The Impact of Family and Demographic Factors on Intergenerational Transmission of Violence

Anthea Chan, Ahmed Alif, & Bryan S. Nelson

Nationally, ten percent of children have witnessed interparental violence (IPV), or violence between parents (Child Abuse Facts, n.d.; Domestic Violence and Children, n.d.). Research has shown that children who mimic violent behavior, often behave violently after IPV exposure (Bandura, Ross, & Ross, 1961; Hines & Saudino, 2002). In fact, when children are repeatedly exposed to acts of IPV, their ability to differentiate between violent acts and normal behavior is greatly diminished (Alexander, Moore, & Alexander III, 1991; Irish, Kobayashi & Delahanty, 2010). These children may also try to reduce their emotional distress by internalizing the behavior they witness (Hines & Saudino, 2002). As adults, they act upon the internalized behavior that they previously witnessed, which, in turn, perpetuates the intergenerational transmission of violence (Avakame, 1998). This intergenerational transmission of violence occurs when an adult who had been exposed to violence as a child acts out violently, negatively influencing another child’s development and inadvertently increasing their aggression and acts of IPV in adulthood (Bandura, Ross & Ross, 1961; Carroll, 1980; Holt, Buckley & Whelan, 2008; Wood & Sommers, 2011). Children’s perceptions of violence influence their belief in a just world, defined by the idea that consequences always serve the purpose of morally restoring order, making it more likely that they will justify violence as normal behavior in adult relationships (Calvete & Orue, 2013). Additionally, demographic factors separate from the internal home-setting (i.e. socioeconomic status, culture, age, and gender-specific parental influence on children) have also been shown to have a strong effect on children who witness violence (Sousa et al., 2011).

In order to further the understanding of intergenerational transmission of violence, this review will examine how children interpret and acknowledge familial violence. Additionally, it will also address familial and demographic factors that influence the intergenerational transmission of violence (Bauer et al., 2006; Cannon, Bonomi, Anderson, & Rivara, 2009; McCloskey & Lichter, 2003; Milletich, Kelly, Doane, & Pearson, 2010).

Cognitive Interpretation of Familial Violence

Indeed, factors in the home can contribute to how a child will perceive violence and subsequently learn to repeat it. Children that live with the abuser experience direct violence and subsequently begin to believe that poor parenting quality and substance abuse are acceptable (Campbell & Lewandowski, 1997; Holt, Buckley & Whelan, 2008). This direct abuse as well as the witnessing of parent-on-parent violence are two factors that lead to the desensitization and justification of violence (Campbell & Lewandowski, 1997; Holt et al., 2008). Markedly, children who witness parent-on-parent violence in their household tend to rationalize violent behavior by falsely attributing it to noncompliance or antagonization by the abused (DeBoard-Lucas & Grych, 2011). As a defense mechanism, these children formulate their schema to preserve their belief in a just world by justifying violence to mitigate their fears of uncertainty within the altercation (Campbell & Lewandowski, 1997; DeBoard-Lucas & Grych, 2011). The child is mis-socialized to learn that the results (i.e. compliance and respect) justify the abuse (Calvete & Orue, 2013; Campbell & Lewandowski, 1997; Holt et al., 2008). Another factor that contributes to desensitization to violence is the witnessing of IPV associated with substance abuse, which can amplify the disinhibition of violence by both the abuser and the witness (Wood & Sommers, 2011). This observed substance abuse-related violence can demonstrate the acceptability of both violence and use of illicit substances (Wood & Sommers, 2011). According to Social Learning Theory, not only does the child mimic the witnessed violence, but he or she may also mimic the disinhibiting substance abuse, which can negatively influence the child’s development and inadvertently increase aggression and acts of IPV in adulthood (Bandura, Ross & Ross, 1961; Carroll, 1980; Holt et al., 2008; Wood & Sommers, 2011).

In addition to acts of violence and exposure to substance abuse, housing circumstances also have an impact on how children perceive and experience violence (Ericksen & Henderson, 1992). Children living with the abuser frequently worry about their own and their abused parent’s well-being (Campbell & Lewandowski, 1997; DeBoard-Lucas & Grych, 2011). Typically, they may refuse to talk about the violence out of fear that they will upset the abused parent, and, as a result, are unable to process the violent acts (Campbell & Lewandowski, 1997; DeBoard-Lucas & Grych, 2011). Children witnessing IPV and living with the abuser experience cognitive dissonance in their attachment with the abuser and their concern for the abused; essentially, the child must justify the violence to preserve his/her own moral beliefs. That is, in order to avoid feeling guilty about their inability to stop the interparental violence, the child decides that the violent act must be necessary (Campbell & Lewandowski, 1997; Ericksen & Henderson, 1992; Holt et al., 2008).

