Justification of Wife Beating in Adolescents: Associated Beliefs and Behaviors

Abstract

Socioeconomically disadvantaged adolescents who are exposed to social norms related to violence against women are more likely to experience or be perpetrators of intimate partner violence. This study evaluated factors hypothesized to be associated with acceptance of wife beating among 240 male and female adolescents aged 10-16 years participating in a World Vision program in Armenia. Acceptance of wife beating was associated with relational victimization, perceived social support, and parent and community boundaries and expectations, but was not associated with overt victimization or aggression. These findings highlight several areas that may be important for violence prevention research.

Keywords

adolescents violence prevention intimate partner violence

A growing evidence base suggests that social norms are strongly linked to intimate partner violence (IPV; Gressard, Swahn, & Tharp, 2015; Jewkes, Flood, & Lang, 2015; Kiss, Schraiber, Hossain, Watts, & Zimmerman, 2015), and many argue that to end violence against women, the community norms and cultural beliefs that foster violence against women must change (Fleming, Gruskin, Rojo, & Dworkin, 2015; Jewkes et al., 2015; Michau, 2007). One branch of social gender norms or beliefs that are thought to be strongly linked to the actual perpetration of IPV are those related to the acceptability of violence perpetration against a wife, hereafter called wife beating.

Literature Review

According to social learning theory, aggression is learned when a child observes an aggressor receive positive outcomes (Bandura, 1973). It has been posited that children who witness IPV may witness positive outcomes for the aggressor, which may lead to internalization of beliefs that aggression is an acceptable, and even rewarding, means of social interaction with women (Foshee et al., 2016). Acceptance of IPV, including wife beating, may therefore be an important dynamic risk factor for later perpetration of IPV. To date, the studies of justification of IPV have largely involved adult samples, and given that social learning theory has been proposed to account for the intergenerational transmission of violence against women (Foshee et al., 2016), it is notable that little research has examined violence-related beliefs among adolescents. Among the few studies that have surveyed adolescents, adolescent acceptance of dating violence was associated with aggressive behaviors, such as dating violence perpetration (Ali, Swahn, & Hamburger, 2011; Clarey, Hokoda, & Ulloa, 2010; Foshee et al., 2016; Reyes et al., 2015; Reyes, Foshee, Niolon, Reidy, & Hall, 2016; Temple, Shorey, Tortolero, Wolfe, & Stuart, 2013), bullying (Calvete & Orue, 2013; Foshee et al., 2016), and sexual harassment (Foshee et al., 2016). Other factors found to be associated with acceptance of IPV include adolescent childbearing across 25 sub-Saharan countries (Hindin, 2014).

Links between acceptance of dating violence and other maladaptive beliefs have been identified; examples are implicit relationship-to-harm associations (i.e., automatic associations between relationships and harm), and hostile (but not benevolent) sexism in adolescent girls in the U.S. child welfare system (M. S. Lee, Begun, DePrince, & Chu, 2016). Acceptance of IPV is also linked to life experiences, such as perpetration of dating violence and being the victim of dating violence in male and female adolescents (Ali et al., 2011). Previous research specifically evaluating attitudes to wife beating has primarily consisted of epidemiological studies, which focus on identifying demographic variables (e.g., socioeconomic disadvantage; Dalal, Lee, & Gifford, 2012) that can aid in identifying groups at higher risk of acceptance of violence. Unfortunately, these studies do not aid in identifying dynamic factors nor add to the understanding of the relationship between risk factor and outcome. Reducing acceptance of violence against women, particularly wife beating, at an early age may decrease violence against women in communities in the long-term (Dworkin, Treves-Kagan, & Lippman, 2013), and identifying the behaviors associated with these beliefs may be helpful in identifying dynamic factors to inform intervention. Given that socioeconomic disadvantage is a significant risk factor for acceptance of wife beating and IPV (Dalal et al., 2012), identifying dynamic factors specifically for intervention in this context is important.

There are a number of known risk factors associated with socioeconomic disadvantage that have also been linked to attitudes toward violence. As summarized in Table 1, low social support, low boundaries and expectations (lack of clear and enforced rules, low parental monitoring and low expectations of child success), and aggression are associated with both socioeconomic disadvantage and IPV. Evaluating whether these beliefs, behaviors and experiences are associated with attitudes to wife beating is therefore of interest. Similarly, as Table 1 shows, IPV perpetration and victimization in adolescents are indirectly linked to peer victimization of socioeconomically disadvantaged adolescents via internalizing and externalizing behaviors. A similar indirect link may exist between peer victimization and attitudes toward wife beating, but this is yet to be explored.

Table 1.

Risk Factors Associated With Socioeconomic Disadvantage.

Risk factor	Evidence
High levels of aggression	• Socioeconomic disadvantage leads to higher aggression (Greitemeyer & Sagioglou, 2016; Romero, Richards, Harrison, Garbarino, & Mozley, 2015) • Higher levels of aggression are a risk factor for later perpetration of wife beating (Theobald & Farrington, 2012).
Victimization by peers	• Meta-analysis found socioeconomic disadvantage associated with victimization by peers (Tippett & Wolke, 2014). • Associated with internalizing symptoms (Boyes, Bowes, Cluver, Ward, & Badcock, 2014; Espelage, Low, & De La Rue, 2012; Pouwels & Cillessen, 2013) and externalizing behaviors (Boyes et al., 2014; Pouwels & Cillessen, 2013) in socioeconomic disadvantaged children, both of which are risk factors for dating violence perpetration and victimization in this group (Leen et al., 2013; Vagi et al., 2013).
Low parent and community support	• Mediating factor for the relationship between socioeconomic disadvantage and negative adolescent outcomes such as internalizing and externalizing behaviors (Gault-Sherman, 2013; Hurd, Stoddard, & Zimmerman, 2013; Loukas, Prelow, Suizzo, & Allua, 2008; White, Liu, Nair, & Tein, 2015; Wickrama & Bryant, 2003) • Social support accounts for much of the association between neighorhood disadvantage and IPV (Van Wyk, Benson, Fox, & DeMaris, 2003), and high social support has protective effect (Van Wyk, Benson, Fox, & DeMaris, 2003; Wright, 2015).
Low parent boundaries and expectations	• High levels have protective effect for socioeconomic disadvantaged adolescents (Hurd et al., 2013; Sacker, Schoon, & Bartley, 2002). • Parent boundaries have significant negative associations with externalizing behaviors (Human-Hendricks & Roman, 2014; J. Lee & Randolph, 2015; Omer, Satran, & Driter, 2016) • Parent boundaries are a protective factor for both dating victimization and relational aggression (Leadbeater, Banister, Ellis, & Yeung, 2008).

