Relationship between child-to-parent violence and cumulative childhood adversity: the mediating role of parental attachment, resilience, and emotional intelligence.

Introduction: Recent research on aggressor profiles in child-to-parent violence (CPV) seems to provide promising results. However, this phenomenon has been poorly addressed in the adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) framework. This study aimed to explore the frequency of different types of ACEs and cumulative ACEs in adolescents who exert CPV, to analyze the differences between aggressors with different levels of cumulative ACEs in parental attachment, resilience, and emotional intelligence, and to evaluate the associations between these variables, as well as a possible mediational model. Methods: A total of 3,142 Spanish adolescents (50.7% girls) aged between 12 and 18 years from educational centers participated. Results: Adolescents who exerted CPV presented higher rates of ACEs both independently and cumulatively than those without CPV. Aggressors with cumulative ACEs (88%) in general presented more insecure parental attachment, lower resilience, and lower emotional intelligence than those without cumulative ACEs, and, in turn, aggressors with high levels of cumulative ACEs than those with low levels of cumulative ACEs. Significant associations were identified between CPV, ACEs, insecure parental attachment, resilience, and emotional intelligence. The mediation model suggested that ACEs are related to CPV through preoccupied and traumatized parental attachment and also through low levels of emotional intelligence. Discussion: The findings provide a better understanding of CPV from the perspective of ACEs, especially of those cases that involve an accumulation of adverse experiences during childhood, and suggest greater professional attention to these cases with the design of specialized CPV intervention programs.

Risk Factors in Specialists and Generalists of Child-to-Parent Violence: Gender Differences and Predictors of Reactive and Proactive Reasons.

Recent research on child-to-parent violence (CPV) is advancing in the analysis of the specialist profile (aggressors who show only CPV) and the generalist profile (aggressors who show peer violence in addition to CPV). However, although differences have been found between girls and boys in the risk factors for CPV, there are no studies that analyze these differences according to the type of aggressor. Likewise, the importance of identifying the factors that differentially predict reactive and proactive CPV has been noted but has not been examined in different types of aggressors. The aims of this study were to examine gender differences in CPV patterns, emotional intelligence, parental victimization, and parental permissiveness and to analyze whether these variables predict reactive and proactive CPV, both according to aggressor type. A total of 1559 Spanish CPV aggressors (54.6% females) aged between 12 and 18 years from educational centers participated in the study (22.4% exercised only CPV (specialists) and 77.6% exercised peer violence in addition to CPV (generalists)). In general, no differences were found between girls and boys in the specialist profile, but differences were found in the generalist profile. Specifically, generalist girls exercised more psychological and control/domain violence toward mothers, while boys exercised more physical violence toward fathers and had more parental permissiveness. In specialists, parental victimization predicted reactive CPV, while parental permissiveness predicted proactive CPV. In contrast, in generalists, both parental victimization and parental permissiveness predicted both reactive and proactive CPV. Low emotional regulation was a significant predictor in both cases. This study identifies differences among girls and boys in CPV risk factors and among variables that predict reactive and proactive CPV and that these results differ between specialist and generalist aggressors. Implications for research and professional practice are discussed, highlighting the need to design and implement prevention and intervention programs specialized in the type of aggressor, paying special attention to gender differences and to the factors that motivate one or the other type of CPV.

Child-to-parent Violence Offenders (Specialists vs. Generalists): The Role of Direct Victimization at Home / Menores con medidas judiciales por violencia filio-parental (especialistas vs. generalistas): el papel de la victimización directa en el hogar

Background/Objectives: Current research has identified direct victimization at home as one of the main predictors of child-to-parent violence (CPV). However, the mechanisms involved in this relationship have not been studied. Thus, we first analyze the differences between CPV offenders and offenders who have committed other types of offenses, as well as the differences between two types of CPV offenders: specialists (those who have only committed CPV) and generalists (those who have committed CPV in addition to other offenses), in multiple risk factors. Next, we specifically examine direct victimization at home and its relationship with social-cognitive processing in CPV. Method: The sample consisted of 208 Spanish young offenders recruited from the Juvenile Justice Service (163 males) aged 14-20 years. Concretely, 83 were CPV offenders, 126 other offenders and concerning the CPV group, 57 were specialists and 26 generalists. A wide range of individual, family, and social variables were evaluated. Results: Compared to other offenders, CPV offenders show more socio-cognitive difficulties, less parental warmth and more parental criticism/rejection, more direct victimization at home and more vicarious victimization at school and in the street. Specialist and generalist CPV offenders differ significantly in their characteristics, with the generalists showing a more negative profile than the specialists. (AU)