Furthermore, the inability of the child to understand why a victim refuses to leave the abuser leads the child to trivialize and further justify the abuse, especially when the child has to rationalize the contradiction between affection for the abuser and sympathy for the abused along with the stagnancy of the living situation (Ericksen & Henderson, 1992; Joseph, Govender & Bhagwanjee, 2006).

Another factor in the home that influences the intergenerational transmission of violence is instability (Iverson, McLaughlin, Adair & Monson, 2014; Samuelson, Krueger, & Wilson, 2012). Unpredictability in the home may make it more difficult for a child to distinguish between right and wrong because they may become accustomed to spontaneous abusive outbursts, and have difficulty distinguishing between behaviors that are aggressive and nonaggressive (Iverson et al., 2014; Samuelson et al., 2012). A consequence of not being able to differentiate between abusive and nonabusive behavior is a loss of belief in a just world and disrupted parental attachment (Holt et al., 2008; Sousa et al., 2011). Without an understanding of right and wrong, children may start to use learned violence as a defense mechanism and may begin acting on aggression in situations that do not require such a response (Holt et al., 2008; Sousa et al., 2011). These children learn to categorize adults as untrustworthy and, as adults, this categorization translates into distrust of their partners and subsequent use of violence to mitigate problems (Calvete & Orue, 2013; Campbell & Lewandowski, 1997).

An additional factor within the home and family unit that can serve as a risk factor for intergenerational transmission of violence is parenting quality. When repeatedly witnessing unexplained IPV, the relationship between parent and child can become distorted, leading to negative psychological effects for parents, thus impairing their ability to effectively raise their children (Levendovsky & Graham-Berman, 2001). This impaired parenting ability affects the child’s emotional well-being and prevents the child from forming a secure attachment to the mother (Levendovsky & Graham-Berman, 2001). The father can also play a negative role in parenting the child, as abusive fathers are more likely to neglect their child, use authoritarian discipline, use corporal punishment, and be unable to provide structured discipline (Edleson et al., 2007; Holt, Buckley & Whelan, 2008). Moreover, research has shown that when abused mothers use authoritarian tactics to discipline the child and prevent the child from aggravating the abuser, externalizing problems in the child start to develop (Dehon & Weems, 2009).

Demographic Factors

In addition, demographic factors such as race, gender, socioeconomic status and age of a child can influence how the child perceives violence and the way it impacts the intergenerational transmission of violence (Campbell & Lewandowski, 1997; DeBoard-Lucas & Grych, 2011). For example, lower socioeconomic status is associated with violence committed in places outside of the household, such as neighborhoods or schools (Campbell & Lewandowski, 1997). Further, research on race has indicated that ethnic minority parents are more likely to act violently toward their child than Caucasian parents; that is, ethnic minorities are less likely to categorize certain forms of physical discipline as abuse (Graham-Bermann & Brescoll, 2000; Levinson, Graves, & Holcombe, 1984). As a result, children from minority groups and a low socioeconomic background are more likely to believe that violence is justified, especially in relation to disciplining the family (Graham-Bermann & Brescoll, 2000). This is a belief that can perpetuate intergenerational violence (Graham-Bermann & Brescoll, 2000). Additionally, research has demonstrated that intergenerational transmission of violence can be mediated by perceived social support, but this perceived social support is lower for low-income families, thus increasing a low-income child’s likelihood of becoming aggressive with others (Joseph et al., 2006; Wood & Sommers, 2011).