Current Study

The current study primarily aimed to evaluate whether acceptance of wife beating by adolescents is associated with risk factors outlined above for socioeconomically disadvantaged adolescents, specifically physical and nonphysical aggression, relational and overt victimization, perceived social support, and parental boundaries and expectations. The study was conducted in Armenia, a low-income country where violence against women is a significant issue. Obtaining reliable data for domestic violence is difficult there, because there is considerable stigma and resistance to speaking out against gender violence due to cultural reasons (Ishkanian, 2007). However, a 2004-2005 study which surveyed 1,200 women in Yerevan (the capital city of Armenia), eight towns, and eight villages found that 46% of women who responded to the survey identified themselves as having been “exposed to violence in the family,” with 25% of these identifying as having been physically abused in the presence of their children (Abrahamian, 2007). Previous research has identified that among Armenian males, 19.9% of adults and 21.3% of adolescents feel that wife beating is justified in particular circumstances, such as a wife burning food, arguing with her husband, going out without informing her husband, neglecting her children, or refusing to have sexual relations with her husband (Rani & Bonu, 2009; UNICEF, 2015). This view is also held by 9.3% of adult females and 7.8% of adolescent females (Rani & Bonu, 2009). The percentage of men and women who accepted wife beating for at least one of these reasons significantly decreased as household wealth increased (Rani & Bonu, 2009).

Given that research has identified links between (a) acceptance of IPV and aggression (Calvete & Orue, 2013; Foshee et al., 2016), and (b) socioeconomic disadvantage and higher levels of aggression (Greitemeyer & Sagioglou, 2016; Romero, Richards, Harrison, Garbarino, & Mozley, 2015), it was predicted that justification of wife beating would be significantly associated with aggressive behaviors (measured in the current study as physical and nonphysical aggression toward peers). In addition, given research suggesting (a) socioeconomic status is associated with victimization by peers (Tippett & Wolke, 2014), (b) victimization by peers is associated with risk factors for IPV (Boyes, Bowes, Cluver, Ward, & Badcock, 2014; Leen et al., 2013; Vagi et al., 2013), and (c) witnessing IPV is associated with overt and relational victimization for both male and female adolescents (Espelage, Low, & De La Rue, 2012; Knous-Westfall, Ehrensaft, Watson, MacDonell, & Cohen, 2012), it was proposed that there may be a link between accepting wife beating and accepting other forms of violence. Although no research has examined this potential link, it seems highly plausible that when internalizing the belief that it is acceptable for a man to beat his wife, beliefs regarding the acceptability of violence in general are also formed, making it more likely for an adolescent to accept being either a perpetrator or a victim of aggression or violence within peer groups. It was therefore predicted that justification of wife beating would be significantly associated with relational and overt victimization by peers. Given that previous studies in Armenia found males were more accepting of wife beating than females, preliminary analyses will investigate gender differences in our sample.

Although family and community social support has been found to be a protective factor for IPV victimization (Van Wyk, Benson, Fox, & DeMaris, 2003; Wright, 2015), and level of parental monitoring is associated with dating victimization and relational aggression (Leadbeater, Banister, Ellis, & Yeung, 2008), no research has previously examined whether these factors are associated with acceptance of wife beating. We suggest that a child who is exposed to high levels of support within the family and community, and perceives their neighborhood and school to be nurturing environments, is more likely to internalize cues from their social context that wife beating is unacceptable than a child perceiving lower levels of support from those same contexts. Similarly, a child who is provided with clear boundaries by their family, school and neighborhood, and believes the adults and peers in their life model responsible behavior, would also be more likely to receive cues from their social context that wife beating is not acceptable. It was therefore hypothesized that perceived family, school and community social support, and boundaries and expectations would be significantly negatively associated with justification of wife beating.

Method

Participants

Participants in this study were involved in an evaluation of an international aid agency World Vision community-based program for adolescents. Ethics approval was provided by Deakin University Ethics Committee, in addition to approval gained from local government and community leaders. The main trial was being conducted with adolescents aged 10-16 years from Aragatsotn Province, Armenia. Adolescents were selected from sixteen schools from two low socioeconomic communities. For ethical reasons, it was deemed important that the children who most needed intervention were included in intervention efforts, and so World Vision’s staff collaborated with school staff, social workers, and community leaders to recruit 240 adolescents from these communities. Plain Language Statements were provided to participants and their parents/guardians, and signed consent was provided by parents, and verbal consent by children, as it is not customary for children to sign documents in Armenia. No child refused to participate in the study. The study sample was comprised of 122 (50.8%) male and 118 (49.2%) female adolescents aged between 10 and 16 years (M = 12.48, SD = 1.33).

Measures

Demographic variables were collected at commencement of the study, including age, gender, parent education, and family structure. The full questionnaire consisted of 176 items related to demographic information, the Developmental Assets Profile (DAP; Leffert et al., 1998), six subscales of the Problem Behavior Frequency Scale (Farrell, Sullivan, Goncy, & Le, 2016), Conflict Resolution Skills—Individual Protective Factors (Phillips & Springer, 1992), Emotional Regulation Questionnaire (Gross & John, 2003), Rosenberg’s (1965) Self-Esteem Scale, Sociopolitical Control Scale (Peterson, Peterson, Agre, Christens, & Morton, 2011), Short Moods and Feelings Questionnaire (Angold et al., 1995) and the Adolescent Measure of Empathy and Sympathy (Vossen, Piotrowski, & Valkenburg, 2015). Only the measures that are relevant to this study are described below.

