergence of violence, ensuring that adolescents acquire the skills required to recognize anger-related mood changes may be an effective means of lowering aggression. The purpose of anger control is to teach the individual with an anger problem to react at the lowest possible level and to express it appropriately. In terms of anger management, adolescents must be given the skill to express their anger in a way that does not harm themselves or those around them and in a manner that avoids aggressive behavior and does not entail anger and violence (Kassinove & Tafrate, 2002). Kellner and Bry (1999) state that anger management training generally consists of three stages. The first is the provision of information concerning the cognitive and behavioral components of anger. The second is the teaching of cognitive and behavioral techniques in anger management, and the third involves techniques that facilitate the application of newly acquired skills, such as relaxation exercises, role-play, and problem-solving. However, this could be improved by considering where such training could be implemented, for example, in schools or community facilities; who could be targeted, for instance, particular individuals or groups; and who might conduct such training, such as psychologists or other professionals. Anger management training could be implemented by psychological guidance and counseling units in schools, with a particular emphasis on adolescent students for whom anger management can be difficult. In addition, the establishment of guidance services under the leadership of mental health professionals such as psychologists, psychiatrists, and psychiatric nurses for the development of anger management skills in community facilities may benefit both witnessing violence and reducing the frequency of violent incidents by improving anger management skills socially.

The Relationship Between Witnessing Violence and Sociodemographic Characteristics

Analysis showed that 44.6% (n = 446) of the adolescents in this study had witnessed interparental violence. Previous studies of adolescent populations have reported rates of witnessing interparental violence of 25% (Forke et al., 2018), 51% (Forke et al., 2019), and 59% (McDonald et al., 2006). These figures reveal a strikingly high level of interparental violence and appear to indicate that the prevalence of such violence may vary depending on social and cultural norms.

Low socioeconomic levels in families may oblige adolescents to work to support the family budget. Stress associated with economic status may also contribute to interparental violence. Adolescents in the low-income group and income-generating employment witnessed greater violence in the present study. Research from Turkey has shown a greater frequency of physical and/or sexual violence in families with low economic levels (Republic of Turkey, Prime Ministry General Directorate on the Status of Women, 2014). International research has also implicated low socioeconomic status as a significant risk factor for interparental violence (Black et al., 2011; Moreira & Pinto da Costa, 2020).

Rates of witnessing violence that emerged in the present research were higher among adolescents with mothers and fathers with low levels of education. This is consistent with the results of research involving the whole of Turkey (Republic of Turkey, Prime Ministry General Directorate on the Status of Women, 2014). A systematic observational and meta-analysis study evaluating risk and protective factors concerning interparental violence also identified spousal education below high school level as a risk factor for violence against women (Yakubovich et al., 2018). Communication conflicts and disagreements are more frequent among spouses with negative interaction (Riggs et al., 2000). This may be attributable to lower education levels being associated with poorer interaction skills.

The Relationship Between Anger and Sociodemographic Characteristics

The mean trait anger score of the adolescents in this study was 21.23, their mean internalized anger score was 16.43, their mean externalized anger score was 16.69, and their mean anger control score was 19.76. TAXI has no cutoff point. The adolescents were therefore regarded as exhibiting moderate levels of trait anger, and anger internalization and externalization. Previous studies of adolescents in Turkey have reported average trait anger scores between 20.28 and 23.43, internalized anger scores between 14.45 and 16.46, externalized anger scores between 15.01 and 17.67, and anger control scores between 19.39 and 21.68 (Albayrak & Kutlu, 2009; Eser et al., 2012; Özmen et al., 2009, 2016). Mean TAXI scores in other studies from Turkey and the present research are very similar. It may therefore be concluded that adolescents should participate more in anger management programs to reduce their trait anger and internalized and externalized anger levels from moderate to lower levels.