In addition to race and SES, the gender of the child who witnesses IPV is also important (Milletich, Kelly, Doane, & Pearson, 2010). For example, Milletich and colleagues (2010) found that women report perpetrating more physical aggression toward a partner in a heterosexual relationship if the woman was exposed to her mother committing violence against her father as a child; this trend also holds true when applied to a son’s acts of violence in relationships after witnessing a violent father (Milletich et al., 2010; Whitield, Anda, Dube, & Felitti, 2003; Wood & Sommers, 2011). It is unclear whether the repetition of violent behaviors of the same-sex parent is based on role-modeling or gender-role socialization (Forsstrom-Cohen & Rosenbaum, 1985; Whitield et al., 2003). With regard to gender-role socialization, studies show that youth who have witnessed violence tend to behave in gender-typical ways (Phillips & Phillips, 2010). Boys are more likely than girls to justify violence as a mechanism to ensure compliance of their peers (Phillips & Phillips, 2010; Wood & Sommers, 2011). Boys learn to conform to gendered power dynamics in order to be similar to what they perceive to be “normal” children, therefore, acting aggressively to assert power (Phillips & Phillips, 2010). Boys who witness violence have more positive beliefs about violence founded in stereotypes than girls, especially regarding male dominance over females (Graham-Bermann & Brescoll, 2000). In addition, abused boys are more likely to be overtly aggressive while abused girls are more likely to justify violence (Calvete & Orue, 2013; Pournaghash-Tehrani, 2011). Despite the fact that child abuse has a stronger effect on girls’ participation in dating aggression than boys’ involvement, the literature suggests that child abuse is generally more likely to increase a girl’s likelihood of being a victim rather than a perpetrator of violence (Milletich, Kelly, Doane, & Pearson, 2010; Whitield, Anda, Dube, & Felitti, 2003).

In addition to race, SES, and gender, it is also important to note that the developmental stage at which violence is witnessed can influence how children frame their experiences. Younger children are more defenseless and dependent, thus less able to avoid the violence, which puts them at risk for desensitization to violence (Calvete & Orue 2013). Additionally, younger children are more likely to have and accept extreme beliefs regarding both gender superiority and the acceptability of violence (Graham-Bermann & Brescoll, 2000; Edleson et al., 2007). Older children are more mature and sympathetic to others’ experiences and are more likely to worry about their parents, making them less likely to commit future violence (Deboard-Lucas & Grych, 2011). These developmental differences demonstrate that children witnessing violence at younger ages are at a higher risk of future aggression (Calvete & Orue, 2013; Forsstrom-Cohen & Rosenbaum, 1985; McCloskey & Lichter 2003).

Conclusion

The research presented in this review demonstrates that witnessing abuse can increase the likelihood that children will become a part of the cycle of intergenerational transmission of violence, especially when such factors as living with the abuser, parenting quality, SES, culture, gender, and child’s age are considered. The research has revealed that these factors do not act singularly, but rather work additively (Levendovsky & Graham-Berman, 2001; Sousa et al., 2011). There is a dose-response relationship between the prevalence and level of these factors and the likelihood of committing violence (Levendovsky & Graham-Berman, 2001; Sousa et al., 2011). However, it is important to note that not every child that has witnessed domestic violence will necessarily behave aggressively in the future (Holt, Buckley & Whelan, 2008).

Current research has presented positive interventions for interpersonal transmission of violence treatment using mixed methods psychotherapy, such as art therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, and group therapy to help children formulate positive relationships with parents (Mills & Kellington, 2012; Dalley, 1990). Additionally, good parenting and positive emotional well-being of the mother can improve children’s executive functioning, affording the child better emotional control, particularly with respect to aggression (Iverson et al., 2014; Samuelson et al., 2012).

Unfortunately, research on factors influencing intergenerational transmission of violence is still very limited, so there is not substantial empirical support for the above mentioned interventions. Many studies are limited by the fact that they rely only on the potentially biased responses of an abused mother (Joseph, S., Govender, K., Bhagwanjee, A., 2006; Nowakowsi Sims, Noland, & Tejeda, 2008; Sousa et al., 2011). Some reports may be partially biased because many of the samples are pulled from family shelters where children’s developmental trajectory may differ from that of children still living at home with their abuser (Joseph, S., Govender, K., Bhagwanjee, A., 2006; Nowakowsi Sims, Noland, & Tejeda, 2008; Phillips & Phillips, 2010; Sousa et al., 2011). Furthermore, generalizability of studies is limited due to the focus on male-female relationships (Joseph, S., Govender, K., Bhagwanjee, A., 2006; Nowakowsi Sims, Noland, & Tejeda, 2008; Phillips & Phillips, 2010; Sousa et al., 2011). There are are many contrasting findings regarding the role of gender, perhaps because of bias in researchers who focus on male perpetration and female victimization (Joseph, S., Govender, K., Bhagwanjee, A., 2006; Nowakowsi Sims, Noland, & Tejeda, 2008; Phillips & Phillips, 2010; Sousa et al., 2011).