Acceptance of wife beating

Three items were used to measure acceptance of wife beating. These items were adopted from the 2008 Demographic Health Survey Instrument, which has been widely used internationally in IPV research and has previously been used in research with Armenian youth (UNICEF, 2015). Reliability data are not available for this scale, however some support for the validity of the scale can be found in research indicating an association between responses on this scale and increased risk of experiencing or perpetrating IPV (Kishor & Johnson, 2004; Sambisa, Angeles, Lance, Naved, & Curtis, 2010), although there is some evidence from qualitative data that the scores may underrepresent the proportions of people who condone IPV (Schuler, Lenzi, & Yount, 2011). The acceptance of wife beating scale asks if a husband is justified in beating his wife if she argues with him, goes out without informing him, or neglects her children (Rani & Bonu, 2009). The original measure consisted of five items; however, two items were excluded in the current research as they received comparably low acceptance responses in previous research (Rani & Bonu, 2009), and one of these items related to sexual relations and was therefore considered inappropriate for the age range of the participants in the current study. Responses were coded according to the number of times an adolescent indicated wife beating was acceptable or unacceptable. This led to seven groups being created—(a) yes to three items, (b) yes to two items and no/unsure to one item, (c) yes to one item and no/unsure to two items, (d) no to one item and “unsure” to two items, (e) no to two items and “unsure” to one item, (f) no to all three items, and (g) “unsure” to all items. Because of small numbers in several cells, four of the original groups, (a) yes to three items, (b) yes to two items and no/unsure to one item, (c) yes to one item and no/unsure to two items, and (g) “unsure” to all items, were collapsed to represent acceptance or uncertainty in all three scenarios (n = 65). The three remaining groups were maintained. This categorization is consistent with past research that has grouped any level of acceptance of wife beating as representing an attitude of concern (Koenig, Stephenson, Ahmed, Jejeebhoy, & Campbell, 2006). It could also be argued that adolescents who fail to indicate that wife beating is unacceptable and express uncertainty about acceptability, also demonstrate attitudes of concern. To inform future interventions, it is useful to understand the associated behaviors and beliefs of adolescents who endorse wife beating or fail to refute wife beating in any of the three scenarios, in contrast to those who find wife beating unacceptable in some or all of the three scenarios.

Physical and nonphysical aggression, and relational and overt victimization

Five subscales (31 items) of the self-report Problem Behavior Frequency Scale (Farrell et al., 2016) were administered to measure aggressive behaviors and victimization: Physical Aggression (seven items); Nonphysical Aggression (five items); Relational Aggression (six items); Overt Victimization (six items); and Relational Victimization (six items). For the Physical Aggression subscale, adolescents were asked the number of times in the preceding 30 days they had thrown something at, hit, or pushed someone, or been in a fight in which someone was hit. Nonphysical aggression related to the number of times they had insulted, teased, put down, picked on or given mean looks to another student, and relational aggression related to excluding, spreading a rumor or saying mean things about another child. Similarly, relational victimization related to having another child exclude, spread a rumor or say mean things about the participant, and overt victimization asked how many times another child had hit, pushed or yelled mean things or asked the participant to fight. Items were rated on a 6-point frequency scale and totaled, with higher scores indicating higher levels of aggression or victimization. Previous research has found the internal consistency, as assessed by Cronbach’s α, of these scales ranges from .72 for relational aggression to .84 for victimization (Dahlberg, Toal, Swahn, & Behrens, 2005). In the current study, adequate reliability was maintained for nonphysical aggression (Cronbach’s α = .71) and relational victimization (Cronbach’s α = .81); however, Cronbach’s alpha was below .70 for physical aggression (Cronbach’s α = .69), overt victimization (Cronbach’s α = .69), and relational aggression (Cronbach’s α = .67). For physical aggression, removing three items pertaining to threats of violent acts led to Cronbach’s alpha rising to above .71, which is deemed acceptable (Cicchetti, 1994). Similarly, removing an item related to threatening to hit or physically harm another student led to adequate internal reliability of overt victimization (Cronbach’s α = .70). Relational aggression did not have adequate internal reliability (Cronbach’s α = .67) and was therefore not included in any analyses. The range of possible scores after removing items for each scale were 4-24 for physical aggression, 5-30 for nonphysical aggression, 6-36 for relational victimization, and 5-30 for overt victimization, with higher scores indicating higher levels of aggression or victimization.

Social support, and boundaries and expectations

Two subscales of the DAP (Search Institute, 2013) were administered to measure perceived social support (seven items), and parental and community monitoring and expectations (boundaries and expectations; nine items). Adolescents were asked to indicate the extent to which each item described them in the preceding 3 months, with items scored on a 4-point Likert-type scale ranging from 0-3 (Johnson, 2014). The Social Support scale asks adolescents whether they feel they can approach their parent(s) for advice or to talk, whether their parents try to help them to succeed and are loving and supportive, and whether they have other adults, neighbors, and a school who care. The Boundaries and Expectations scale asks adolescents whether their friends and other adults are good role models, whether their family and school set and enforce clear rules and encourage them to achieve, and their perceptions of family and neighborhood monitoring. Subscales are scored by averaging responses and multiplying by 10, leading to a possible range of 0-30 on all subscales (Johnson, 2014), with higher scores indicating higher levels of support or boundaries and expectations. The DAP has demonstrated high internal consistencies overall (Cronbach’s α = .97); good test–retest reliability (r = .79); and good concurrent validity (r = .82, p < .001; Search Institute, 2013). Cronbach’s alpha indicated adequate reliability in our sample for both social support (Cronbach’s α = .71) and boundaries and expectations (Cronbach’s α =.74).

All measures were translated by an external source into Armenian. Measures were then checked item by item for correct translation by a bilingual team of researchers, and any items that were unclear were discussed with one of the research team members to clarify the original meaning. Consensus among all researchers relating to the accurate translation and meaning of each item was reached. The questionnaire was then pilot tested with a group of Armenian adolescents in Yerevan, and items which proved problematic were flagged. These items were discussed and consensus reached on the wording.

Procedure

Self-report questionnaires were administered in local schools by trained research assistants. Research assistants participated in 3 days of training covering administering quantitative surveys, and were experienced in administering the questionnaire following their involvement in the initial pilot test of the questionnaire. Ice-breakers and energizers were incorporated into the administration process due to the length of the questionnaire and participant capacity to maintain focus. Approximately 1 hr was needed for questionnaire administration, including time taken for ice-breakers and energizers. Questionnaires were completed within classrooms, in which only participating students and those involved in data collection were present. Most adolescents completed the questionnaires independently; however, a small number of adolescents required some support throughout administration due to literacy issues. This support was provided by the research assistants and social workers.

