Journal of Family Violence

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-019-00102-x

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Exposure to Family Violence and Adolescent Aggression in Multiple

Social Contexts: Classroom Social Resources as Moderators
Laura Beckmann 1

# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Abstract
Using a risk and resilience framework, the present study examined perceived classroom social resources (teacher control, teacher-
student support, and supportive student-student relationships) as moderators of the association between family violence (parent-
to-child physical violence, intimate partner violence (IPV) between parents) and aggression toward parents, schoolteachers, and
dating partners. Data were drawn from a large self-report school survey of ninth grade students in Lower Saxony, Germany (n =
10,638) from which three subsamples were generated (n = 3548, n = 3534, and n = 4351). Controlling for demographic,
behavioral, and school factors, results showed that parent-to-child physical violence was consistently related to aggression across
social contexts, while IPV showed significant associations with adolescent-to-parent physical aggression. Against expectations,
teacher control was linked with more frequent verbal aggression toward dating partners, while teacher-student suppport was
associated with lower verbal aggression across contexts as well as with lower physical aggression toward dating partners.
Supportive student-student relationships were associated with less frequent verbal aggression toward parents and dating partners
as well as with less frequent physical aggression toward teachers. Furthermore, three significant interaction terms were identified:
Students exposed to more frequent IPV and perceiving higher-quality classroom resources (teacher control and supportive
student-student relationships) reported less aggression toward parents than at-risk students who perceived classroom resources
as low. Intervention programs may benefit from an approach that aims to reduce exposure to violence in the family, while
targeting the buffering potential of teacher control and student-student relationships regarding aggression toward parents.

Keywords Family violence . Intimate partner violence . Child-to-parent violence . Social resources . Moderators . Classroom
climate

Representing pervasive public health issues of global concern, the family-of-origin have been frequently highlighted as crit-
aggressive acts perpetrated by adolescents toward their par- ical determinants for aggressive behavior. Two of the most
ents (O’Hara et al. 2017), schoolteachers (Longobardi et al. commonly studied risk factors for aggression are parent-to-
2019), and dating partners (Leen et al. 2013) have received child physical violence and intimate partner violence (IPV)
increasing attention from public health officials and scholars. involving parents or caregivers.
Researchers have increasingly sought to gain a greater under- Abundant evidence has demonstrated that exposure to
standing of the developmental antecedents to adolescent ag- these two forms of family violence has immediate and perva-
gression in various social environments. Relying on social sive effects on child development (Gershoff and Grogan-
learning theory (Bandura 1977) and developmental- Kaylor 2016; Wathen and MacMillan 2013). Studies based
interactional models (Hawkins and Weis 1985), factors in on community and offender samples of adolescents have more
specifically documented links between parent-to-child physi-
cal violence and/or exposure to IPV between parents and ag-
gression toward relevant agents of socialization, including
* Laura Beckmann
laubeckm@gmail.com parents (Gámez-Guadix and Calvete 2012; Hong et al.
2012; Margolin and Baucom 2014), schoolteachers
1
Criminological Research Institute of Lower Saxony, Lützerodestraße (Douglas and Lyon 1999), and dating partners (Cascardi and
9, 30161 Hanover, Germany Jouriles 2018).
 J Fam Viol

