Child-to-Parent Violence: Frequency and Family Correlates

Jennifer Lyons, Sabrina Fréchette, Tessa Bell, & Elisa Romano, Ph.D. Presented at the International Society for the Study of Behavioral Development, Edmonton, AB July 2012

•  Child-to-parent violence (CPV) is a family problem that has remained obscured for decades, despite findings suggesting that CPV occurs in 14% to 20% of North American homes (Ulman & Straus, 2003).

•  Research suggests that CPV starts at a young age, but parents do not identify this behaviour as abusive until they experience it as threatening (Cottrell, 2001).

•  Males appear to engage in CPV more often than females, and mothers are the target of violence in the majority of CPV cases (Walsh & Krienert, 2007). Past research indicates that CPV is rooted within violent homes. Child corporal punishment has been linked with CPV, and the majority of children who engage in CPV have witnessed violence between parents (Brezina, 1999; Ibabe & Jaureguizar, 2010; Pagani et al., 2004).

•  While past studies have examined the influence of family violence on CPV, it has been at a more general level, focusing primarily on physical violence between parents and towards children. As such, the relationship between CPV and other types of parental discipline and violence exposure are unclear.

Participants and Procedure •  365 undergraduates at the University of Ottawa completed a 60 minute on-line

questionnaire. The questionnaire included questions on their child disciplinary experiences, exposure to violence, and their use of physical and verbal aggression towards their parents during childhood (at approximately 10 years of age). Each question was answered separately for mothers and fathers.

Table 1. Sample Description

Research Objectives •  To investigate the influence of family violence on CPV in a more comprehensive

manner by focusing on a range of child disciplinary practices (i.e., spanking, psychological aggression, positive discipline), child physical abuse, verbal and physical intimate partner violence (IPV), and more macro-level constructs, including exposure to community violence.

Hypotheses •  Regarding disciplinary practices, we hypothesized that the presence of spanking

as well as higher psychological aggression and lower positive discipline would be associated with an increased risk of CPV.

•  In terms of exposure to violence within and outside the home, we Hypothesized that the presence of child physical abuse, IPV (verbal and physical), and community violence would be associated with an increased risk of CPV.

Variable N % Sex Male Female Age 18-24 25-29 30-35 40+ Household Income 0-$29 999 $30 000-$59 999 $60 000-$99 999 $100 000+ Ethnicity European/North-American African-Canadian//Black Asian/Pacific Islander Middle Eastern Hispanic/Latino(a) Native Aboriginal Other

88

276

334 7 15 6 40 83

102 127

216 44 39 24 11 8 16

24.2 75.8

92.3 1.9 4.1 1.7

11.4 23.6 29.0 36.0

60.3 12.3 10.9 6.7 3.1 2.2 4.5

Measures Predictors: 1)  Dimensions of Discipline Inventory (Straus & Fauchier, 2007) •  Two items on spanking (i.e., “How often did your parents spank, slap, smack, or

swat at you?”) along a 10 point scale, from 0 (never/not in that year) to 9 (two or more times a day). Note: Due to a skewed distribution, spanking was dichotomized so that responses of 0 were coded as absent (0), and the remaining responses were coded as present (1)

•  Eight items on psychological aggression (e.g., “How often did your parents try to make you feel ashamed or guilty?”) along a 10 point scale from 0 (never/not in that year) to 9 (two or more times a day)

•  Eight items on positive discipline (e.g., “How often did your parents praise you for finally stopping bad behaviour?”) along a 10 point scale, from 0 (never/not in that year) to 9 (two or more times a day)

2)  Conflict Tactics Scale – Parent-Child Version (Straus, Hamby, Finkelhor, Moore, &

Runran, 1998) •  Ten items on physical abuse (e.g., “How often did your mother or father hit you

with a fist or kicked you hard?”) along a 7 point scale, ranging from 0 (never/not in that year) to 6 (more than 20 times in that year). Note: Due to a skewed distribution, this variable was dichotomized so that responses of 0 were coded as absent (0), and the remaining responses were coded as present (1)

3)  Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (Straus & Douglas, 2004) •  Two items on verbal IPV (e.g., “Your mother (father) insulted or swore or shouted

or yelled at your father (mother)”), and six items on physical IPV (e.g., “Your mother (father) pushed, shoved, or slapped your father (mother)”) along a 7 point scale, ranging from 0 (never/not in that year) to 6 (more than 20 times in that year) Note: Due to a skewed distribution, physical IPV was dichotomized so that responses of 0 were coded as absent (0), and the remaining responses were coded as present (1)