Antecedentes/Objetivos: La investigación actual ha identificado a la victimización directa en el hogar como uno de los principales predictores de la violencia filio-parental (VFP). Sin embargo, los mecanismos implicados en esta relación no han sido estudiados. Así, en el presente estudio analizamos, en primer lugar, las diferencias entre jóvenes infractores con delitos relacionados con la VFP y jóvenes infractores con otro tipo de delitos, así como las diferencias entre dos tipos de infractores: especialistas (los que han cometido sólo delitos relacionados con la VFP) y generalistas (los que han cometido delitos relacionados con la VFP y además otros delitos), en múltiples factores de riesgo. A continuación, examinamos específicamente la victimización directa en el hogar y su relación con el procesamiento socio-cognitivo en la VFP. Método: La muestra estuvo compuesta por 208 jóvenes infractores españoles reclutados en el Servicio de Justicia Juvenil (163 chicos) con edades comprendidas entre los 14 y los 20 años. Concretamente, 83 con delitos relacionados con la VFP (57 especialistas y 26 generalistas) y 126 con otros delitos. Se evaluó una amplia gama de variables individuales, familiares y sociales. Resultados: En comparación con otros infractores, los jóvenes con delitos relacionados con la VFP muestran más dificultades socio-cognitivas, menos calidez parental y más crítica/rechazo parental, más victimización directa en el hogar y más victimización vicaria en la escuela y en la calle. Los especialistas y generalistas difieren significativamente en sus características, mostrando los generalistas un perfil más negativo que los especialistas. (AU)

Unique and Additive Effects of Family and School Victimization on Child-to-Parent Violence.

In the study of child-to-parent violence (CPV), the perspective of the victimized aggressor has not been analyzed in depth, and the impact of different contexts of victimization even less so. The aim of this study was to examine the unique and additive effects of family victimization (direct and vicarious) and school victimization (bullying and cyberbullying) on predicting CPV toward fathers and mothers. The sample included 3,142 adolescents aged 12-18 years (M age = 14.32) from schools in southern Spain. The participants completed the Child-to-Parent Violence Questionnaire adolescent version, the Violence Exposure Scale, and the European Bullying/Cyberbullying Intervention Project Questionnaires. The findings showed that independently, both family and school victimization predicted CPV, with direct family victimization being the best predictor, and that jointly, contributed to a significant improvement in prediction, explaining approximately 20% of CPV. Furthermore, a correspondence was found between the type of violence experienced and the type of violence perpetrated. It is necessary to study the profile of the victimized aggressor in CPV in order to design interventions adapted to the specific needs of this profile.

Profile of the Victimized Aggressors in Child-to-Parent Violence: Differences According to the Type of Victimization.

Background/Objective: One of the main predictors of child-to-parent violence (CPV) is childhood victimization. Recent research indicates the need to study different types of CPV aggressors. However, the distinctive characteristics of the profile of the victimized aggressor and whether these characteristics differ according to the type of victimization have not been yet analyzed. Were examined differences between four types of CPV aggressors: with family victimization, with school victimization, with polyvictimization, and without victimization experiences. Method: A total of 1,559 Spanish adolescents aged between 12 and 18 years participated. Results: Compared to nonvictimized aggressors, victimized aggressors generally exercise more reactive and instrumental CPV and show more insecure parental attachment and less emotional and coping competencies. Additionally, among the types of victimization, polyvictimized aggressors show worse adjustment compared to those with a unique type of victimization. There are also significant differences according to the gender of the aggressor; however, the interaction effect between the type of aggressor and gender is not significant. Conclusions: Considering the profile of the victimized aggressor and the type of victimization experienced in CPV can provide valuable empirical information for the approach of differential explanatory mechanisms and for the design of prevention and intervention strategies adapted to the needs of this profile.

Antecedentes/Objetivo: Uno de los principales predictores de la violencia filio-parental (VFP) es la victimización infantil. Investigaciones recientes señalan la necesidad de estudiar diferentes tipos de agresores en la VFP. Sin embargo, todavía no se han analizado las características distintivas del perfil del agresor victimizado y si estas características también difieren según el tipo de victimización. Se examinaron diferencias entre cuatro tipos de agresores de VFP: con victimización familiar, con victimización escolar, con polivictimización y sin experiencias de victimización. Método: Participaron 1.559 adolescentes españoles con edades comprendidas entre 12 y 18 años. Resultados: El agresor victimizado, respecto al no victimizado, ejerce más VFP reactiva e instrumental, muestra un apego parental más inseguro y menos habilidades emocionales y de afrontamiento. Por tipos de victimización, los agresores polivictimizados muestran peor ajuste respecto a aquellos con un único tipo de victimización. Se encuentran diferencias significativas según el género de los agresores, sin embargo, el efecto de interacción entre el tipo de agresor y el género no fue significativo. Conclusiones: Considerar en la VFP el perfil del agresor victimizado, así como el tipo de victimización experimentada, puede proporcionar información empírica valiosa tanto para el planteamiento de mecanismos explicativos diferenciales como para el diseño de estrategias de prevención e intervención adaptadas a las necesidades de este perfil.