Despite evidence suggesting that exposure to parent-to- 2008) more specifically addresses the compensating potential
child physical violence and IPV are important risk factors of of social environments beyond the family sphere (see also
aggression in various social contexts, many adolescents who Mortimer and Call 2001, p. 20). Thereby, it allows for the
have been faced with such adversities do not become conceptualization of schools as a means to recover and renew
perpetrators of aggression. For instance, Kinsfogel and from stressors encountered in the family.
Grych (2004) found in their community sample of adolescents As key indicators of school social climate, teacher control,
aged 14–18 years that while 63% of their sample reported teacher-student support as well as supportive relationships
witnessing IPV between parents, only about 20% reported with classmates have been related to improved adjustment in
TDV perpetration in their own romantic relationships. students (e.g., Demaray et al. 2005; McGrath and van Bergen
Taking up the point that an ‘even’ or average effect of 2015; Silver et al. 2005). In contrast, when such relationships
family adversities is generally not met, theoretical frameworks include high levels of conflict and lower levels of closeness
of risk and resilience (Rutter 1985; Lösel and Farrington and caring, they can contribute to aggression and other con-
2012) emphasize the need to study factors that may buffer duct problems (Obsuth et al. 2018). Ibabe et al. (2013) found
the impact of adversities on adjustment outcomes. for a sample of Spanish students aged 12–16 years that both
Interdisciplinary research has identified a broad range of fac- positive family and classroom environments (including teach-
tors that have the potential to mitigate effects of family adver- er support and student friendship and mutuality) had direct
sities (Miller-Lewis et al. 2013). Besides individual and family effects on adolescents’ violence against authority (parent and
resources, close attachments to other adults and prosocial in- teacher abuse).
stitutions such as school have been discussed as protective. In Although classrooms can help adolescents master poten-
particular, classroom social resources, such as teacher control tially stressful changes and experiences in the family (Ludy-
and supportive relationships with teachers and classmates rep- Dobson and Perry 2010; Miller-Lewis et al. 2013), features of
resent potentially compensatory resources for aggressive indi- the classroom social ecology have so far received little atten-
viduals (Meehan et al. 2003; Wang et al. 2013). tion for explaining variations in adolescent aggression in var-
Prior research on the role of classroom social resources for ious social contexts. Assessing the moderating role of teacher-
adolescent aggression is affected by some important short- student relationships in the link between low effortful control
comings: First, the majority of studies focus on elementary and parent-adolescent conflict on adolescent depression and
school children (e.g., Maldonado-Carreño and Votruba-Drzal misconduct within a sample of 1400 urban youth, Wang et al.
2011), while little research has been conducted on adolescent (2013) found that positive teacher-student relationships buff-
samples (e.g., Ibabe et al. 2013; Obsuth et al. 2017). Second, ered the negative influences of adolescents’ early poor effort-
most extant studies focus on school adjustment outcomes ful control and conflictive parent-adolescent relationships on
(Wentzel et al. 2016), while little is known on aggression misconduct. In a more recent study, Vaughan-Jensen et al.
toward major socializing agents (for an exception, see e.g., (2018) analyzed the buffering role of caring relationships with
Berg and Cornell 2016 on aggression toward teachers). teachers concerning the child maltreatment-violence-nexus.
Third and most importantly, limited knowledge exists on They found a limited buffering effect of teacher care, which
whether classroom social resources can mitigate the harmful was reflected in a slight reduction of the positive effect of child
impact of family violence on aggressive outcomes. While physical abuse on adolescent violence. The authors note that
some efforts have already been made in identifying compen- the weak effect might be due to an insufficiently robust mea-
sating effects of school factors in the context of stressful home sure of the construct.
environments and adolescent delinquency (Hoffmann and
Dufur 2008), more research is needed on the buffering poten-
tial of such social resources in the context of aggression in Cross-Domain Risk Factors of Family Violence
specific social domains in order to better inform treatment and Adolescent Aggression
and interventions for at-risk individuals.
The broader social environment within which adolescents de-
velop also needs to be considered when studying adolescent
The Moderating Role of Classroom Social aggression toward major agents of socialization. With regard
Resources to individual characteristics, available data suggest a curvilin-
ear relationship with age, at least with regard to physical ag-
According to risk and resilience frameworks (Rutter 1985; gression toward dating partners (Johnson et al. 2014).
Lösel and Farrington 2012), social resources are able to foster Findings on gender are somewhat inconclusive and depend
individual coping in the face of risk. Acknowledging the in- on the type of aggression studied: While adolescent-to-
creasing engagement of adolescents to the school and the peer teacher aggression has been associated with male gender
group, the ‘arena of comfort’-hypothesis (Simmons and Blyth (Chen and Astor 2009; Khoury-Kassabri et al. 2009), it is
J Fam Viol

