Journal of Interpersonal Violence http://jiv.sagepub.com/

A Cycle of Violence? Examining Family-of-Origin Violence, Attitudes, and Intimate Partner Violence Perpetration Li Eriksson and Paul Mazerolle J Interpers Violence published online 4 July 2014 DOI: 10.1177/0886260514539759 The online version of this article can be found at: http://jiv.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/07/03/0886260514539759

Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of: American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children

Additional services and information for Journal of Interpersonal Violence can be found at: Email Alerts: http://jiv.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://jiv.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://jiv.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/07/03/0886260514539759.refs.html

>> OnlineFirst Version of Record - Jul 4, 2014 What is This? Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at Maastricht University on July 4, 2014

539759 research-article2014

JIVXXX10.1177/0886260514539759Journal of Interpersonal ViolenceEriksson and Mazerolle

Article

A Cycle of Violence? Examining Family-of-Origin Violence, Attitudes, and Intimate Partner Violence Perpetration

Journal of Interpersonal Violence 1­–20 © The Author(s) 2014 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0886260514539759 jiv.sagepub.com

Li Eriksson1 and Paul Mazerolle1

Abstract Exposure to violence in the family-of-origin has consistently been linked to intimate partner violence (IPV) perpetration in adulthood. However, whether the transmission of violence across generations is role- and gender-specific still remains unclear. The current study examined the effects of experiencing child abuse and observing parental violence on IPV perpetration among a sample of male arrestees (N = 303). The differential effects of observing violence perpetrated by same-sex (father to mother), opposite-sex (mother to father), and both parents on subsequent IPV perpetration were examined. Logistic regression analyses showed that while observing father-only violence and bidirectional interparental violence was predictive of IPV perpetration, observing mother-only violence and direct experiences of child abuse was not. These findings suggest that the transmission of violence across generations is both role- and gender-specific and highlight the importance of examining unique dimensions of partner violence to assess influences on children. The study further examined whether attitudes justifying wife beating mediate the effect of exposure to violence and subsequent IPV

1Griffith

University, Queensland, Australia

Corresponding Author: Li Eriksson, School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Griffith University, 176 Messines Ridge Road, Mt Gravatt Campus, Queensland 4122, Australia. Email: [email protected]

Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at Maastricht University on July 4, 2014

2

Journal of Interpersonal Violence 

perpetration. Results showed that although attitudes were predictive of perpetration, these attitudes did not mediate the relationship. Keywords intimate partner violence, child abuse, intergenerational transmission of violence, social learning

Introduction Men’s violence against female intimate partners is a significant and pervasive social problem.1 International victimization surveys estimate that approximately one in four women experience violence at the hands of a partner at least once in their lifetime (Mouzos & Makkai, 2004; Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000; Walby & Allen, 2004), with an annual prevalence rate of between 8% and 15% (Thompson et al., 2006; Walby & Allen, 2004). Data drawn from offender-based samples suggest that a range of risk factors are associated with male-perpetrated intimate partner violence (IPV), including low socio-economic status (Hotaling & Sugarman, 1986) and drug and alcohol use (Fals-Stewart, Golden, & Schumacher, 2003; Stith, Smith, Penn, Ward, & Tritt, 2004). A large body of research has also found an association between exposure to violence in childhood and IPV perpetration in adulthood (Delsol & Margolin, 2004; Franklin & Kercher, 2012; Hotaling & Sugarman, 1986; Kalmuss, 1984; McKinney, Caetano, Ramisetty-Mikler, & Nelson, 2009; Stith et al., 2000), suggesting that violence is transmitted across generations. One of the major explanations of the association between exposure to violence in childhood and perpetration of violence in adulthood is that children who are exposed to family violence model the behavior of their parents. As argued by Straus, Gelles, and Steinmetz (1980) “each generation learns to be violent by participating in a violent family” (p. 121). However, although exposure to violence in childhood has been identified as a risk factor for IPV perpetration, the effect sizes of this transmission are weak to moderate (Stith et al., 2000). As the majority of individuals exposed to violence in childhood do not become violent (Johnson & Ferraro, 2000), it is important to examine the effect of different types of violent exposure to understand whether certain types of violence are more likely to be transmitted across generations than others (see Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 2005). In particular, it is important to understand whether the transmission of violence is role- and gender-specific, and whether certain factors mediate the relationship between exposure to violence in childhood and subsequent IPV perpetration.

Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at Maastricht University on July 4, 2014