Differential Profile of Specialist Aggressor versus Generalist Aggressor in Child-to-Parent Violence.

Research on violence in general highlights the need to differentiate between those aggressors who only show specialized violence in the family context and those who also show generalized violence in other contexts outside the family. However, in the phenomenon of child-to-parent violence (CPV), the distinctive characteristics of this profile have not been yet analyzed. The aim of this study was to identify the typology of specialist aggressor versus the typology of generalist aggressor and examine whether they differ in their characteristics. A total of 1559 CPV aggressors participated, with ages between 12 and 18 years, of whom 22.4% exerted violence only towards parents (specialist aggressors) and 77.6% also exerted violence towards peers (generalist aggressors). The results show that specialized violence and generalized violence seem to follow different patterns according to age. The generalists were characterized by a more negative profile than the specialists. Specifically, the former showed more CPV and for more reasons, both reactive and proactive. Regarding individual characteristics, they obtained lower levels of emotional intelligence and resilience. Concerning family characteristics, they presented higher levels of insecure parental attachment and parental violence (direct and observed). The predictive variables retained in the regression model represented approximately 16.4% of the variation in the type of aggressor. This study supports the classification based on the specificity versus generality of violence, as it was found that specialist and generalist CPV aggressors differ significantly in their characteristics. It is considered that the findings could help to identify the differential mechanisms through which both types of aggressors have developed CPV. Further analysis of this profile can be of great use for the design of intervention and prevention programs adapted to the needs of each typology.

Profile of the Victimized Aggressor in Child-to-Parent Violence: Differences According to the Type of Victimization / Perfil del agresor victimizado en la violencia filio-parental: diferencias según el tipo de victimización

ResumenAntecedentes/Objetivo: Uno de los principales predictores de la violencia filio-parental (VFP) es la victimización infantil. Investigaciones recientes señalan la necesidad de estu-diar diferentes tipos de agresores en la VFP. Sin embargo, todavía no se han analizado las características distintivas del perfil del agresor victimizado y si estas características tam-bién difieren según el tipo de victimización. Se examinaron diferencias entre cuatro tipos de agresores de VFP: con victimización familiar, con victimización escolar, con polivicti-mización y sin experiencias de victimización. Método: Participaron 1.559 adolescentes españoles con edades comprendidas entre 12 y 18 años. Resultados: El agresor victimiza-do, respecto al no victimizado, ejerce más VFP reactiva e instrumental, muestra un apego parental más inseguro y menos habilidades emocionales y de afrontamiento. Por tipos de victimización, los agresores polivictimizados muestran peor ajuste respecto a aquellos con un único tipo de victimización. Se encuentran diferencias significativas se-gún el género de los agresores; sin embargo, el efecto de interacción entre el tipo de agresor y el género no fue significativo. Conclusiones: Considerar en la VFP el perfil del agresor victimizado, así como el tipo de victimización experimentada, puede proporcio-nar información empírica valiosa, tanto para el planteamiento de mecanismos explicati-vos diferenciales como para el diseño de estrategias de prevención e intervención adap-tadas a las necesidades de este perfil.

AbstractBackground/Objective: One of the main predictors of child-to-parent violence (CPV) is childhood victimization. Recent research indicates the need to study different types of CPV aggressors. However, the distinctive characteristics of the profile of the victimized aggressor and whether these characteristics differ according to the type of victimization have not been yet analyzed. Were examined differences between four types of CPV ag-gressors: with family victimization, with school victimization, with polyvictimization, and without victimization experiences. Method: A total of 1,559 Spanish adolescents aged between 12 and 18 years participated. Results: Compared to nonvictimized aggres-sors, victimized aggressors generally exercise more reactive and instrumental CPV and show more insecure parental attachment and less emotional and coping competencies. Additionally, among the types of victimization, polyvictimized aggressors show worse adjustment compared to those with a unique type of victimization. There are also signi-ficant differences according to the gender of the aggressor; however, the interaction effect between the type of aggressor and gender is not significant. Conclusions: Conside-ring the profile of the victimized aggressor and the type of victimization experienced in CPV can provide valuable empirical information for the approach of differential explana-tory mechanisms and for the design of prevention and intervention strategies adapted to the needs of this profile.