4)  Community Violence (Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1999) •  Four items on community violence (e.g., “When I was a kid, I often saw kids who

were not in my family get into fights and hit each other”), along a 4 point scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree)

Outcome: 1)  Conflict Tactics Scale – Child-Parent Version (Straus & Douglas, 2004):

Six items on verbal CPV (e.g., “You insulted or swore at your parents”) and six items on physical CPV (e.g., “You kicked or bit your parents”) along a 7 point scale from 0 (never/not in that year) to 6 (more than 20 times in that year). As the majority of participants did not endorse any physical violence towards their parents, we combined the scores for physical and verbal CPV.

Variable N % M (SD) Range Spanking Yes No

Psychological Aggression

Positive Discipline

Physical Abuse Yes No

IPV Verbal

IPV Physical Yes No

Violence Socialization

CPV Mother

CPV Father

162 200

348

345

76 278

362

60

305

357

354

359

44.8 55.2

-

-

21.5 78.5

-

16.4 83.6

-

-

-

-

13.24 (11.96)

21.45 (13.41)

-

2.42 (3.37)

-

7.09 (2.14)

3.02 (3.86)

2.11 (3.00)

-

0-72

0-72 -

0-12

-

4-16

0-36

0-36

Table 2. Description of Study Variables

β SE t Participant Sex

Spanking

Psychological Aggression

Positive Discipline

Physical Abuse

IPV Verbal

IPV Physical

Community Violence

-.53

-.31

.08

.02

.66

.17

.86

-.04

.46

.47

.02

.02

.60

.07

.65

.10

-1.15

-.67

3.85***

1.27

1.10

2.38*

1.33

-.39 Note. *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001

β SE t Participant Sex

Spanking

Psychological Aggression

Positive Discipline

Physical Abuse

IPV Verbal

IPV Physical

Community Violence

-1.17

-.03

.03

.03

.20

.22

.21

-.02

.35

.36

.02

.01

.45

.05

.49

.08

-3.33**

-.09

1.64

2.78**

.44

4.06***

.44

-.22

Table 4. Regression Analyses for Child-to-Father Violence

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

•  Contrary to past literature, this study found very low rates of physical CPV. Most of the reported CPV consisted of verbal aggression towards parents. Physical CPV may be less common during mid-childhood (i.e. 10 years). It may also be that participants were less willing or comfortable disclosing physical CPV.

•  Aggression within the home was associated with child-to-parent violence. Specifically, verbal IPV was found to predict CPV towards both parents while psychological aggression also predicted CPV towards mothers. These findings are congruent with social learning theory. Children exposed to psychological and verbal violence within the home learn to model their caregiver’s violent behaviour.

•  Males were more likely to engage in child-to-father violence. This is consistent with Pollack’s (1998) “boy code” which states that there is an expectation for young boys to strive to defeat others and to climb to the top of the social ladder. Boys may be more likely to assert their masculinity to the parent with the perceived highest social ranking. Furthermore, male-to-male violence may be seen as more socially acceptable than male-to-female violence. Males may believe that while aggression towards fathers is acceptable, aggression towards mothers is wrong.

•  Positive parenting predicted greater child-to-father violence. While this finding makes little sense conceptually, it is important to consider the context and delivery of such parenting techniques. For instance, a child may perceive some positive parenting techniques as impulsive, inconsistent, or unfair. Future research may wish to investigate the interaction between CPV and modes of implementing discipline to better understand this relationship.

•  This study adds to the limited research on CPV and can inform prevention efforts for at-risk families. Early intervention can help teach parents about alternative disciplinary tactics and conflict resolution. By encouraging parents to set an example of non-violence in the home, children will learn to model more appropriate behaviour and will be able to relate to their families in more positive and healthy ways.

•  Limitations to this study include a cross-sectional design and reliance on retrospective, self-report data.

Table 3. Regression Analyses for Child-to-Mother Violence

Analyses

Multiple regressions were conducted to identify predictors of CPV towards mothers and fathers. For child-to-mother violence, the model significantly predicted CPV, F(8, 305)= 8.40, p<.001. For child-to-father violence, the model significantly predicted CPV, F(8, 310)= 7.93, p<.001.

Method

Research Objectives & Hypotheses

Discussion

Introduction

Results