Eriksson and Mazerolle

3

Transmission of Violence as a Social Learning Process The theoretical principles underpinning the intergenerational transmission of violence thesis can be found in social learning theories (Akers, 1998; Bandura, 1973, 1977). According to these theories, violence is transmitted through vicarious observations or direct experiences (Bandura, 1973, 1977). Research has increasingly examined the differential effects of being victimized and observing interparental violence in childhood on subsequent IPV perpetration to understand whether the social learning processes involved are role-specific or generalized. If the processes are generalized, then it would be expected that both exposure to direct victimization and observing IPV in childhood should be associated with perpetrating IPV in adulthood. If the processes are role-specific, then it would be expected that only observational exposure to violence should be associated with perpetrating IPV. For the most part, findings suggest a stronger effect of observational learning compared with direct experiences (Carr & Vandeusen, 2002; Hotaling & Sugarman, 1986; Jankowski, Leitenberg, Henning, & Coffey, 1999; Kalmuss, 1984; Mazerolle, Maahs, & Bachman, 2000), which is suggestive of role-specific modeling whereby children learn to become violent against intimate partners by observing the patterns of behavior used by their parents. For example, a meta-analysis of 52 studies published between 1970 and 1984 found that witnessing interparental violence was a consistent risk factor associated with IPV perpetration among males (Hotaling & Sugarman, 1986). In contrast, the same study found that direct experience of violence in childhood was an inconsistent risk factor. Nevertheless, other studies have found that, compared with observing interparental violence, exposure to child abuse has a similar (Franklin & Kercher, 2012; Kwong, Bartholomew, Henderson, & Trinke, 2003; Stith et al., 2000) or stronger effect (Gover, Kaukinen, & Fox, 2008; Wareham, Boots, & Chavez, 2009) on IPV perpetration in adulthood. For example, a study of community residents found support for a generalized model of learning, in that both interparental violence and corporal punishment were predictive of perpetrating physical aggression against an intimate partner (Kwong et al., 2003). Similarly, a meta-analysis of 39 studies published between 1978 and 1997 found comparable effects of exposure to child abuse and observing interparental violence on perpetration of spouse abuse (Stith et al., 2000). In addition, studies have found a cumulative effect of child abuse and observing interparental violence (Franklin, Menaker, & Kercher, 2012; Kalmuss, 1984; Straus et al., 1980), suggesting that the combination of exposure to both types of violence in childhood may have an even greater adverse effect.

Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at Maastricht University on July 4, 2014

4

Journal of Interpersonal Violence 

Adding another level of complexity to the intergenerational transmission of violence is the question of whether modeling patterns are gender-specific. Although the initial acquisition of behavior is learnt from either parent, socialization and gender role expectations result in gender-specific modeling where the behavior of the same-sex parent (e.g., sons observing violence perpetrated by their fathers) is imitated to a greater extent than the behavior of the opposite-sex parent (e.g., sons observing violence perpetrated by their mothers; Mischel, 1966). Many of the studies examining the transmission of violence across generations fail to take gender-specific modeling into account (e.g., Black, Sussman, & Unger, 2010; Franklin et al., 2012; Mazerolle et al., 2000). In essence, the question is whether boys who observe interparental violence during their childhood grow up to become violent in intimate relationship irrespective of whether the observed violence was perpetrated by the mother or the father. Research has increasingly explored whether genderspecific pathways connect exposure to violence in childhood to perpetration of violence in adulthood. This has typically been achieved by examining the effects of observing IPV perpetrated by fathers versus mothers. However, research has yielded contradictory results. Although some studies have found no differences between mother- and father-perpetrated violence (e.g., Straus et al., 1980), other studies have found stronger modeling effects of motherperpetrated violence (e.g., Kwong et al., 2003). Yet other studies have found no support for the intergenerational transmission of violence, irrespective of which parent perpetrated the violence (e.g., Gover et al., 2008). One reason for these inconsistencies in previous studies may be that the differential effects of maternal and paternal violence are confounded when examined as a dichotomous measure. The dichotomization of paternal and maternal violence may mask the effect of different types of IPV, such as the distinction between patriarchal violence and common couple violence (Johnson, 1995). Furthermore, the operationalization of observed violence into mother- and father-perpetrated fails to take into account the gendered nature of IPV (see Jankowski et al., 1999). One means of allowing for more gender-sensitive analyses would be to compare father-only violence, motheronly violence, and bidirectional parental violence. To date, limited research has explored these distinctions and the research conducted has mostly used community-based samples. For example, one study found that observing same-sex only and bidirectional interparental violence was associated with the perpetration of dating violence among undergraduate students, whereas observing opposite-sex interparental violence was not (Jankowski et al., 1999). However, although that particular study provides a more gender-sensitive means of examining intergenerational processes, the use of undergraduate students limits the generalizability of the findings.

Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at Maastricht University on July 4, 2014

Eriksson and Mazerolle

5

According to social learning processes, violence is transmitted directly not only through vicarious observations or direct experiences but also through the acquisition of attitudes and definitions of what is considered appropriate behavior (Akers, 1998; Bandura, 1973). Thus, according to theory, exposure to violence instills a belief system condoning the use of violence in intimate relationships, in turn increasing the likelihood that individuals will engage in violence. Research suggests that individuals who condone IPV are more likely to engage in this type of violence (e.g., Stith et al., 2004). Furthermore, exposure to violence in childhood has also been more strongly linked to partner violence perpetration among males who hold attitudes condoning the use of violence against female partners (O’Hearn & Margolin, 2000; O’Keefe, 1998). It may be that these relationships are stronger for males who observe father-only violence compared with males who observe bidirectional or mother-only violence in childhood, although limited research has explored this issue. In addition, although social learning theories emphasize the mediating role of attitudes, much of the current research has examined attitudes as a moderator. The distinction between moderation and mediation is important in more precisely understanding the role of attitudes (Baron & Kenny, 1986). While it is understandable how attitudes may be shaped by early experiences, they may also be shaped by more proximate experiences, such as exposure to attitudes within the peer group (Megens & Weerman, 2010; Schwartz & DeKeseredy, 1997). Research is needed to further understand the role of attitudes within an intergenerational transmission of violence framework.