Statistical Analysis

All statistical analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics version 23. There were less than 5% of missing data, and as Little’s Missing Completely At Random test indicated that the data were missing at random (χ² = 9,469.80, df = 9,898, p = .99), listwise deletion was used for all missing data. Data were not normally distributed so transformations were applied; however, parallel analyses indicated that transformation did not lead to significant changes in results and so the results presented are for raw data.

MANCOVA was used to evaluate whether level of acceptance of wife beating is associated with physical and nonphysical aggression, relational and overt victimization, social support and boundaries and expectations.

Results

Participant Characteristics

Participant characteristics are summarized in Table 2. Nearly all children live with both parents, and most parents had completed secondary or further training.

Table 2.

Participant Characteristics.

Demographic characteristics	Number of participants (N = 240)	Percentage of participants	Number and percentage of males	Number and percentage of females
Living arrangements
Live with both parents	219	91	111 (91%)	108 (92%)
Live with mother only	17	7	9 (7%)	8 (7%)
Live with father only	2	1	1 (1%)	1 (1%)
Does not live with parents	2	1	1 (1%)	1 (1%)
Maternal education
No education or some primary	7	3	3 (2%)	4 (3%)
Completed high school	118	49	60 (49%)	58 (49%)
Postsecondary training or education	58	24	27 (22%)	31 (26%)
Unsure	55	23	31 (25%)	24 (20%)
Paternal education
No education or some primary	9	4	6 (5%)	3 (2%)
Completed high school	89	37	49 (40%)	40 (34%)
Postsecondary training or education	61	26	25 (21%)	38 (31%)
Unsure	69	29	38 (31%)	31 (26%)
Gender breakdown
Male	122	51	—	—
Female	118	49	—	—
Age breakdown
10-12	127	53	67 (55%)	60 (51%)
13-16	113	47	55 (45%)	58 (49%)

Main Analysis

Item analysis indicated overall higher acceptance of wife beating when a wife has neglected her children (n = 44 [18%]; male n = 21 [20%]; female n = 21 [20%]), with lower acceptance for going out without informing her husband (n = 12 [5%]; male n = 8 [8%]; female n = 3 [3%]) and arguing with her husband (n = 8 [3%]; male n = 2 [2%]; female n = 6 [6%]). The number and percentage of male and female adolescents accepting or rejecting wife beating as an acceptable behavior in the three scenarios is summarized in Table 3. A chi-square test of independence did not indicate a relationship between gender and acceptance of wife beating (four groups), χ²(3, N = 240) = 3.23, p = .36.

Table 3.

Levels of Acceptance of Wife Beating (Frequency, Percentage, and Cumulative Percentage) by Gender.

	Males			Females			Total
	n	%	Cumulative %	n	%	Cumulative %	n	%	Cumulative %
Acceptance of three scenarios	37	30	30	28	24	24	65	27	27
Rejection of one scenario	18	15	45	15	13	36	33	14	41
Rejection of two scenarios	24	20	65	34	29	65	58	24	65
Rejection of all three scenarios	43	35	100	41	35	100	84	35	100

The overall means and standard deviations for each gender for levels of physical and nonphysical aggression, relational and overt victimization, social support, and boundaries and expectations are presented in Table 4. A series of t tests indicated significant gender differences for several variables, namely, males scored significantly higher than females on physical aggression, nonphysical aggression, and overt victimization. Given these gender differences, subsequent analyses controlled for gender.

Table 4.

Descriptive Statistics for Key Study Variables.

Variable	Range	M	SD	t test significance for gender difference (df)
Physical aggression
Males	4-19	6.27	3.07	p < .001; df = 238
Females	4-15	4.96	1.72	p < .001; df = 238
Nonphysical aggression
Males	5-24	8.31	4.15	p < .05; df = 237
Females	5-20	7.15	2.93	p < .05; df = 237
Relational victimization
Males	6-17	7.47	2.16
Females	6-31	8.25	3.74
Overt victimization
Males	5-22	8.07	3.57	p < .005; df = 235
Females	5-21	6.89	2.60	p < .005; df = 235
Social support
Males	4.29-30	23.77	4.90
Females	5.71-30	23.64	5.37
Boundaries and expectations
Males	2.22-30	23.64	5.21
Females	3.33-30	24.16	4.73

Note. Higher scores on aggression and victimization variables indicate higher perpetration and victimization whereas higher scores on social support and boundaries and expectations indicate increased social support and family and community boundaries and expectations.

A MANCOVA was used to determine differences between the four acceptance of wife beating groups on physical and nonphysical aggression, relational and overt victimization, social support and boundaries and expectations, with gender as a covariate. The Box’s M test was significant, indicating a violation of the assumption of homoscedasticity, and so results were assessed according to Pillai’s Trace as this is robust to violations of homoscedasticity. The multivariate results revealed a significant main effect of wife beating beliefs, Pillai’s Trace = .14, F(18, 675) = 1.80, p = .02, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .05, Observed Power = .97. Subsequent univariate analyses indicated significant group differences for relational victimization, F(3, 232) = 3.11, p = .03; social support, F(3, 235) = 3.19, p = .03; and boundaries and expectations, F(3, 235) = 3.47, p = .017. Post hoc tests were carried out on variables for which significant results were found in univariate analyses, namely relational victimization, social support and boundaries and expectations, using the Bonferroni correction. As can be seen in Figure 1, there were clear trends in the variables of interest according to endorsement level of wife beating. For relational victimization, there was a significant difference (p < .05) between acceptance or uncertainty for all three scenarios (M = 8.65; SD = 4.34) and rejection for all three scenarios (M = 7.21; SD = 1.89), with adolescents who indicated stronger endorsement of wife beating reporting more relational victimization by peers. Post hoc tests did not reveal any significant differences between any of the groups for social support. For boundaries and expectations, there was a significant difference (p < .05) between acceptance or uncertainty for all three scenarios (M = 22.26; SD = 5.65) and rejection of two scenarios (M = 24.98; SD = 3.93), with adolescents indicating stronger endorsement of wife beating having lower parent and community boundaries and expectations.

