Domestic Violence Literature Review

This study was conducted to supplement empirical evidence on intergenerational effects of intimate partner violence (IPV), due to a lack of research in understanding how attitudes can play a part in violence being transmitted through generations. It was hypothesised that childhood exposure to violence is generalised to other forms of violence upon adulthood; there is gender-specificity in the effects of observing family violence; and the connection between childhood exposure to violence and adult IPV perpetration is facilitated by beliefs towards relationship violence.

303 male arrestees (46.53% were white, 53.47% non-white), with an average age of 31.27 years, made up the study sample. 40.26% of participants had observed IPV, 17.16% were victims of child abuse, 11.22% having both witnessed IPV and were victims of abuse and the remaining 11.55% did not experience child abuse or witness IPV. Questions on whether they committed IPV (limited to physical confrontation), their exposure to child physical abuse, if they had witnessed IPV (divided into no violence, two-way violence, father-only violence and mother-only violence), and their beliefs IPV justification were asked. The results showed that while witnessing IPV as a child did increase the chances of adulthood IPV perpetration, the highest likelihood of committing IPV were participants who had both observed and experienced familial violence. Additionally, the data collected showed that only exposure to two-way IPV increased the chance of committing IPV. Finally, results also showed that both witnesses and victims of familial violence were related to having beliefs supporting wife-beating. These results indicate that observational learning can be a factor in IPV perpetration, which shows the importance of looking at the causes of why IPV is committed, and parental role-specific influences.

Researchers concluded that IPV commission could be predicted by childhood experiences, although being a victim of child abuse did not relate to IPV perpetration; and observations of how parents treated each other had a greater effect on committing IPV than physical experiences of abuse. Limitations include the lack of contextual measures of childhood experiences, the use of only two measures of violence, and the lack of female IPV perpetrators.

Article 2: Characteristics of Domestic Violence Offenders: Associations with Childhood Exposure to Violence

With no known research separating offenders of domestic violence (DV) who witnessed violence from victims of child abuse, this study aimed to bridge this gap by looking at the differences among DV offenders who had/had not witnessed or were/were not victims of DV. It was hypothesised that there are variances in DV offenders who had witnessed, or were victims of DV, were not witness or victims of abuse, or were both witness and victims of abuse.

1099 male offenders (85% Africa-Americans, 14% Caucasians and 1% unknown or unreported race) required to go for assessment at a DV centre took part in this study, aged between 18 to 65 (mean age: 32). After completing a series of questionnaires related to their offence, the offender, and victim, participants were separated into four groups (neither, witnessed, abused, witnessed and abused) based on the type of experience to violence when young. They were then assessed on the degree of violent behaviour resulted from intimate partner violence to other types of criminal violence and non-violent criminal behaviour, through police reports and the Child Abuse Potential Inventory abuse scale score; and the frequency and intensity of DV, through a physical abuse questionnaire, taken from the Conflict Tactics Scale. Though the results showed no substantial association between childhood exposure to violence and the participants age, race and educational background, it was seen that participants who had both experienced and witnessed abuse as a child showed an increase in violent behaviour, and having seen and/or experienced when young increased the chances of perpetrating DV later in life. This supported the observational learning transmission of violence, where young witnesses and/or victims of violence learn conflict-solving and communication techniques through violence.

From this, it was seen that the type of DV exposure as a child affects the severity and frequency of DV committed as an adult, and offenders were highly likely to be both victims and witnesses to abuse, followed by victims of abuse closely matching witnesses to abuse, and finally had no DV exposure as a child. The results can be used in future studies looking at how DV offenders develop, and to attempt to prevent the intergenerational transmission of violence. The limitations include the lack of a comparison group comprising non-violent adults who had exposure to violence when young, the participants being non-representative of the population’s racial mix, and that cases of DV which were not arrested were not factored in.

Article 3: A Test of Social Learning and Intergenerational Transmission Among Batterers

This study was conducted due to a lack of representation of the social learning perspectives in explaining the root causes of domestic violence (DV), and its aim is to better understand how intergenerational transmission of violence is associated with the perpetration of DV. It was hypothesised that (1) experiencing childhood abuse and witnessing interparental violence (IPV) can cause IPV in adulthood, (2) the Social Learning Theory (SLT) can explain the beliefs behind IPV and (3) witnessing and experiencing family violence affects the beliefs that one has on IPV.

A total of 204 males (91 married, 110 single or divorced, and 3 unknown) took part in the study, with an average age of 34.53 years. They were asked how frequently they committed IPV (grouped into minor or severe physical violence), and the frequency in which they were witnesses, and/or victims of family violence. Different forms of social learning variables were also measured, namely differential association (by stating the level that their family and friends would dis/approve the use of threats/physical violence in a romantic relationship), imitation (by stating if their behaviours were influenced by their loved ones), definition (using a scale showing approval to definitions of IPV), and differential reinforcement (by questioning how participants predicted the responses of their family and friends towards IPV). Results showed that while experiencing minor DV as a child increased the chances of committing DV as an adult, witnessing DV as a child was not indicative of committing minor IPV on adulthood. However, victims of severe childhood abuse had a greater chance of adult IPV perpetration. Second, adult minor IPV was affected by same-sex observational learning, though the same could not be said for opposite-sex modelling, which was seen to inhibit IPV.

Researchers concluded that child abuse victims had a higher chance of committing IPV; observational learning and the intergenerational transmission of violence were associated but dissimilar instruments for IPV; and being around people who commit domestic abuse during childhood increased the IPV perpetration rate. This meant that future research can look into other theories that support intergenerational transmission of violence. Limitations include the lack of racial representation, the small sample size, and the study being conducted in only one locality.

References

Eriksson, L., & Mazerolle, P. (2015). A cycle of violence? Examining family-of-origin violence, attitudes and intimate partner violence perpetration. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30(6), 945-964. doi: 10.1177/0886260514539759

Murrell, A. R., Christoff, K. A., & Henning, K. R. (2007). Characteristics of domestic violence offenders: associations with childhood exposure to violence. Journal of Family Violence, 22(9), 523-532. doi: 10.1007/s10896-007-9100-4

Wareham, J., Boots, D. P., & Chavez J. M. (2009). A test of social learning and intergenerational transmission among batterers. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37(2), 163-173. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2009.02.011

Part 2: Oral Presentation

YouTube URL