Purpose of the Current Study The current study examines the association between exposure to violence in childhood and perpetration of violence against intimate partners in adulthood among males. The study adds to the empirical evidence on the intergenerational effects of IPV in four ways. First, the current study uses a sample of arrestees. Offender populations represent high-risk groups, and as such, warrant the attention of IPV researchers (White, Gondolf, Robertson, Goodwin, & Caraveo, 2002). Second, the current study examines the differential impact of experiencing child abuse and observing interparental violence in childhood on IPV perpetration in adulthood, providing information on whether the transmission of violence across generations is generalized or role-specific. Third, the current study extends previous research by examining whether, during their childhood, respondents observed interparental violence perpetrated by the father only, the mother only, or both parents. Fourth, as per social learning theory, the current study examines whether attitudes justifying wife beating mediate the effect of exposure to violence in childhood and

Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at Maastricht University on July 4, 2014

6

Journal of Interpersonal Violence 

perpetration of IPV in adulthood. Based on the principles of social learning theory, the following hypotheses were posed: Hypothesis 1: Experiencing child abuse and observing interparental violence have similar predictive effects on IPV perpetration in adulthood for males. In other words, the effect of exposure to violence in childhood is generalized rather than role-specific. Hypothesis 2: Observing father-only violence or bidirectional interparental violence in childhood is predictive of IPV perpetration in adulthood. Observing mother-only violence is not predictive of IPV perpetration in adulthood. In other words, the effects of observing interparental violence are gender-specific. Hypothesis 3: The relationship between exposure to violence in childhood and perpetration of IPV in adulthood is mediated by attitudes condoning the use of violence in intimate relationships, such as believing that wife beating is justified.

Method Data and Sample The data were collected as part of the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) program, established by the National Institute of Justice in 1987. The aim of ADAM was to examine prevalence and trends in drug use among individuals arrested and booked in the United States (U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of Justice, 2000). In 1999, data were collected from 34 sites across the United States. At each site, data were collected across four separate data collection periods. Individuals arrested on warrants were interviewed within 48 hr of being placed in a booking facility. The arrests included a range of offences, most commonly escaping a warrant (22.77%), assault (18.15%; some of which may have included IPV), and drug possession (7.59%). Interviews were voluntary and confidential, and approximately 80% of eligible individuals chose to participate in the ADAM interviews.2 The data for the current study come from interviews conducted in 1999 in Omaha, Nebraska. At this site, males who participated in the initial ADAM interview were further invited to partake in a domestic violence addendum interview. The domestic violence addendum included measures of attitudes and risk factors expected to be related to IPV perpetration, such as exposure to violence in childhood and attitudes toward violence. The addendum took approximately 10 min to complete. Of those who completed the initial

Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at Maastricht University on July 4, 2014

Eriksson and Mazerolle

7

ADAM interview, 80% chose to participate in the domestic violence addendum, resulting in a final sample size of 327 male arrestees.

Measures IPV perpetration.  The dependent variable in this research is IPV perpetration prevalence. Respondents were asked whether they had ever physically confronted (hit/pushed/shoved/slapped) a spouse or a partner (coded as 0 = no, 1 = yes). Although IPV incorporates a wide spectrum of behavior, including sexual and emotional abuse, a measure of physical confrontation was chosen to examine the intergenerational transmission of physical violence. Although the use of a dichotomous measure of IPV precludes analyses of other aspects of IPV, such as frequency and severity, research shows that dichotomous and continuous measures of IPV perpetration are highly correlated (Kwong et al., 2003). Furthermore, the current study measured ever prevalence rather than past year behavior, as this provides a more reliable indication of the link between exposure to violence in childhood and perpetration of violence in adulthood (Kwong et al., 2003). Childhood physical abuse. A dichotomous measure of exposure to physical abuse in childhood was created from two items on a scale measuring family violence created by Stewart, Senger, Kallen, and Scheurer (1987). Respondents were asked, “My parents have beaten me so badly that I was ashamed to be seen by others” and “Sometimes my parents beat me so badly that I needed to see a doctor.” Given the relatively widespread use of child corporal punishment in the United States (Straus & Stewart, 1999), these items were used to reflect harsher forms of child physical abuse.3 The two items had an interitem correlation coefficient of .49. Observing parental violence.  Respondents were asked two items relating to exposure to parental violence in childhood: “There were times when my mother beat my father” and “There were times when my father beat my mother.” These items originate from the Stewart et al. (1987) family violence scale. The interitem correlation coefficient for these two items was .24. Based on the respondents’ responses to these two questions, four mutually exclusive categories of observing parental violence were derived: no parental violence, bidirectional interparental violence, father-only violence, and mother-only violence. Justifications for wife beating.  Attitudes justifying wife beating were operationalized through a subscale measuring justifications for wife beating taken

Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at Maastricht University on July 4, 2014

8

Journal of Interpersonal Violence 

from the Inventory of Beliefs about Wife Beating (IBWB; Saunders, Lynch, Grayson, & Linz, 1987). Although IBWB was first conceptualized and operationalized in 1987, it has been used in numerous recent studies examining IPV (e.g., Eckhardt, Samper, Suhr, & Holtzworth-Munroe, 2012) and has been shown to distinguish between IPV and non-IPV perpetration by males (Holtzworth-Munroe, Meehan, Herron, Rehman, & Stuart, 2000). The subscale consists of 12 items measured on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). The items showed good internal consistency (α = .93). Skewness statistics indicated that this scale was not normally distributed and the scale was therefore dichotomized. An examination of the distribution of scores revealed a logical cutoff point at the upper tertile, representing those individuals holding stronger attitudes that wife beating is justified. Control variables.  A number of demographic variables were controlled for in the analyses, including age at the time of the interview (measured in years), educational attainment (coded as 0 = not completed high school, 1 = completed high school)4 and race/ethnicity (coded as 0 = White, 1 = non-White). Consistent with prior studies (e.g., Gallo, Smith, & Cox, 2006), educational attainment was included as an indicator of socio-economic status. The nonWhite category included respondents who reported Black, Hispanic, and American Indian backgrounds.5 Furthermore, alcohol and drug use were also controlled for, as these are risk factors for male-perpetrated IPV (Stith et al., 2004). Age of onset of alcohol use was used as a proxy for alcohol-related problems, as early onset is associated with increased risk of future alcohol abuse and dependence (Grant & Dawson, 1997). This measure was selfreported, and early onset was coded as age 14 and below. Ever prevalence of drug use was also self-reported, measuring whether the respondent had ever used any of the following hard drugs: cocaine, heroin, crack, amphetamine, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), methamphetamine, phencyclidine, barbiturates, diazepam, and methaqualone. Descriptive statistics for these variables are provided in Table 1. Respondents were on average 31 years of age, and approximately half of the sample was non-White. About two thirds of the sample had completed a high school education. In terms of substance use, almost half of the sample had first tried alcohol before the age of 15 and half of the sample had ever tried hard drugs. There was a high prevalence rate of IPV perpetration in the sample, with 43% having engaged in this behavior. The prevalence rate of observing interparental violence was higher than experiencing child abuse. The most common interparental violence observed was father-only violence, followed by bidirectional interparental violence and mother-only violence.

Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at Maastricht University on July 4, 2014

9

Eriksson and Mazerolle Table 1.  Characteristics of Study Sample (N = 303). Variables

n (%)

Age Ethnicity  White  Non-White Education   Not completed high school   Completed high school Early onset of alcohol use Ever tried hard drugs Engaged in partner violence Childhood physical abuse Observed interparental violence   Bidirectional interparental violence   Father-only violence   Mother-only violence Both child abuse and observed interparental violence Justifications for wife beating

M (SD) 31.27 (9.56)

141 (46.53) 162 (53.47)

   

111 (36.63) 192 (63.37) 134 (44.22) 151 (49.83) 133 (43.56) 52 (17.16) 122 (40.26) 29 (9.57) 74 (24.42) 19 (6.27) 34 (11.22)

                     

98 (32.34)



More than 1 in 10 respondents reported experiences with both child abuse and observing interparental violence. Approximately one third of the sample held justifications for engaging in wife beating, which is not a surprise, given that the variable was operationalized to measure the upper tertile.

Analysis All respondents with complete data were included in the analyses, resulting in a total sample size of 303 (93% of the original sample). No variable had missing data of more than 5%. An inspection of the missing cases revealed that they displayed similar demographic characteristics to the respondents included in the analyses. The analyses were conducted in three stages. First, a logistic regression model was estimated to establish the effect of child abuse and observing interparental violence on IPV perpetration controlling for demographic and substance use variables. Second, a logistic regression model was estimated to examine the effect of observing bidirectional interparental violence, father-only violence, and mother-only violence on IPV perpetration controlling for demographic and substance use variables. Third, mediation analyses were performed to establish whether attitudes justifying

Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at Maastricht University on July 4, 2014

10

Journal of Interpersonal Violence 

wife beating mediate the relationship between exposure to violence in childhood and IPV perpetration in adulthood. Variance inflation factor (VIF) and tolerance values revealed no issues of collinearity in the regression models.

Results The Transmission of Violence: Role-Specific or General? The first logistic regression analysis examined whether the transmission of violence across generations in the current sample was role-specific or general by examining the differential predictive ability of experiencing child abuse, observing interparental violence, and experiencing both types of violence in childhood. Controlling for demographic factors and substance use, results in Table 2 reveal that experiencing child abuse was not a significant predictor of IPV perpetration among males. Instead, the model shows that observing interparental violence was associated with an almost threefold increase in the odds of perpetrating IPV. However, the strongest effects were present for those individuals who had experienced a combination of child abuse and observing interparental violence in childhood. Respondents who reported a combination of observing and experiencing direct exposure to violence were more than 4 times as likely to report perpetrating IPV compared with individuals who reported no exposure to violence in childhood.

Is the Transmission of Violence Gender-Specific? The next step was to examine the gendered nature of observing interparental violence. As the combination of observing and directly experiencing violence in childhood was significant in the previous model, child abuse was included as a control variable in the next series of regressions. The first model in Table 3 provides the results of the logistic regression analysis examining the differential effects of observing bidirectional interparental violence, father-only violence, and mother-only violence on IPV perpetration among males. Controlling for demographic factors, substance use, and child abuse, the data show that only certain types of interparental violence were predictive of IPV perpetration. Observing bidirectional interparental violence was associated with a fivefold increase in the likelihood of IPV perpetration, whereas observing father-only violence was associated with an almost threefold increase. In contrast, observing mother-only violence was not found to be predictive of IPV perpetration. Of the control variables, only ethnicity was found to be predictive of IPV perpetration. The results showed that respondents who were of non-White ethnic background displayed a higher probability of IPV perpetration.

Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at Maastricht University on July 4, 2014

11

Eriksson and Mazerolle Table 2.  Examining the Influence of Child Abuse Victimization and Observing Interparental Violence as a Child on IPV Perpetration. Variables

OR

95% CI

0.21 1.00**

1.23 2.70

[0.44, 3.41] [1.55, 4.72]

1.53**

4.59

[2.05, 10.30]

0.02 0.54 −0.38

1.02 1.71 0.68

[0.99, 1.05] [1.00, 2.92] [0.41, 1.14]

0.52

1.68

[0.98, 2.89]

0.12

1.13

[0.65, 1.97]

B violencea

Type of exposure to   Child abuse only   Observed interparental violence only   Child abuse and observed interparental violence Control variables  Age   Ethnicity (1 = non-White)   Education (1 = completed high school)   Alcohol use onset (1 = early onset)   Drug use (1 = tried hard drugs)   −2 log likelihood Nagelkerke R2 Model χ2 Model prediction rate

379.22 .15 35.79** 66.34%

         

Note. IPV = intimate partner violence; OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval. aReference category = no exposure to violence. *p < .05. **p < .001.