Figure 1.

Relational victimization, social support, and boundaries and expectations across the four groups.

Discussion

The current study aimed to determine whether level of acceptance of wife beating by Armenian adolescents aged 10-16 was associated with physical and nonphysical aggression, relational and overt victimization, social support, and boundaries and expectations. A significant association was found between acceptance of wife beating and relational victimization, social support, and boundaries and expectations, but not for physical and nonphysical aggression, or overt victimization. In total, 22% of adolescents indicated that they felt wife beating was justified in at least one circumstance, which for male adolescents is similar to findings of research conducted in Armenia in 2010 when 21.3% of males and 7.8% of females aged 15-19 agreed that wife beating is justified in some circumstances (UNICEF, 2015). In contrast to the 2010 research, however, there were no significant differences in acceptance of wife beating between males and females, with a similar proportion of males (23%) and females (22%) indicating wife beating is justified. The higher acceptance of wife beating by females relative to the 2010 study is concerning, and is possibly due to the low socioeconomic conditions all adolescents included in our sample are exposed to, and the rural location in which these adolescents live. It is also possible that given adolescents in our sample were of a younger age, and therefore different stage of their cognitive development, that this may affect their conceptualization of wife beating. The acceptance of wife beating by both male and female adolescents suggests it is important that interventions target these beliefs in both groups, particularly as previous research has found negative outcomes associated with these beliefs for both genders (Calvete & Orue, 2013; Hindin, 2014; Kunnuji, 2015).

A significant association was found between acceptance of wife beating and relational victimization, social support, and boundaries and expectations, but no significant associations were found for physical and nonphysical aggression, or overt victimization. These latter findings conflict with our premise that acceptance of wife beating may also lead to higher acceptance of other forms of violence, such as peer victimization. In particular, the lack of a significant association between acceptance of wife beating and any form of aggression was not in line with previous research with adolescents that has found that acceptance of wife beating is associated with aggressive behaviors (Calvete & Orue, 2013; Foshee et al., 2016). These previous studies only included adolescents who had witnessed family violence, whereas in our study exposure to family violence was not included as a measure, and so this may explain the difference in results. However, given the high rate of family violence in Armenian homes identified by other research, it is likely that our sample did in fact contain a high proportion of adolescents who had been exposed to family violence. One other possible explanation for this finding is that wife beating may not be considered an aggressive behavior in Armenia, where cultural beliefs have traditionally considered “physical discipline” of a wife an acceptable means of “teaching” a wife (Amnesty International, 2008). This, though, seems unlikely given that only a quarter of the sample indicated acceptance of wife beating, suggesting this view of wife beating as “discipline” is not widespread among adolescents.

Although overt victimization was not found to be significantly associated with acceptance of wife beating, a significant association was found for relational victimization, with adolescents who responded with acceptance or uncertainty for all three scenarios being significantly more likely to have been relationally victimized than adolescents who rejected all three scenarios. Previous research examining relational victimization in youth has found that those who experience relational victimization are more likely to have witnessed domestic violence or experienced physical or sexual abuse in the home prior to the age of 9 years (Espelage et al., 2012; Knous-Westfall et al., 2012). It is unclear whether the results of our study are due to an increased likelihood of witnessing or experiencing violence in the home leading to the internalization of beliefs that allow for greater relational victimization in other contexts, or if there are other factors that may explain these results, such as increased victimization by peers leading to increased acceptance of other forms of violence. Further research evaluating the directionality of these associations is warranted.

Finally, significant associations were found between acceptance of wife beating and lower perceived social support and boundaries and expectations. However, although there was clearly an overall significant trend associating acceptance of wife beating with lower social support, post hoc analyses did not identify any specific significant group differences. In relation to boundaries and expectations, although a clear trend was evident, significant differences were only found between acceptance or uncertainty for all three scenarios and rejection of two scenarios. The overall trends were in line with our predictions, as social support has been identified as having a protective effect in regard to wife beating (Van Wyk et al., 2003; Wright, 2015) and parental monitoring as having a protective effect on dating victimization and relational aggression (Leadbeater et al., 2008). Furthermore, given that gender norms are constructed socially, it was expected that a more supportive and nurturing social environment would provide cues that interpersonal violence is unacceptable, thereby reducing the likelihood of internalizing acceptance of wife beating beliefs.

Caution does need to be exercised in the interpretation of the results for several reasons. First, as this study did not include a measure of family violence within the home, it is possible that adolescents who perceive lower levels of social support and boundaries and expectations may do so because they have been exposed to family violence. Second, the social support scale was self-report, and so although it is clear there is a relationship between perceived social support and acceptance of wife beating, it is unclear whether this reflects actual social support available, or perceptions that may be influenced by other factors.

When the significant findings of this study are looked at in full, the picture that emerges is that adolescents who believe that wife beating is acceptable also perceive lower levels of social support available to them, have fewer boundaries and expectations imposed on them, and experience increased relational victimization. Although the causal links between these risk factors are not yet clear, it seems likely that the combination of these various risk factors may have an accumulative negative effect on the outcomes of adolescents. These risk factors have been found to be associated with increased internalizing (Hurd, Stoddard, & Zimmerman, 2013; Spieker et al., 2012; Walper, 2009), externalizing (Human-Hendricks & Roman, 2014; Hurd et al., 2013), substance use (Lac & Crano, 2009; Omer, Satran, & Driter, 2016), delinquency (Human-Hendricks & Roman, 2014; Spieker et al., 2012; Voulgaridou & Kokkinos, 2015), and poorer educational (Ainsworth, 2002; Bodovski, 2014; Froiland & Davison, 2014) and employment outcomes (Moore et al., 2015; Wagner, Newman, & Javitz, 2014), and so understanding the causal processes that lead to the combination of these risk factors is important.

Limitations

There are several important limitations to consider. First, this research was only conducted at one time point, and so was only able to evaluate whether particular beliefs and behaviors were associated with acceptance of wife beating, rather than establish clear causal connections. Similar research tracking the associations longitudinally is needed to better understand whether acceptance of wife beating changes over time, and what the trajectory and long-term outcomes are for adolescents who internalize these beliefs. Second, acceptance of wife beating was measured using self-report questionnaires, and adolescents with lower literacy required some assistance from social workers. It is therefore possible that social desirability influenced some adolescents’ responses resulting in an underestimate of the acceptance of wife beating.