Male participants in this study registered higher trait anger and externalized anger scores than females. However, no gender difference was determined in terms of internalized anger or anger control scores. Consistent with this finding, Özmen et al. (2016) observed that male adolescents exhibited higher trait anger levels and externalized their anger more than females, while no gender difference was observed in terms of internalized anger or anger control. Albayrak and Kutlu (2009) also observed a higher externalized anger level in adolescent males, but no difference between the sexes in terms of other anger styles. Similar research involving university students has reported greater physical aggression in romantic relationships among men who had witnessed physical violence by fathers against their mothers (Forke et al., 2018; Milletich et al., 2010) and higher rates of aggression toward their friends (Moretti et al., 2006). These studies involving adolescent samples are compatible with the findings of the present study. Anger is equated with the male gender in societies in which the concept of male dominance prevails, and violence/aggressive behavior is also perceived as more acceptable in males. It may therefore be concluded that under the effect of social gender roles, males have a greater disposition to translate their feelings of anger into action and behave more impulsively in terms of anger externalization. In confirmation of this, anger and aggressive behaviors are generally reported to be more prevalent among men than women in the literature (Lochman et al., 2006). In contrast to our findings, a study of adolescents from a province in the east of Turkey reported no gender difference in trait anger, or internalized and externalized anger levels, while anger control levels were significantly higher among males compared to females (Gençdoğan et al., 2007). Research including adolescents in a cosmopolitan province in the west of Turkey, home to its largest city, with its largest population consisting of several different cultures, also determined higher anger levels among female students than in males (Evren et al., 2015). This gender variation in terms of anger levels and expression among adolescents is significant in terms of demonstrating the effect of social structure on anger.

Adolescents aged 17 in the present study registered lower trait anger scores but higher anger control scores than those aged 18. No difference was observed among the age groups in terms of internalized anger scores. The externalized anger scores of adolescents aged 15, 16, and 18 were higher than those of participants aged 17. Similar studies have reported differing findings concerning the relationship between age and anger expression styles. Özmen et al. (2016) reported that age had no significant effect on trait anger levels or internalized and externalized anger scores, but that anger control improved with age. Albayrak and Kutlu (2009) reported that adolescents’ ages did not affect their anger expression styles, while Bozkurt and Çam (2010) observed that anger-related thoughts, interpersonal anger reactions, and angry behaviors increased in line with adolescents’ ages. In addition, research involving adolescents raised in care homes observed a significant age-dependent increase in trait anger and anger externalization, although the age variable did not affect internalized anger or anger control (Kesen et al., 2007). These inconsistencies regarding the association between anger and age may derive from the type of violence witnessed, social support mechanisms, and the characteristics of individuals’ social environments.

Adolescents regarding their income levels as average had higher anger control levels than those regarding their income as low in this study, while their externalized anger scores were lower. Similarly, Kaya et al. (2012) reported higher externalized anger scores among students reporting that their income was sufficient to meet their needs compared to those whose incomes did not meet their needs. These findings suggest that an increased economic level impacts positively on anger externalization by producing an increase in individuals’ and families’ levels of well-being and reducing stress factors. However, in contrast to these findings, adolescents who perceive their families as poor have also been shown to engage in less anger externalization (Özmen et al., 2008). This variation in results concerning the effects of economic income on anger expressions may derive from differences in anger expression styles in participants’ families and social environments. To put it another way, participants may have internalized anger externalization using social learning.

No relationship was determined in this study between paternal education levels and mean TAXI scores. However, the trait anxiety scores of adolescents with illiterate mothers were lower than those with university graduate mothers, while their externalized anger scores were higher. The anger control scores of adolescents with illiterate mothers were lower than those of adolescents with university graduate mothers. No correlation was found between maternal education level and internalized anger scores. Consistent with the results of this study, Özmen et al. (2016) reported that paternal education levels had no effect on adolescents’ trait anger and anger expression styles and that maternal education level affected only anger control. These findings show that maternal education levels have a greater impact on anger and anger expression styles in adolescents. An increased maternal education level having a greater effect on adolescents’ anger behavior may be attributable to greater time being spent with the mother and to greater adoption of the mother as a social learning model.

No relationship was determined in this research between a number of siblings and trait anger, internalized anger, or externalized anger scores. However, children with no siblings exhibited higher anger control scores than those with one or two siblings. In contrast to the present research, Gençdoğan et al. (2007) reported that while the number of siblings did not affect trait anger, internalized anger, or anger control, externalized anger decreased as the number of siblings increased. Özmen et al. (2016) observed that the number of siblings had no effect on trait anger, externalized anger, internalized anger, or anger control in adolescents. The findings of these studies regarding the correlation between sibling numbers and anger are inconsistent. This may be interpreted as indicating that adolescents’ trait anger and anger expression styles may be affected by modes of anger expression within the family, interparental dynamics, the social support systems used by adolescents, and their individual characteristics.