Future studies on risk factors for intergenerational transmission of violence should work to help caseworkers distinguish the best interventions to prevent the intergenerational transmission of violence. The risk factors implicated by the research can be targeted during treatment to prevent future violence (Campbell & Lewandowski, 1997; DeBoard-Lucas & Grych, 2011; Ericksen & Henderson, 1992). One way in which aggression can be prevented is by moving the victim and child away from the abuser and providing the victim with therapy (Campbell & Lewandowski, 1997; DeBoard-Lucas & Grych, 2011; Ericksen & Henderson, 1992). Counselors can target gender stereotypes in addition to emotional regulation in order to teach children alternatives to violence (Nowakowsi Sims, Noland, & Tejeda, 2008; Phillips & Phillips, 2010). Having a securely attached bond with a sympathetic caregiver and increased social support can also promote resilience and lessen risk for some children (Joseph, S., Govender, K., Bhagwanjee, A., 2006; Sousa et al., 2011). In addition to proposing intervention plans, Future research should also work to improve on limitations by consulting third party observers like social workers, making use of longitudinal studies, and considering gender, age, SES, and co-occurring child abuse.

References

Alexander, P. C., Moore, S., & Alexander III, E. R. (1991). What is transmitted in the intergenerational transmission of violence? Journal of Marriage and the Family, 657-667.

Avakame, E. F. (1998). Intergenerational transmission of violence, self-control, and conjugal violence: A comparative analysis of physical violence and psychological aggression. Violence and victims, 13(3), 301-316.

Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. (1961). Transmission of aggression through the imitation of aggressive models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63(3), 575–582.

Bauer, N. S., Herrenkohl, T. I., Lozano, P., Rivara, F. P., Hill, K. G., & Hawkins, J. D. (2006). Childhood bullying involvement and exposure to intimate partner violence. Pediatrics, 118(2), 235-242.

Calvete, E., & Orue, I. (2013). Cognitive mechanisms of the transmission of violence: Exploring gender differences among adolescents exposed to family violence. Journal of Family Violence, 28(1), 73-84.

Campbell, J. C., & Lewandowski, L. A. (1997). Mental and physical health effects of intimate partner violence on women and children. Anger, Aggression, and Violence, 20(2), 353-374.

Cannon E. A., Bonomi, A. E., Anderson, M. L., & Rivara, F. P. (2009). The intergenerational transmission of witnessing intimate partner violence. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 163(8), 706-708.

Carroll, J. C. (1980). The intergenerational transmission of family violence: The long-term effects of aggressive behavior. Advances in Family Psychiatry.

Chamberland, C., Fortin, A., & Laporte, L., (2007). Establishing a relationship between behavior and cognition: Violence against women and children within the family. Journal of Family Violence, 22, 383-395.

Child Abuse Facts. (n.d.). Retrieved December 14, 2014, from http://www.safehorizon.org/page/child-abuse-facts-56.html

Dalley, T. (1990). Images and integration: Art therapy in a multicultural school. Working with children with art therapy, 161-198.

DeBoard-Lucas, R., & Grych, J. (2011). Children’s perceptions of intimate partner violence: Causes, consequences, and coping. Journal of Family Violence, 26(5), 343-354.

Dehon, C. & Weems, C. F. (2009). Emotional development in the context of conflict: The indirect effects of interparental violence on children. Journal of Child Family Studies, 19, 287-297.

Domestic Violence & Children. (n.d.). Retrieved December 14, 2014, from http://www.sanctuaryforfamilies.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=54&Itemid=83

Edleson, J. L., Ellerton, A. L., Seagren, E. A., Kirchberg, S. L., Schmidt, S. O., & Ambrose, A. T. (2007). Assessing child exposure to child exposure. Children and Youth Services Review, 29, 961-971.

Ericksen, J. R. & Henderson, A. D. (1992). Witnessing family violence: The children’s experience. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 17, 1200-1209.

Forsstrom-Cohen, B. & Rosenbaum, A. (1985). The effects of parental marital violence on young adults: An exploratory investigation. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 47(2), 467-472.