Another limitation is that this study was conducted in a rural area in Armenia with adolescents experiencing significant poverty. The results therefore may not be relevant to other cultures or socioeconomic groups. In addition, the current study did not measure exposure to violence within the home, and so future research evaluating whether the acceptance of wife beating accounts for associations between violence within the home and negative outcomes would be useful. Finally, the results of the analyses did not indicate linear trends in the associations, as not all groups differed from each other on each measure. This may be due to the nature of the processes used to categorize participants and the lack of equivalence of the wife abuse items. Future studies might focus on establishing a more detailed measure of attitudes to wife beating.

Implications

It is clear from the current research that there are some important areas for future research to focus on. First, given that comparisons between the results of previous studies in Armenia and the current results suggest that acceptance of wife beating may decrease in females throughout adolescence, research is needed to evaluate whether attitudes toward wife beating change throughout adolescence, as understanding the developmental trajectory of these attitudes may help to identify when intervention will be most effective. Second, given that some of the results regarding the relationship between aggression and victimization by peers with acceptance of wife beating conflicted with previous research, further research should be conducted to evaluate whether acceptance of wife beating is associated with aggression and victimization, particularly when controlling for other factors such as exposure to family violence and low socioeconomic status. Finally, these results suggest that not only does intervention need to address the attitudes to wife beating held by adolescents, but it should also target increasing the social support available to adolescents and reducing risk factors for peer relational victimization to mitigate these multiple risk factors. A meta-analysis of school-based interventions designed to reduce dating and sexual violence through targeting acceptance of dating violence and reducing incidents of dating violence perpetration and victimization found that these programs lead to significant decreases in acceptance of dating violence compared with control groups, but not significant changes in behavior (De La Rue, Polanin, Espelage, & Pigott, 2014). As such, further research is needed to evaluate whether interventions designed to address adolescent beliefs regarding gender and/or family violence are more effective when incorporated within an approach designed to increase both social support, and boundaries and expectations, for adolescents. A number of promising programs include Expect Respect Support Groups (ERSG; Ball et al., 2012), Peace Road for Children (World Vision International, 2009), and “Second Step: Student Success Through Prevention” (Espelage et al., 2012). Given that no gender differences in acceptance of IPV or relational victimization were identified in the current study, interventions for this age group that target both genders appear warranted.

Conclusion

Our research, the first to investigate correlates of attitudes toward wife beating among adolescents, found that adolescents who believe it is acceptable for a man to beat his wife were significantly more likely to be relationally victimized by their peers, and significantly more likely to perceive family, school and community social support and boundaries and expectations to be low. This research clearly identifies multiple risk factors associated with acceptance of wife beating, highlighting important areas for future intervention research to focus on. In particular, the association of perceived social support and boundaries and expectations with acceptance of wife beating warrants further investigation.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank World Vision International and World Vision Armenia for their financial, intellectual, practical, and technical support of this research.

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.

Author Biographies

Bethany Devenish is a PhD student in the School of Psychology at Deakin University.

Merrilyn Hooley is a developmental psychologist and senior lecturer in the School of Psychology, Deakin University, Australia.

David Mellor is a professor in the School of Psychology, and associate dean (International) for the Faculty of Health at Deakin University in Australia. He has published in a variety of areas related to children’s development and psychological well-being, with recent work focused on body image and body dissatisfaction in cross-national studies.

References

Abrahamian

(2007). Armenia’s silent victims (CRS Issue 370). Retrieved from https://iwpr.net/global-voices/armenias-silent-victims

Ainsworth

J. W.

(2002). Why does it take a village? The mediation of neighborhood effects on educational achievement. Social Forces, 81, 117-152. doi:10.1353/sof.2002.0038

Ali

Swahn

Hamburger

(2011). Attitudes affecting physical dating violence perpetration and victimization: Findings from adolescents in a high-risk urban community. Violence and Victims, 26, 669-683. doi:10.1891/0886-6708.26.5.669

Amnesty International. (2008). No pride in silence: Domestic and sexual violence against women in Armenia. London, England: Author. Retrieved from https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/56000/eur540052008en.pdf

Angold

Costello

E. J.

Messer

S. C.

Pickles

Winder

Silver

(1995). The development of a short questionnaire for use in epidemiological studies of depression in children and adolescents. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 5, 237-249.

Ball

Tharp

A. T.

Noonan

R. K.

Valle

L. A.

Hamburger

M. E.

Rosenbluth

(2012). Expect Respect support groups: Preliminary evaluation of a dating violence prevention program for at-risk youth. Violence Against Women, 18, 746-762.

Bandura

(1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bodovski

(2014). Adolescents’ emerging habitus: The role of early parental expectations and practices. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 35, 389-412. doi:10.1080/01425692.2013.776932

Boyes

Bowes

Cluver

Ward

Badcock

(2014). Bullying victimisation, internalising symptoms, and conduct problems in South African children and adolescents: A longitudinal investigation. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 42, 1313-1324. doi:10.1007/s10802-014-9888-3

10.

Calvete

Orue

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

11.

Cicchetti

D. V.

(1994). Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychological Assessment, 6, 284-290.

12.

Clarey

Hokoda

Ulloa

(2010). Anger control and acceptance of violence as mediators in the relationship between exposure to interparental conflict and dating violence perpetration in Mexican adolescents. Journal of Family Violence, 25, 619-625. doi:10.1007/s10896-010-9315-7

13.

Dahlberg

L.L.

Toal

S.B.

Swahn

Behrens

C.B.

(2005). Measuring violence-related attitudes, behaviors, and influences among youths: A compendium of assessment tools (2nd ed.). Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.

14.

Dalal

Lee

M. S.

Gifford

(2012). Male adolescents’ attitudes toward wife beating: A multi-country study in South Asia. Journal of Adolescent Health, 50, 437-442.

15.

De La Rue

Polanin

Espelage

Pigott

(2014). School-based interventions to reduce dating and sexual violence: A systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 10, 7-34. doi:10.4073/csr.2014.7

16.