Witnessing violence emerged as an important predictor of anger expression styles in this research. Consistent with these findings, previous research has also revealed higher rates of acceptance of violence and infliction of violence, and more limited anger control skills, in individuals who have witnessed interparental violence (Ayhan & Özkan, 2016; Turcotte-Seabury, 2010), and these limited anger management skills have been linked to rising infliction of violence levels (Turcotte-Seabury, 2010). Another important study on the subject reported that adults exposed to physical abuse during childhood and who witnessed interparental violence exhibited higher rates of exposure to physical, sexual, and emotional partner violence, as well as anger-related dysregulation (Iverson et al., 2014). The present study and other similar research in the literature show that witnessing violence results in adverse effects on age regulation. Interventions aimed at bestowing anger management skills on individuals who have witnessed interparental violence in childhood may enable them to better manage that anger.

Limitations

Its cosmopolitan nature means that Turkey contains a number of different cultures. The familial structures, interparental communication dynamics, and rates of female participation in working life in these different communities therefore differ. Although the province where the research data were collected is home to different cultures as it receives migration from other regions of Turkey, the research data cannot be generalized to the whole country. One limitation of this study may lie in the fact that members of a wider range of cultures were not included. Another limitation is that no comparison was conducted between adolescents exposed to and witnessing violence. A further important limitation is that the study data were collected using social media accounts. Since the use of such accounts may be limited in groups with low socioeconomic levels, access may have been restricted among such adolescents. To minimize self-selection bias associated with the higher rates of non-response commonly found in web-based surveys, the participants were informed about the purpose and subject, of the research, the fact that name and surname data would not be collected and that the data would be anonymous in the first part of the questionnaire. Another limitation is that the research was performed in a single province in Turkey. Witnessing interparental violence was also measured using a self-administered questionnaire, and these are susceptible to reporting biases. A further limitation is that the WIVS used to determine witnessing violence provides no information about the severity of the violence. For instance, it is unclear whether overall witnessing violence scores might be due to a modest base rate of violence exposure in the study sample, or to how exposure to violence is measured using these broad categories. The relationship between the level of violence and the emergence of anger could not therefore be revealed in the study. This research is cross-sectional in nature, and the effects of witnessing violence may alter over time. Further longitudinal studies are therefore needed to assess the long-term effects. A final limitation is that the descriptive research design of the study restricted our ability to elicit more detailed findings concerning witnessed violence and its effects therefore. More detailed information might be obtained using research techniques such as mixed methods or a qualitative research design in future studies. The topic being explored in a study of this nature may be potentially challenging and upsetting for some participants. In this study, participants who witnessed violence or had anger management problems could not be guided about appropriate support methods since face-to-face interviews could not be conducted with the participants. In future research, it may be recommended to conduct face-to-face interviews with participants and to inform and direct participants in need to appropriate helplines, websites, or services.

Conclusion

The effects on the individual of witnessing interparental violence are important both in the clinical setting and in terms of research. İnterparental violence is known to be linked to child abuse. Witnessing violence emerged as an important predictor of anger expression styles in this research. We recommend that the effects on anger in adolescents of exposure to violence and witnessing interparental violence be compared in future studies. In addition, examination in future research of the relationship between anger and witnessing violence among adolescents from different cultures may yield more detailed findings in terms of elucidating cultural differences.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

I thank all the participants who participated in the study.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interests with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

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

ORCID iD

Fatma Ayhan

Author Biography

Fatma Ayhan, PhD is an Associate professor in the field of Psychiatric Nursing at Batman University. She completed her undergraduate education in Nursing and Sociology Departments. She has a master’s degree in the Department of Anatomy and Nursing. She completed her doctorate education in the Department of Psychiatric Nursing. Completed Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and Dialectical Behavioral Therapy training.

References

Albayrak

Kutlu

(2009). Anger expression and related factors in adolescents. Maltepe Üniversitesi Hemşirelik Bilim ve Sanatı Dergisi, 2, 57–69.

Ayhan

Özkan

(2016). Domestic violence impact on adolescents. International Journal of Human Sciences, 13(3), 3753–3767. https://doi.org/10.14687/jhs.v13i3.3923

Baldry

A. C.

(2003). Animal abuse and exposure to interparental violence in Italian youth. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18(3), 258–281. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260502250081

Bandura

(1978). Social learning theory of aggression. Journal of Communication, 28(3), 12–29. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1978.tb01621.x

Bayındır

(2010). The impact on children of violence in family lived. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 2(2), 1–9.