Are the Effects Mediated by Attitudes? Before examining whether attitudes mediate the effect of childhood experiences on IPV perpetration, as per the recommendation by Baron and Kenny (1986), analyses were first conducted to examine whether child abuse and observing parental violence were associated with justifications for wife beating. Bivariate analyses showed a significant association between observing interparental violence (χ2 = 8.14, p = .043) and holding attitudes justifying wife beating. In contrast, experiencing child abuse was not associated with such attitudes (χ2 = 0.35, p = .554).6 The second model in Table 3 provides the results of the analysis examining mediation effects of attitudes justifying wife beating. Examining the data reveals that the inclusion of attitudes in the model did not affect the predictive power of observing bidirectional or fatheronly violence on IPV perpetration in the current sample. In other words,

Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at Maastricht University on July 4, 2014

12

Journal of Interpersonal Violence 

Table 3.  Examining the Influence of Observing Bidirectional Violence, FatherOnly Violence, Mother-Only Violence, and Justifications for Wife Beating on IPV Perpetration. Model 1: Direct Effects Variables Type of interparental   Observed bidirectional   Observed father-only   Observed mother-only Justifications for wife beating Control variables   Child abuse  Age   Ethnicity (1 = non-White)   Education (1 = completed high school)   Alcohol use onset (1 = early onset)   Drug use (1 = tried hard drugs)

B

OR

95% CI

1.76** 1.02** 0.24 —

5.79 2.77 1.28 —

[2.25, 14.88] [1.52, 5.03] [0.47, 3.50] —

0.24 0.02 0.61* −0.33

1.27 1.02 1.83 0.72

[0.73, 2.23] [0.99, 1.05] [1.06, 3.18] [0.43, 1.22]

0.49

1.63

0.18

1.19

Model 2: Mediation OR

95% CI

5.18 2.84 1.25 1.77

[2.00, 13.40] [1.56, 5.19] [0.45, 3.47] [1.02, 3.05]

0.26 0.02 0.49 −0.22

1.29 1.02 1.63 0.81

[0.74, 2.27] [0.99, 1.05] [0.93, 2.86] [0.47, 1.38]

[0.94, 2.81]

0.46

1.59

[0.91, 2.76]

[0.68, 2.09]

0.17

1.19

[0.68, 2.10]

B

violencea

−2 log likelihood Nagelkerke R2 Model χ2 Model prediction rate

374.24 .17 40.53** 67.33

1.64** 1.05** 0.22 0.57*

370.35 .18 44.67** 68.65

       

Note. IPV = intimate partner violence; OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval. aReference category = not observed violence. *p < .05. **p < .001.

holding attitudes justifying wife beating did not mediate the relationship between observing interparental violence during childhood and subsequent IPV perpetration. Nevertheless, holding such attitudes was found to have a significant direct effect on IPV perpetration.

Discussion This study examined the impact of exposure to violence in childhood on perpetration of IPV in adulthood. A number of hypotheses were derived from social learning theory. Given the proposition that behavior is modeled based on direct experiences and observations of the environment (Bandura, 1977), it was hypothesized that both experiencing abuse as a child and observing interparental violence would be predictive of IPV perpetration. In other words, it was expected that social learning processes are generalized, in that exposure to any form of violence in childhood is associated with IPV

Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at Maastricht University on July 4, 2014

Eriksson and Mazerolle

13

perpetration in adulthood. This stands in contrast to role-specific processes, where only observational exposure to violence should be associated with IPV perpetration. Furthermore, as females are more likely to model the behavior of their mothers while males are more likely to model the behavior of their fathers (Mischel, 1966), it was hypothesized that males who observe fatheronly violence or bidirectional interparental violence would be more likely to perpetrate IPV compared with males who observed interparental violence perpetrated by their mothers only. In addition, it was hypothesized that attitudes condoning the use of violence in intimate relationships would mediate the relationship between exposure to violence in childhood and perpetrating IPV in adulthood. Using a sample of male arrestees to explore these issues, the results of this study provided partial support for these hypotheses. Overall, the results in this study demonstrate that early experiences in childhood are salient predictors of IPV perpetration in adulthood. It was found that men who observed interparental violence in childhood were more likely to be violent in their intimate relationships in adulthood than men who were not exposed to any violence in childhood. Contrary to expectations, however, experiencing child abuse was not predictive of IPV perpetration. Thus, based on the data at hand, it appears as though transmission of violence across generations is role-specific rather than part of a more generalized learning process. In other words, the modeling effect stems from observations of how one’s parents treat each other rather than from direct experiences of physical abuse (e.g., spanking, slapping, etc.). Although these findings may come as no surprise given past literature suggesting that these processes are role-specific (e.g., Carr & Vandeusen, 2002; Kalmuss, 1984), they stand in contrast to social learning principles proposing that behavior is also shaped by direct experiences (Bandura, 1973). These findings suggest that direct experiences of abuse may not follow the same process as experiences with observing interparental violence where it concerns social learning processes. At the same time, however, the findings revealed that the combination of observing interparental violence and experiencing child abuse was associated with even greater effect sizes compared with observing violence alone. This suggests that direct experiences of child abuse may exacerbate the existing adverse effects of observing interparental violence. Given the relatively high prevalence of co-occurrence of both types of exposure to violence in the current sample and as identified in other studies (Franklin et al., 2012; Renner & Slack, 2006), this highlights the importance of further understanding the processes through which this moderation effect occurs. Moreover, it must be observed that child abuse incidents and violence between parents can represent proxy indications of a further suite of risk factors for a range of deleterious outcomes, including mental health problems (Wolfe, Crooks, Lee,

Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at Maastricht University on July 4, 2014

14

Journal of Interpersonal Violence 

McIntyre-Smith, & Jaffe, 2003). Thus, although the specific effects of experiencing physical abuse in childhood were not observed in the current study, exploring additional outcomes in future research would be expected to reveal a range of significant relationships. Furthermore, if what is modeled and transmitted across generations are the roles that individuals learn, then we would expect experiencing child abuse to be associated with spanking or hitting one’s own children. Support for the modeling of abusive parenting roles has been found in other studies (Pears & Capaldi, 2001; Straus et al., 1980) although limited availability of variables precluded the examination of this hypothesis in the current study. The results of this study further illuminate the importance of examining whether the violence children observe is perpetrated by the father, the mother, or both parents. If the processes are gender-specific, then the behavior of the same-sex parent is imitated to a greater extent than the behavior of the opposite-sex parent. Gender-specific modeling has previously been examined as violence perpetrated by the mother or by the father, although these studies generally provide conflicting results (Gover et al., 2008; Kwong et al., 2003; Straus et al., 1980). Given that some women respond to IPV with self-defense (Saunders, 1986), it is important to examine bidirectionality in the context of gender-specific modeling of violence. The results of this study showed that observing one’s mother being violent toward one’s father was only predictive of IPV perpetration in adulthood when the father was also violent, that is, when the violence was bidirectional. In contrast, individuals who observed mother-only violence were no more likely to perpetrate IPV compared with individuals who did not observe any interparental violence. These findings suggest that the outcomes associated with observing interparental violence are gender-specific, providing support for the second hypothesis posed in this study. At the same time, however, observing bidirectional violence showed a greater likelihood of IPV perpetration compared with observing father-only violence. This highlights the importance of further understanding the impact of exposure to different types of violence, such as the distinction between patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence (Johnson, 1995). Given that victimization patterns are also modeled and transmitted across generations (Gover et al., 2008; Renner & Slack, 2006), perhaps observing bidirectional violence in childhood is associated with both IPV perpetration and victimization in adulthood. Similarly, perhaps males who observe a violent father and a non-violent mother are more likely to be the sole perpetrator of violence in intimate relationships in the future. More research is required to further explore these potential relationships. The results in this study further suggest that attitudes condoning the use of violence in intimate relationships are salient, even though they do not

Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at Maastricht University on July 4, 2014

Eriksson and Mazerolle

15

mediate between early exposure to violence and IPV perpetration. Bivariate results showed an association between observing interparental violence and holding attitudes that justify wife beating. Furthermore, these attitudes were associated with an increased likelihood of perpetrating IPV. Thus, the results of this study suggest that not only is it important to examine the transmission of behavior but also the exact roles that attitudes play in that transmission. As Bandura (1973) notes “not all that people learn is exhibited in their actions” (p. 65). Given that a large body of feminist literature has identified entitlement, patriarchy, and control as central to the understanding of male violence against women (e.g., Brownmiller, 1975; R. E. Dobash & Dobash, 1979), consideration must be given to the role and source of these attitudes. The question remains, however, why in the current study, attitudes did not mediate the relationship between early childhood experiences and IPV perpetration. One reason may be that attitudes are shaped not only by early experiences but also by the socio-cultural environment in which people live. For example, associating with peers who approve of IPV is correlated with perpetrating IPV (Smith, 1991). Another possible reason for the lack of mediation is that attitudes are not always predictive of behavior (Megens & Weerman, 2010), suggesting the presence of more proximal risk factors. Nevertheless, it should be noted that according to the bivariate analyses, the impact of early experiences of violence is still significantly related to attitude formation; however, such early experiences also directly link to subsequent IPV, suggesting multiple pathways to IPV perpetration. Some limitations should be taken into consideration when interpreting these findings. For example, the study examined intergenerational processes within a sample of male arrestees. Given the high-risk nature of offending populations, caution is warranted in generalizing the results to more representative populations. In addition, the study did not include contextual measures of childhood experiences, such as family socio-economic status and parental attachment. Such influences may well confound or affect observed relationships in substantive ways (e.g., Fergusson, Boden, & Horwood, 2006). The study was further limited in its use of dichotomous measures of violence, which cannot comprehensively gauge the full dimensions of violent acts. Other aspects of IPV not addressed in the current study include the severity and consequences of violence (e.g., R. P. Dobash & Dobash, 2004), as well as sexual and psychological abuse (e.g., Pico-Alfonso et al., 2006). Furthermore, these results should be interpreted within the context of male IPV perpetration toward female partners. Future research should explore whether these findings are similar for female perpetrators and within homosexual and bisexual relationships. Nevertheless, in summary, the findings for the current study highlight the importance of examining multiple routes to

Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at Maastricht University on July 4, 2014

16

Journal of Interpersonal Violence 

IPV perpetration as well as the influence of maternal and paternal role-specific influences. There are a range of issues and related questions that arise from these findings, which will require further research. Acknowledgments The authors wish to acknowledge Professor Denise Herz for her assistance in the collection of the data that informed this project.

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.

Notes 1.