Dworkin

Treves-Kagan

Lippman

(2013). Gender-transformative interventions to reduce HIV risks and violence with heterosexually-active men: A review of the global evidence. AIDS and Behavior, 17, 2845-2863. doi:10.1007/s10461-013-0565-2

17.

Espelage

D. L.

Low

De La Rue

(2012). Relations between peer victimization subtypes, family violence, and psychological outcomes during early adolescence. Psychology of Violence, 2, 313-324.

18.

Farrell

A. D.

Sullivan

T. N.

Goncy

E. A.

A. T.

(2016). Assessment of adolescents’ victimization, aggression, and problem behaviors: Evaluation of the Problem Behavior Frequency Scale. Psychological Assessment, 28, 702-714. doi:10.1037/pas0000225

19.

Fleming

P. J.

Gruskin

Rojo

Dworkin

S. L.

(2015). Men’s violence against women and men are inter-related: Recommendations for simultaneous intervention. Social Science & Medicine, 146, 249-256. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.10.021

20.

Foshee

V. A.

McNaughton Reyes

H. L.

Chen

M. S.

Ennett

S. T.

Basile

K. C.

DeGue

et al . (2016). Shared risk factors for the perpetration of physical dating violence, bullying, and sexual harassment among adolescents exposed to domestic violence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45, 672-686. doi:10.1007/s10964-015-0404-z

21.

Froiland

J. M.

Davison

M. L.

(2014). Parental expectations and school relationships as contributors to adolescents’ positive outcomes. Social Psychology of Education, 17, 1-17. doi:10.1007/s11218-013-9237-3

22.

Gault-Sherman

(2013). The gender gap in delinquency: Does SES matter? Deviant Behavior, 34, 255-273. doi:10.1080/01639625.2012.735610

23.

Greitemeyer

Sagioglou

(2016). Subjective socioeconomic status causes aggression: A test of the theory of social deprivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111, 178-194. doi:10.1037/pspi0000058

24.

Gressard

L. A.

Swahn

M. H.

Tharp

A. T.

(2015). A first look at gender inequality as a societal risk factor for dating violence. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 49, 448-457. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2015.05.017

25.

Gross

J. J.

John

O. P.

(2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 348-362.

26.

Hindin

(2014). Adolescent childbearing and women’s attitudes towards wife beating in 25 Sub-Saharan African countries. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 18, 1488-1495. doi:10.1007/s10995-013-1389-4

27.

Human-Hendricks

A. R.

Roman

N. V.

(2014). What is the link between antisocial behavior of adolescents and parenting: A systematic review of parental practices to manage antisocial behavior. Journal of Communications Research, 6, 439-464.

28.

Hurd

N. M.

Stoddard

S. A.

Zimmerman

M. A.

(2013). Neighborhoods, social support, and African American adolescents’ mental health outcomes: A multilevel path analysis. Child Development, 84, 858-874. doi:10.1111/cdev.12018

29.

Ishkanian

(2007). En-gendering civil society and democracy-building: The anti-domestic violence campaign in Armenia. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State and Society, 14, 488-525.

30.

Jewkes

Flood

Lang

(2015). Series: From work with men and boys to changes of social norms and reduction of inequities in gender relations: A conceptual shift in prevention of violence against women and girls. Lancet, 385, 1580-1589. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61683-4

31.

Johnson

A. D.

(2014). The use of the Developmental Assets Profile at a residential treatment center (Master’s thesis, Paper 174), The College at Brockport, State University of New York, NY. Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.brockport.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1160&context=edc_theses

32.

Kishor

Johnson

(2004). Profiling domestic violence: A multi-country study. Calverton, MD: ORC Macro.

33.

Kiss

Schraiber

L. B.

Hossain

Watts

Zimmerman

(2015). The link between community-based violence and intimate partner violence: The effect of crime and male aggression on intimate partner violence against women. Prevention Science, 16, 881-889. doi:10.1007/s11121-015-0567-6

34.

Knous-Westfall

H. M.

Ehrensaft

M. K.

Watson MacDonell

Cohen

(2012). Parental intimate partner violence, parenting practices, and adolescent peer bullying: A prospective study. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 21, 754-766. doi:10.1007/s10826-011-9528-2

35.

Koenig

M. A.

Stephenson

Ahmed

Jejeebhoy

S. J.

Campbell

(2006). Individual and contextual determinants of domestic violence in North India. American Journal of Public Health, 96, 132-138. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2004.050872

36.

Kunnuji

M. O. N.

(2015). Experience of domestic violence and acceptance of intimate partner violence among out-of-school adolescent girls in Iwaya Community, Lagos State. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30, 543-564. doi:10.1177/0886260514535261

37.

Lac

Crano

W. D.

(2009). Monitoring matters: Meta-analytic review reveals the reliable linkage of parental monitoring with adolescent marijuana use. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 578-586.

38.

Leadbeater

Banister

Ellis

Yeung

(2008). Victimization and relational aggression in adolescent romantic relationships: The influence of parental and peer behaviors, and individual adjustment. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37, 359-372. doi:10.1007/s10964-007-9269-0

39.

Lee

Randolph

K. A.

(2015). Effects of parental monitoring on aggressive behavior among youth in the United States and South Korea: A cross-national study. Children and Youth Services Review, 55, 1-9. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2015.05.008

40.

Lee

M. S.

Begun

DePrince

A. P.

Chu

A. T.

(2016). Acceptability of dating violence and expectations of relationship harm among adolescent girls exposed to intimate partner violence. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 8, 487-494. doi:10.1037/tra0000130

41.

Leen

Sorbring

Mawer

Holdsworth

Helsing

Bowen

(2013). Prevalence, dynamic risk factors and the efficacy of primary interventions for adolescent dating violence: An international review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 18, 159-174. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2012.11.015

42.

Leffert

Benson

P. L.

Scales

P. C.

Sharma

A. R.

Drake

D. R.

Blyth

D. A.

(1998). Developmental assets: Measurement and prediction of risk behaviors among adolescents. Applied Developmental Science, 2, 209-230. doi:10.1207/s1532480xads0204_4

43.

Loukas

Prelow

H. M.

Suizzo

M.-A.

Allua

(2008). Mothering and peer associations mediate cumulative risk effects for Latino youth. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70, 76-85. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2007.00462.x

44.