Biaggio

M. K.

(1989). Sex differences in behavioral reactions to provocation of anger. Psychological Reports, 64(1), 23–26.

Black

Basile

Breiding

Smith

Walters

Merrick

Chen

Stevens

(2011). National intimate partner and sexual violence survey (NISVS): 2010 summary report. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Boeckel

M. G.

Wagner

Grassi-Oliveira

(2017). The effects of intimate partner violence exposure on the maternal bond and PTSD symptoms of children. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 32(7), 1127–1142. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515587667

Bozkurt

Çam

(2010). Investigation of the relationship between anger components and mental symptoms in working adolescents. Nöropsikiyatri Arşivi, 47, 105–110.

10.

Brenning

K. M.

Braet

(2013). The emotion re-gulation model of attachment: An emotion-specific approach. Personal Relationships, 20(1), 107–123. https://doi.org/10.111/j.1475-6811.2012.01399.x

11.

Butler

M. H.

Meloy‐Miller

K. C.

Seedall

R. B.

Dicus

J. L.

(2018). Anger can help: A transactional model and three pathways of the experience and expression of anger. Family Process, 57(3), 817–835. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12311

12.

Ehrensaft

M. K.

Knous-Westfall

Cohen

(2017). Long-term influence of intimate partner violence and parenting practices on offspring trauma symptoms. Psychology of Violence, 7(2), 296–305. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0040168

13.

Eser

D.T.

Liman

Bilge

(2012). Anger expression among adolescents with chronic disease. Journal of Psychiatric Nursing, 3, 116–120.

14.

Evren

Bozkurt

Çiftçi-Demirci

Evren

Can

Umut

(2015). Gender differences according to psychological and behavioral variables among 10th grade students in Istanbul. Anatolian Journal of Psychiatry, 16, 77–84.

15.

Forke

C. M.

Catallozzi

Localioa

A. R.

Grisso

J. A.

Wiebea

D. J.

Fein

J. A.

(2019). Intergenerational effects of witnessing domestic violence: Health of the witnesses and their children. Preventive Medicine Report, 15, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2019.100942

16.

Forke

C. M.

Myers

R. K.

Fein

J. A.

Catallozzi

Localio

A. R.

Wiebe

D. J.

Grisso

J. A.

(2018). Witnessing intimate partner violence as a child: How boys and girls model their parents’ behaviors in adolescence. Child Abuse & Neglect, 84, 241–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2018.07.031

17.

Genç

Taylan

H. H.

Adıgüzel

Kutlu

. (2017). The effects of domestic violence on adolescent’s violence tendencies: The case of Antalya High Schools. Sakarya University Journal of Education, 7(2), 409–422.

18.

Gençdoğan

Sezer

İşgör

İ. Y.

(2007). Internal-exterior controls and anger control level examination of according to some variable. AÜ Bayburt Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 2, 1–14.

19.

Gover

A. R.

Kaukinen

Fox

K. A.

(2008). The relationship between violence in the family of origin and dating violence among college students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23(12), 1667–1693. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260508314330

20.

Gürsoy

(2009). Öğrencilerde şiddet eğilimi ve şiddete yönelik öğretmen algıları. KKTC—Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 3, 13–30.

21.

Haspolat

Şendağ

M. A.

(2018). Predicting anger: Early maladaptive schemas as mediators between attachment and anger dimensions. Turkish Journal of Psychology, 33(82), 34–48. https://doi.org/10.31828/tpd.13004433.2018.82.02.03

22.

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/0.1177/1524838008314797

23.

Iverson

K. M.

McLaughlin

K. A.

Adair

K. C.

Monson

C. M.

(2014). Anger-related dysregulation as a factor linking childhood physical abuse and interparental violence to intimate partner violence experiences. Violence and Victims, 29(4), 564–578. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.VV-D-12-00125

24.

İbioğlu

A. O.

(2012). Domestic violence. Current Approaches in Psychiatry, 4(2), 204–222. https://doi.org/10.5455/cap.20120413

25.

Johnson

R. L.

(2010). The relationship of personality and parental and peer attachments with the experience and expression of anger among juvenile offenders. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Graduate College of the Oklahoma State University.

26.

Kafaji

(2013). The triumph over the mediocre self: A manual for the art and science of living. Author House.

27.