Graham-Bermann, S. A. & Brescoll, V. (2000). Gender, power, and violence: Assessing the family stereotypes of the children of batterers. Journal of Family Psychology, 14(4), 600-612.

Heyman, R. E. & Slep, A. M. S. (2002). Do child abuse and interparental violence lead to adulthood family violence. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 864-870.

Hines, D. A., & Saudino, K. J. (2002). Intergenerational transmission of intimate partner violence: A behavioral genetic perspective. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 3(3), 210-225.

Holt, S., Buckley, H., & Whelan, S. (2008). The impact of exposure to domestic violence on children and young people: A review of the literature. Child Abuse & Neglect, 32, 797-810.

Irish, L., Kobayashi, I., & Delahanty, D. L. (2009). Long-term physical health consequences of childhood sexual abuse: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, jsp118.

Iverson, K. M., McLaughlin, K. A., Adair, K. C., & Monson, C. M. (2014). Anger-related dysregulation as a factor linking childhood physical abuse and interparental violence to intimate partner violence experiences. Violence and Victims, 29(4), 564- 578.

Joseph, S., Govender, K., & Bhagwanjee, A. (2006). A phenomenological analysis of a sample of children’s coping responses to exposure to domestic violence. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 6(4), 23-45.

Levendosky, A. A., & Graham-Bermann, S. A. (2001). Parenting in battered women: The effects of domestic violence on women and their children. Journal of Family Violence, 16(2), 171-192.

Levinson R. M., Graves W. L., & Holcombe J. (1984). Cross-cultural variations in the definition of child abuse: nurses in the United States and the United Kingdom. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 21(1), 35-44

McCloskey, L. A. & Lichter, E. L. (2003). The contribution of marital violence to adolescent aggression across different relationships. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18(4), 360-412.

Mills, E., & Kellington, S. (2012). Using group art therapy to address the shame and silencing surrounding children’s experiences of witnessing domestic violence. International Journal of Art Therapy, 17(1), 3-12.

Milletich, R. J., Kelley, M. L., Doane, A. N., & Pearson, M. R. (2010). Exposure to interparental violence and childhood physical and emotional abuse as related to physical aggression in undergraduate dating relationships. Journal of Family Violence, 25, 627-637.

Nowakowski Sims, E., Noland Dodd, V. J., & Tejeda, M. J. (2008). The relationship between severity of violence in the home and dating violence. Journal of Forensic Nursing, 4, 166-173.

Pournaghash-Tehrani, S. (2011). The role of beliefs, attitudes, and adverse childhood experiences in predicting men’s reactions towards their spouses’ violence. Journal of Family Violence, 26, 93-99.

Phillips, B, & Phillips, D. A. (2010). Learning from youth exposed to domestic violence: Decentering DV and the primacy of gender stereotypes. Violence Against Women, 16(3), 291-312.

Samuelson, K. W., Krueger, C. E., & Wilson, C. (2012). Relationship between maternal emotion, regulation, parenting, and children’s executive functioning in families exposed to intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27(17), 3532-3550.

Sousa, C., Herrenkohl, T. I., Moylan, C. A., Tajima, E. A., Klika, J. B., Herrenkohl, R. C., & Russo, M. J. (2011). Longitudinal study on the effects of child abuse and children’s exposure to domestic violence, parent-child attachments, and antisocial behavior in adolescence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(1), 111-136.

Sternberg, K. J., Baradaran, L. P., Abbott, C. B., Lamb, M. E., & Guterman, E. (2006). Type of violence, age, and gender differences in the effects of family violence on children’s behavior problems: A meta analysis. Developmental Review, 26, 89-112.

Sternberg, K. J., Lamb, M. E., Greenbaum, C., Cicchetti, D., Dawud, S., Cortes, R. M., …Lorey, F. (1993). Effects of domestic violence on children’s behavior problems and depression. Developmental Psychology, 28(1), 44-52.

Whitfield, C. L., Anda, R. F., Dube, S. R., & Felitti, V. J. (2003). Violent childhood experiences and the risk of intimate partner violence in adults. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18(2), 166-185.

Wood, S. L., & Sommers, M. S. (2011). Consequences of intimate partner violence on child witnesses: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Child & Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing, 24(4), 223.