Michau

(2007). Approaching old problems in new ways: Community mobilisation as a primary prevention strategy to combat violence against women. Gender & Development, 15, 95-109. doi:10.1080/13552070601179144

45.

Moore

S. E.

Scott

J. G.

Thomas

H. J.

Sly

P. D.

Whitehouse

A. J.

Zubrick

S. R.

Norman

R. E.

(2015). Impact of adolescent peer aggression on later educational and employment outcomes in an Australian cohort. Journal of Adolescence, 43, 39-49. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2015.05.007

46.

Omer

Satran

Driter

(2016). Vigilant care: An integrative reformulation regarding parental monitoring. Psychological Review, 123, 291-304.

47.

Peterson

N. A.

Peterson

C. H.

Agre

Christens

B. D.

Morton

C. M.

(2011). Measuring youth empowerment: Validation of a Sociopolitical Control Scale for Youth in an urban community context. Journal of Community Psychology, 39, 592-605. doi:10.1002/jcop.20456

48.

Phillips

Springer

(1992). Extended National Youth Sports Program 1991-92 evaluation highlights, part two: Individual Protective Factors Index (IPFI) and risk assessment study (Report prepared for the National Collegiate Athletic Association). Sacramento, CA: EMT Associates.

49.

Pouwels

Cillessen

(2013). Correlates and outcomes associated with aggression and victimization among elementary-school children in a low-income urban context. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 190-205. doi:10.1007/s10964-012-9875-3

50.

Rani

Bonu

(2009). Attitudes toward wife beating: A cross-country study in Asia. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24, 1371-1397. doi:10.1177/0886260508322182

51.

Reyes

H. L. M.

Foshee

V. A.

Fortson

B. L.

Valle

L. A.

Breiding

M. J.

Merrick

M. T.

(2015). Longitudinal mediators of relations between family violence and adolescent dating aggression perpetration. Journal of Marriage and Family, 77, 1016-1030.

52.

Reyes

H. L. M.

Foshee

V. A.

Niolon

P. H.

Reidy

D. E.

Hall

J. E.

(2016). Gender role attitudes and male adolescent dating violence perpetration: Normative beliefs as moderators. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45, 350-360. doi:10.1007/s10964-015-0278-0

53.

Romero

Richards

M. H.

Harrison

P. R.

Garbarino

Mozley

(2015). The role of neighborhood in the development of aggression in urban African American youth: A multilevel analysis. American Journal of Community Psychology, 56, 156-169. doi:10.1007/s10464-015-9739-6

54.

Rosenberg

(1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

55.

Sacker

Schoon

Bartley

(2002). Social inequality in educational achievement and psychosocial adjustment throughout childhood: Magnitude and mechanisms. Social Science & Medicine, 55, 863-880. doi:10.1016/S0277-9536(01)00228-3

56.

Sambisa

Angeles

Lance

P. M.

Naved

R. T.

Curtis

S. L.

(2010). Physical and sexual abuse of wives in urban Bangladesh: Husbands’ reports. Studies in Family Planning, 41, 165-178.

57.

Schuler

S. R.

Lenzi

Yount

K. M.

(2011). Justification of intimate partner violence in rural Bangladesh: What survey questions fail to capture. Studies in Family Planning, 42, 21-28.

58.

Search Institute. (2013). Developmental assets profile: Technical summary. Retrieved from http://www.search-institute.org/sites/default/files/a/DAP-Psychometric-Information.pdf

59.

Spieker

S. J.

Campbell

S. B.

Vandergrift

Pierce

K. M.

Cauffman

Susman

E. J.

Roisman

G. I.

(2012). Relational aggression in middle childhood: Predictors and adolescent outcomes. Social Development, 21, 354-375. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.2011.00631.x

60.

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, 343-352.

61.

Theobald

Farrington

D. P.

(2012). Child and adolescent predictors of male intimate partner violence. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 53, 1242-1249. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2012.02577.x

62.

Tippett

Wolke

(2014). Socioeconomic status and bullying: A meta-analysis. American Journal of Public Health, 104(6), e48-e59. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2014.301960

63.

UNICEF. (2015). State of the world’s children: 2015 country statistical tables [Excel]. Retrieved from http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/armenia_statistics.html

64.

Vagi

K. J.

Rothman

E. F.

Latzman

N. E.

Tharp

A. T.

Hall

D. M.

Breiding

M. J.

(2013). Beyond correlates: A review of risk and protective factors for adolescent dating violence perpetration. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 633-649. doi:10.1007/s10964-013-9907-7

65.

Van Wyk

J. A.

Benson

M. L.

Fox

G. L.

DeMaris

. (2003). Detangling individual-, partner-, and community-level correlates of partner violence. Crime & Delinquency, 49, 412-438.

66.

Vossen

H. G. M.

Piotrowski

J. T.

Valkenburg

P. M.

(2015). Development of the Adolescent Measure of Empathy and Sympathy (AMES). Personality and Individual Differences, 74, 66-71. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.09.040

67.

Voulgaridou

Kokkinos

C. M.

(2015). Relational aggression in adolescents: A review of theoretical and empirical research. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 23, 87-97. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2015.05.006

68.

Wagner

M. M.

Newman

L. A.

Javitz

H. S.

(2014). The influence of family socioeconomic status on the post–high school outcomes of youth with disabilities. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 37, 5-17. doi:10.1177/2165143414523980

69.

Walper

(2009). Links of perceived economic deprivation to adolescents’ well-being six years later. Journal of Family Research, 21, 107-127.

70.

White

R. M.

Liu

Nair

R. L.

Tein

J. Y.

(2015). Longitudinal and integrative tests of family stress model effects on Mexican origin adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 51, 649-662. doi:10.1037/a0038993

71.

Wickrama

K. A. S.

Bryant

C. M.

(2003). Community context of social resources and adolescent mental health. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 850-866. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00850.x

72.

World Vision International. (2009). Peace Road for Children: A peace education curriculum for youth peace clubs. CA: Monrovia.

73.

Wright

E. M.

(2015). The relationship between social support and intimate partner violence in neighborhood context. Crime & Delinquency, 61, 1333-1359. doi:10.1177/0011128712466890