It should be acknowledged that violence is also a concern within lesbian, gay, and bisexual intimate partner relationships (e.g., Balsam, Rothblum, & Beauchaine, 2005). Although this is not the focus of the current study, it is an important area of investigation that should be explored further in future research. 2. For a more thorough description of the methodology involved, see U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of Justice (2000). 3. Given the narrow focus of this measure, it is acknowledged that this is a conservative measure of childhood physical abuse. 4. All analyses were further performed using completion of 1 and 3 years of college as alternative indicators of educational attainment. As these sensitivity analyses had no substantive impact on the overall findings, high school education was retained as a measure of educational attainment. 5. These racial/ethnic groups were combined into a non-White category due to the low prevalence of Hispanic (4.9%) and American Indian (2.2%) respondents in the sample. It is acknowledged that important ethnic differences in intimate partner violence (IPV) experiences and attitudes may exist. Future research with more diverse samples should examine these relationships as they apply to different racial/ethnic groups. 6. Further information regarding the results of the bivariate analyses is available, on request, from the corresponding author.

References Akers, R. (1998). Social learning and social structure: A general theory of crime and deviance. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.

Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at Maastricht University on July 4, 2014

Eriksson and Mazerolle

17

Balsam, K. F., Rothblum, E. D., & Beauchaine, T. P. (2005). Victimization over the life span: A comparison of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and heterosexual siblings. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 477-487. Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182. Black, D. S., Sussman, S., & Unger, J. B. (2010). A further look at the intergenerational transmission of violence: Witnessing interparental violence in emerging adulthood. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 1022-1042. Brownmiller, S. (1975). Against our will: Men, women, and rape. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. Carr, J. L., & Vandeusen, K. M. (2002). The relationship between family of origin violence and dating violence in college men. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17, 630-646. Delsol, C., & Margolin, G. (2004). The role of family-of-origin violence in men’s marital violence perpetration. Clinical Psychology Review, 24, 99-122. Dobash, R. E., & Dobash, R. P. (1979). Violence against wives: A case against the patriarchy. New York, NY: Free Press. Dobash, R. P., & Dobash, R. E. (2004). Women’s violence to men in intimate relationships: Working on a puzzle. British Journal of Criminology, 44, 324-349. Eckhardt, C. I., Samper, R., Suhr, L., & Holtzworth-Munroe, A. (2012). Implicit attitudes toward violence among male perpetrators of intimate partner violence: A preliminary investigation. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27, 471-491. Fals-Stewart, W., Golden, J., & Schumacher, J. A. (2003). Intimate partner violence and substance use: A longitudinal day-to-day examination. Addictive Behaviors, 28, 1555-1574. Fergusson, D. M., Boden, J. M., & Horwood, L. J. (2006). Examining the intergenerational transmission of violence in a New Zealand birth cohort. Child Abuse & Neglect, 30, 89-108. Franklin, C. A., & Kercher, G. A. (2012). The intergenerational transmission of intimate partner violence: Differentiating correlates in a random community sample. Journal of Family Violence, 27, 187-199. Franklin, C. A., Menaker, T. A., & Kercher, G. A. (2012). Risk and resiliency factors that mediate the effect of family-of-origin violence on adult intimate partner victimization and perpetration. Victims & Offenders, 7, 121-142. Gallo, L. C., Smith, T. W., & Cox, C. (2006). Socioeconomic status, psychosocial processes, and perceived health: An interpersonal perspective. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 31, 109-119. Gover, A. R., Kaukinen, C., & Fox, K. A. (2008). The relationship between violence in the family of origin and dating violence among college students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23, 1667-1693.

Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at Maastricht University on July 4, 2014

18

Journal of Interpersonal Violence 

Grant, B. F., & Dawson, D. A. (1997). Age at onset of alcohol use and its association with DSM-IV alcohol abuse and dependence: Results from the national longitudinal alcohol epidemiologic survey. Journal of Substance Abuse, 9, 103-110. Holtzworth-Munroe, A., Meehan, J. C., Herron, K., Rehman, U., & Stuart, G. L. (2000). Testing the Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart (1994) batterer typology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, 1000-1019. Hotaling, G. T., & Sugarman, D. B. (1986). An analysis of risk markers in husband to wife violence: The current state of knowledge. Violence and Victims, 1, 101-124. Jankowski, M. K., Leitenberg, H., Henning, K., & Coffey, P. (1999). Intergenerational transmission of dating aggression as a function of witnessing only same sex parents vs. opposite sex parents vs. both parents as perpetrators of domestic violence. Journal of Family Violence, 14, 267-279. Johnson, M. P. (1995). Patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence: Two forms of violence against women. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 283-294. Johnson, M. P., & Ferraro, K. J. (2000). Research on domestic violence in the 1990s: Making distinctions. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62, 948-963. Kalmuss, D. (1984). The intergenerational transmission of marital aggression. Journal of Marriage and Family, 46, 11-19. Kwong, M. J., Bartholomew, K., Henderson, A. J. Z., & Trinke, S. J. (2003). The intergenerational transmission of relationship violence. Journal of Family Psychology, 17, 288-301. Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J. (2005). Top 10 greatest “hits”: Important findings and future directions for intimate partner violence research. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20, 108-118. Mazerolle, P., Maahs, J., & Bachman, R. (2000). Exposure to violence in the family: Unpacking the linkage to intimate partner violence. In G. L. Fox & M. L. Benson (Eds.), Families, crime and criminal justice (pp. 45-71). London, England: Oxford University Press. McKinney, C. M., Caetano, R., Ramisetty-Mikler, S., & Nelson, S. (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, 25-32. Megens, K. C. I. M., & Weerman, F. M. (2010). Attitudes, delinquency and peers: The role of social norms in attitude–behaviour inconsistency. European Journal of Criminology, 7, 299-316. Mischel, W. (1966). A social-learning view of sex differences in behavior. In E. E. Maccoby (Ed.), The development of sex differences (pp. 56-81). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Mouzos, J., & Makkai, T. (2004). Women’s experiences of male violence: Findings from the Australian component of the International Violence Against Women Survey (IVAWS). Canberra, Australia: Author. O’Hearn, H. G., & Margolin, G. (2000). Men’s attitudes condoning marital aggression: A moderator between family of origin abuse and aggression against female partners. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 24, 159-174.

Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at Maastricht University on July 4, 2014

Eriksson and Mazerolle

19

O’Keefe, M. (1998). Factors mediating the link between witnessing interparental violence and dating violence. Journal of Family Violence, 13, 39-57. Pears, K. C., & Capaldi, D. M. (2001). Intergenerational transmission of abuse: A two-generational prospective study of an at-risk sample. Child Abuse & Neglect, 25, 1439-1461. Pico-Alfonso, M. A., Garcia-Linares, M. I., Celda-Navarro, N., Blasco-Ros, C., Echeburúa, E., & Martinez, M. (2006). The impact of physical, psychological, and sexual intimate male partner violence on women’s mental health: Depressive symptoms, posttraumatic stress disorder, state anxiety, and suicide. Journal of Women’s Health, 15, 599-611. Renner, L. M., & Slack, K. S. (2006). Intimate partner violence and child maltreatment: Understanding intra- and intergenerational connections. Child Abuse & Neglect, 30, 599-617. Saunders, D. G. (1986). When battered women use violence: Husband-abuse or selfdefense? Violence and Victims, 1, 47-60. Saunders, D. G., Lynch, A. B., Grayson, M., & Linz, D. (1987). The inventory of beliefs about wife beating: The construction and initial validation of a measure of beliefs and attitudes. Violence and Victims, 2, 39-57. Schwartz, M. D., & DeKeseredy, W. S. (1997). Sexual assault on the college campus: The role of male peer support. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Smith, M. D. (1991). Male peer support of wife abuse: An exploratory study. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 6, 512-519. Stewart, C., Senger, M. M., Kallen, D., & Scheurer, S. (1987). Family violence in stable middle-class homes. Social Work, 32, 529-531. Stith, S. M., Rosen, K. H., Middleton, K. A., Busch, A. L., Lundeberg, K., & Carlton, R. P. (2000). The intergenerational transmission of spouse abuse: A metaanalysis. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62, 640-654. Stith, S. M., Smith, D. B., Penn, C. E., Ward, D. B., & Tritt, D. (2004). Intimate partner physical abuse perpetration and victimization risk factors: A meta-analytic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10, 65-98. Straus, M. A., Gelles, R. J., & Steinmetz, S. K. (1980). Behind closed doors: Violence in the American family (1st ed.). Garden City, NY: Anchor Press. Straus, M. A., & Stewart, J. H. (1999). Corporal punishment by American parents: National data on prevalence, chronicity, severity, and duration, in relation to child and family characteristics. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 2, 55-70. Thompson, R. S., Bonomi, A. E., Anderson, M., Reid, R. J., Dimer, J. A., Carrell, D., & Rivara, F. P. (2006). Intimate partner violence: Prevalence, types, and chronicity in adult women. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 30, 447-457. Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2000). Extent, nature, and consequences of intimate partner violence: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice National Institute of Justice. U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of Justice. (2000). Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program in the United States, 1999 (ICPSR version). Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.

Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at Maastricht University on July 4, 2014

20

Journal of Interpersonal Violence 

Walby, S., & Allen, J. (2004). Domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking: Findings form the British crime survey (Home Office Research Study 276). London, England: Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate. Wareham, J., Boots, D. P., & Chavez, J. M. (2009). A test of social learning and intergenerational transmission among batterers. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37, 163-173. White, R. J., Gondolf, E. W., Robertson, D. U., Goodwin, B. J., & Caraveo, L. E. (2002). Extent and characteristics of woman batterers among federal inmates. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 46, 412-426. Wolfe, D. A., Crooks, C. V., Lee, V., McIntyre-Smith, A., & Jaffe, P. G. (2003). The effects of children’s exposure to domestic violence: A meta-analysis and critique. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 6, 171-187.

Author Biographies Li Eriksson is an associate lecturer at the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Griffith University. Her main area of research is lethal and non-lethal intimate partner violence (IPV), and she is a member of the Violence and Research and Prevention program at Griffith University. Her research forms part of the Australian Homicide Project, which is a national project examining developmental and situational pathways to intimate partner homicide. Paul Mazerolle is the pro vice chancellor (arts, education, and law) and director of the Violence Research and Prevention program at Griffith University. He undertakes research on youth violence and IPV, as well as the processes that shape criminal offending across the life course. His primary research focus is in building knowledge in the area of violence to inform theories, advance understanding, and improve policy and practices to reduce or prevent violence. He is engaged in a series of funded research projects examining juvenile offending behavior, repeat violent victimization, and intimate partner homicide. His current Australian Council Research funded project on intimate partner homicide has gathered in-depth interview data from more than 300 offenders in prison for murder or manslaughter.

Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at Maastricht University on July 4, 2014

A cycle of violence? Examining family-of-origin violence, attitudes, and intimate partner violence perpetration.

Exposure to violence in the family-of-origin has consistently been linked to intimate partner violence (IPV) perpetration in adulthood. However, wheth...
380KB Sizes 5 Downloads 4 Views