generally established that boys show a higher propensity of The Current Study
engaging in more severe forms of dating violence compared to
girls (Muñoz-Rivas et al. 2007). Evidence from both commu- Addressing an important gap in the literature, the current study
nity and clinical samples shows, however, higher physical examined the degree to which perceived social resources in
(O’Leary et al. 2008; Wincentak et al. 2017) and verbal the classroom (teacher control, teacher-student support, and
(Haynie et al. 2013) perpetration rates in girls compared to supportive student-student relationships) attenuate the rela-
boys. In community samples of adolescents, higher rates tionship between family adversity (parent-to-child physical
of verbal aggression toward parents have been observed violence and exposure to IPV between parents) and adolescent
in females (Calvete et al. 2013), while equal perpetra- aggression toward parents, schoolteachers, and dating part-
tion rates of physical aggression have been identified ners. In doing so, we drew on a large sample of ninth grade
across gender (e.g., Gámez-Guadix and Calvete 2012). students in Germany (n = 10,638). Due to a general lack of
In some national (Walsh and Krienert 2007), clinical empirical findings on the relative associations between family
(Kennedy et al. 2010), and offender (Routt and Anderson violence and adolescent aggression in different social con-
2011) samples, however, boys physically assaulted their par- texts, we were largely unspecific about potential differences
ents more frequently than girls. A general overrepresentation depending on the type of target. Nevertheless, some prior
of males who are adjudicated may explain the higher preva- findings on adolescent aggression against authority indicate
lence of males in forensic samples (Kuay et al. 2016). that adverse family characteristics (i.e., family conflict) are
Furthermore, clinical samples are more often composed of more strongly correlated with adolescent-to-parent-
high-risk individuals, who are more (physically) aggressive aggression (r = .34, p < .001) than with adolescent-to-
compared to community samples. teacher aggression (r = .24, p < .001, see Ibabe et al. 2013).
Furthermore, high risk-seeking as part of the concept Therefore, we expected that exposure to family violence
of low self-control by Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) would be most strongly associated with adolescent aggression
has been frequently related to aggression in adolescents, in the same context, that is, toward parents. From the theoret-
as well as to higher exposure rates to family adversities ical and empirical findings outlined above, the following hy-
(Willems et al. 2018). Self-report school surveys among potheses were derived:
students in Germany further indicate that migration
background constitutes an important risk factor for Hypothesis 1a: Exposure to family violence (parent-to-
physical aggression (Rabold and Baier 2011), although child physical violence and IPV between parents) is as-
not in the context of adolescent-to-parent aggression sociated with more frequent verbal and physical aggres-
(Beckmann et al. 2017). The affiliation to certain ethnic sion toward parents, schoolteachers, and dating partners.
groups in Germany may be associated with increased Hypothesis 1b: The relationship between exposure to
aggression toward dating partners, reflecting potential family violence and aggression is strongest for
differences in gender roles and cultural normativeness adolescent-to-parent aggression.
of violence (Idema and Phalet 2007). Hypothesis 2: Perceived classroom social resources (teach-
With regard to structural family conditions, single-parent er control, teacher-student support, and supportive student-
families (Foshee et al. 2008; Ibabe and Jaureguizar 2010) as student relationships) are associated with less frequent ver-
well as families with low socioeconomic status (SES) (Lewis bal and physical aggression across social contexts.
and Fremouw 2001; Piotrowska et al. 2015) have been iden- Hypothesis 3: High levels of perceived classroom social
tified with a higher occurrence of adolescent aggression and resources (as indicated by high levels of teacher control,
ineffective parenting (e.g., Conger et al. 2010), although find- teacher-student support, and supportive student-student
ings on the link between aggression and family SES are mixed relationships) offset the impact of family violence on ag-
with regard to physical aggression toward parents (Simmons gression across social contexts.
et al. 2018). Concerning school characteristics, lower academ-
ic track classrooms are often characterized by more disruptive
and antisocial behaviors among students than are higher Materials and Methods
school tracks, which may also reflect disadvantaged socio-
economic positions (Rabold and Baier 2011). Participants
Finally, classroom size may be influential for both
aggression and perceived classroom resources, since Data stem from a large school survey conducted in the spring
small classrooms permit closer supervision of students of 2015 among ninth grade students in Lower Saxony,
as well as the establishment of a greater sense of com- Germany (Bergmann et al. 2017), which focused on adoles-
munity, which may be related to lower aggression cent aggressive, deviant and delinquent behavior as well as
(Leithwood and Jantzi 2009). their multi-contextual determinants. The survey was
 J Fam Viol