Kassinove

Tafrate

R. C.

(2002). Anger management: The complete treatment guidebook for practitioners. Impact Publishers.

28.

Kellner

M. H.

Bry

B. H.

(1999). The effects of anger management groups in a day school for emotionally disturbed adolescents. Adolescence, 34(136), 645–651.

29.

Kaya

Atar

Turan

Eskimez

Palloş

Aktaş

(2012). Characteristics of anger and loneliness in nursing and midwifery students. Journal of Education and Research in Nursing, 9(2), 18–26.

30.

Kesen

M. F.

Deniz

M. E.

Durmuşoğlu

(2007). Ergenlerde saldırganlık ve öfke düzeyleri arasındaki ilişki: Yetiştirme yurtları üzerinde bir araştırma. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 17, 341–351.

31.

Kitayama

Park

Boylan

Miyamoto

Levine

Markus

Karasawa

Coe

C. L.

Kawakami

Love

G. D.

Ryff

(2015). Expression of anger and ill health in two cultures: An examination of inflammation and cardiovascular risk. Psychological Science, 26(2), 211–220.

32.

Kitamura

Hasui

(2006). Anger feelings and anger expression as a mediator of the effects of witnessing family violence on anxiety and depression in Japanese adolescents. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21(7), 843–855. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260506288933

33.

Krahé

(2013). The social psychology of aggression (2nd ed.). Psychology Press.

34.

Liang

Yan

Zhang

Zhu

Situ

Du. Fu

Huang

(2014). Differences between non-suicidal self injury and suicide attempt in Chinese adolescents. Asian Journal of Psychiatry, 8, 76–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajp.2013.11.015

35.

Liu

Z.-Z.

Chen

Q.-G.

Chen

R.-H.

F.-W.

Jia

C.-X.

Liu

(2018). Psychological and behavioral characteristics of suicide attempts and non-suicidal self-injury in Chinese adolescents. Journal of Affective Disorders, 226, 287–293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2017.10.010

36.

Lochman

J. E.

Powell

N. P.

Clanton

N. C.

McElroy

H. K.

(2006). Anger and aggression. In Bear

G. G.

Minke

K. M.

Thomas

(Eds.), Children’s needs III: Development, prevention, and intervention (pp. 115–133). National Association of School Psychologists.

37.

McDonald

Jouriles

E. N.

Ramisetty-Mikler

Caetano

Green

C. E.

(2006). Estimating the number of American children living in partner-violent families. Journal of Family Psychology, 20(1), 137–142. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.20.1.137

38.

MacDonell

K. W.

(2012). The combined and independent impact of witnessed intimate partner violence and child maltreatment. Partner Abuse, 3, 358–379. https://doi.org/10.1891/1946-6560.3.3.358

39.

McKinney

C. M.

Caetano

Ramisetty-Mikler

Nelson

(2009). Childhood family violence and perpetration and victimization of intimate partner violence: Findings from a national population-based study of couples. Annals of Epidemiology, 19(1), 25–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annepidem.2008.08.008

40.

Milletich

R. J.

Kelley

M. L.

Doane

A. N.

Pearson

M. R.

(2010). Exposure to interparental violence and childhood physical and emotional abuse as related to physical aggression in undergraduate dating relationships. Journal of Family Violence, 25(7), 627–637. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-010-9319-3

41.

Moreira

D. N.

Pinto da Costa

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

42.

Moretti

M. M.

Obsuth

Odgers

C. L.

Reebye

(2006). Exposure to maternal vs. paternal partner violence, PTSD, and aggression in adolescent girls and boys. Aggressive Behavior, 32(4), 385–395. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.20137

43.

Owen

A. E.

Thompson

M. P.

Shaffer

Jackson

E. B.

Kaslow

N. J.

(2009). Family variables that mediate the relation between intimate partner violence (IPV) and child adjustment. Journal of Family Violence, 24, 433–445. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-009-9239-2

44.

Özer

A. K.

(1994). Sürekli öfke (SL-ÖFKE) ve öfke ifade tarzı (ÖFKE-TARZ) ölçekleri ön çalışması. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, 9, 26–35.

45.

Özgentürk

İ.

Karğın

Baltacı

. (2012). Domestic violence and the intergenerational transmission of violence. Turkish Journal of Police Studies, 14(4), 55–77.

46.

Özmen

Çetinkaya

Akil

İ.Ö

. (2016). Trait anger and anger expression styles in adolescents. Anatolian Journal of Psychiatry, 17(1), 65–73.

47.

Özmen

Cetinkaya

A. C.

Taskin

E. O.

Dundar

P. E.

(2009). The relationship between gender and depression, self-esteem, hopelessness, sub-missive acts, guilt, shame and anger in adolescents. In Lamont

E. P.

(Ed.) Social psychology: New research. Nova Science Publishers.

48.

Özmen

Dündar

P. E.

Çetinkaya

A. Ç.

Taşkın

E. O.

(2008). Yoksulluğun ergenlerin ruh sağlığına etkileri. Türkiye’de Psikiyatri, 10, 39–46.

49.

Riggs

D. S.

Caulfield

M. B.

Street

A. E.

(2000). Risk for domestic violence: Factors associated with perpetration and victimization. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 56(10), 1289–1316. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-4679(200010)56:10<1289::AIDJCLP4>3.0.CO;2-Z

50.

Sarıot

. (2011). The mediator role of parenting behaviors between children’s witnessing interparental violence and children’s coping with interpersonal and academic stressors. [Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Middle East Technical University].

51.

Samuelson

K. W.

Krueger

C. E.

Wilson

(2012). Relationships between maternal emotion regulation, parenting, and children’s executive functioning in families exposed to intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27, 3532–3550. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260512445385

52.

Savaşır

Şahin

N. H.

(Eds.). (1997). Bilişsel-davranışçı terapilerde değerlendirme: Sık kullanılan ölçekler. Türk Psikologlar Derneği.

53.

Siyez

D. M.

Tan Tuna

(2014). Lise öğrencilerinin öfke kontrolü ve iletişim becerilerinde çözüm odaklı psiko-eğitim programının etkisi. Türk Psikolojik Danışma ve Rehberlik Dergisi, 5(41), 11–22.

54.

Spielberger

C. D.

Reheiser

E. C.

(2009). Assessment of emotions: Anxiety, anger, depression and curiosity. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 1(3), 271–302. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1758-0854.2009.01017.x

55.

Spielberger

C. D.

Jacobs

Russell

Crane

R. S.

(1983). Assessment of anger: The state-trait anger scale. Advances in Personality Assessment, 2, 161–189.

56.

Republic of Turkey. Prime Ministry General Directorate on the Status of Women. (2014). Türkiye’de kadına yönelik aile içi şiddet araştırması özet rapor (Summary Report of Research on Domestic Violence Against Women in Turkey), Ankara.

57.

Taşdan

(2009). Okul, aile ve toplum ilişkilerinde çocuk ve şiddet. Babıali Kültür Yayınları.

58.

Temple

J. R.

Shorey

R. C.

Tortolero

S. R.

Wolfe

D. A.

Stuart

G. L.

(2013). Importance of gender and attitudes about violence in the relationship between exposure to interparental violence and the perpetration of teen dating violence. Child Abuse & Neglect, 37(5), 343–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2013.02.001

59.

Turcotte-Seabury

C. A.

(2010). Anger management and the process mediating the link between witnessing violence between parents and partner violence. Violence and Victims, 25(3), 306–318. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.25.3.30

60.

van Rooij

F. B.

van der Schuur

W. A.

Steketee

Mak

Pels

. (2015). Interparental violence: Similarities and discrepancies between narratives of mothers and their children. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24, 3350–3362.

61.

Wright

M. O. D.

Crawford

Del Castillo

(2009). Childhood emotional maltreatment and later psychological distress among college students: The mediating role of maladaptive schemas. Child Abuse & Neglect, 33(1), 59–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2008.12.007

62.

Yakubovich

A. R.

Stöckl

Murray

Melendez-Torres

G. J.

Steinert

J. I.

Glavin

C. E. Y.

Humphreys

D. K.

(2018). Risk and protective factors for intimate partner violence against women: Systematic review and meta-analyses of prospective-longitudinal studies. American Journal of Public Health, 108(7), e1–e11. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2018.304428

63.

Yamaguchi

A. M.

Kim

M.-S.

Oshio

Akutsu

(2017). The role of anger regulation on perceived stress status and physical health. Personality and Individual Differences, 116, 240–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.03.053

64.

Zilberstein

(2014). The use and limitations of attachment theory in child psychotherapy. Psychotherapy, 51(1), 93–103. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030930