authorized by the state school authorities of Lower Saxony once or twice (2), three to five times (3), six to ten times (4),
and was conducted in compliance with agreed-upon ethical and more than ten times (5)]. Items on verbal aggression mea-
standards, including informed consent, strict anonymity sured how often respondents “insulted or swore at” their
concerning data generation and processing, as well was con- mother and father, and how often they “verbally threatened”
fidentiality of the research team in all stages of the project. For her and him (r = .53, Cronbach’s α = .76). Physical
the survey, school classes were randomly drawn (stratified aggression was measured by asking how often adolescents
sampling according to school types) from all classes taught had “pushed, grabbed or shoved” their mother and father,
in the school year 2014/2015 (with the exception of special and how often they “hit [her or him] with their fist or kicked
needs schools with another focus than learning) of the ninth [her or him]” (r = .53, Cronbach’s α = .67). Exploratory factor
grade in Lower Saxony. A total of K = 672 school classes was analyses (see, for example, Fabrigar et al. 1999) using the
selected for the survey. Due to the refusal of school principals iterated principal-factor method revealed that all items belong-
and teachers to participate, the final class sample was reduced ing to one type of aggression loaded on a common factor (all
to k = 545 classes (corresponding to a participation rate of factor loadings ≥ .52). To construct the two variables on
81.4% at class level). Of the N = 12,650 students from these adolescent-to-parent physical and verbal aggression, the items
school classes who were targeted, n = 10,638 took part in the were first recoded so that the value 0 was assigned in the case
survey (corresponds to a participation rate of 84.1% at student of no perpetration, and the value 4 if perpetration occurred
level). The reasons for non-participation were illness (n = more than ten times. Second, based on the highest value re-
905), lack of parental consent (n = 434), own refusal (n = ported across both parents, two sum scores across all items
255), non-usability (n = 51) and other reasons (n = 367; e.g. belonging to one form of aggression were built (each 0–8).
rewriting of class tests, participation in school events). School
principals, as well as parents, were contacted in the form of a Adolescent-to-Teacher Aggression Verbal aggression toward
letter containing information regarding the content and scope teachers was assessed by the two items “In the last 12 months,
of the study. Both could decline participation. Interviews were I insulted a teacher” and “In the last 12 months, I verbally
only carried out if the respective school principal and class threatened a teacher” (r = .52, Cronbach’s α = .63). Physical
teacher consented to the survey. Students and parents were aggression toward teachers was measured by the following
informed about the voluntary and anonymous nature of the three items: “In the last 12 months, I tackled or pushed a
study and were given the right to refuse participation, or the teacher”, “In the last 12 months, I hit a teacher with the
answering of single items. Students filled out self- hand/fist or kicked a teacher”, and “In the last 12 months, I
administered written questionnaires anonymously and volun- hit a teacher with an object” (rall > = .45, Cronbach’s α = .73).
tarily in their school class in the presence of a teacher and an Exploratory factor analyses showed that all items belonging to
instructed test leader (about 90 min). All measures were one type of aggression loaded on a common factor (all factor
deemed suitable for students with migration background and loadings ≥ .51). The answer format ranged from never (1) to
students in lower school tracks in terms of language, since more than ten times (5) and was recoded so that 0 indicated no
item formulations were easy to understand and culture-unspe- aggression toward teachers, while 4 indicated perpetration of
cific. Due to the modularized structure of the questionnaire in more than ten times. Then, a sum score was constructed for
light of the variety of topics, one third of all respondents were verbal (0–8) and physical (0–8) aggression toward teachers.
given the questions on adolescent-to-parent (n = 3548) and
adolescent-to-teacher aggression (n = 3534), whereas all re- Adolescent-to-Partner Aggression To measure aggression to-
spondents had the possibility to answer the items on aggres- ward dating partners, a German translation of the short form of
sion toward dating partners. Of these, only those were kept the Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory
who had a partner in the last 12 months before the survey (CADRI; Wolfe et al. 2001), the CADRI-S, was used. The
(n = 4351). instrument includes 10 items from the perpetrator’s and vic-
tim’s perspective, including two items each on emotional/
Measures verbal violence, threatening, relational violence, physical vio-
lence, and sexual violence (Fernández-González et al. 2014).
Dependent Variables For this study, we only used the items on emotional/verbal
violence (“I insulted my partner” and “I approached my part-
Adolescent-to-Parent Aggression Adolescent-to-parent ag- ner in a mean or hostile tone”) and physical violence (“I
gression was measured by a short and adapted German ver- kicked my partner, beat him or her, or punched him or her”
sion of the Conflict Tactics Scale I (CTS, Straus 1979) that and “I slapped my partner in the face or pulled his or her
included four items on physical and verbal aggression toward hair”). The four-step answer format contained the answer pos-
parents during the last 12 months. Answers were given sepa- sibilities never (1), once or twice (2), three to five times (3) and
rately for mothers and fathers on a 5-point scale [never (1), 6 times or more often (4). These were recoded so that they
J Fam Viol

ranged from 0 to 3. In the development study (Fernández- moderately with each other (r = .49), so a mean scale was
González et al. 2014), an appropriate internal consistency constructed (Cronbach’s α = .57). All items loaded on
(Cronbach’s α = .85; in the present study α = .72 from the a common factor ≥ .53).
perpetrator’s perspective) as well as pronounced correlations
(rtt = .80 to .91 for the total sample [high school]) with the Teacher-Student Support This variable was measured by the
long form were identified found for the CADRI-S. In order to following two items: “The teachers in my school treat us fairly
construct the measures of verbal and physical adolescent-to- and respect us” and “The teachers in my school speak about
partner aggression, the two items belonging to each dimension problems frankly with us and look together with us for solu-
were summed up (0–6). tions” [disagree (1), somewhat disagree (2), somewhat agree
(3), totally agree (4)]. Both items correlated moderately with
Key Independent Variables: Family Violence Variables each other (r = .50) and were combined to a mean scale
(Cronbach’s α = .66). Again, exploratory factor analysis
Parent-to-Child Physical Violence This variable was assessed showed that all items strongly loaded on a common factor (≥
by a retrospective and short German version of the Conflict .61).
Tactics Scale I (Straus 1979). Adolescents reported the fre-
quency of their mother’s and/or father’s use of physical vio- Supportive Student-Student Relationships Perceived quality
lence against them before the age of twelve, indicating how of student-student relationships was assessed by four items
often they had been “slapped or spanked”, “pushed, grabbed measuring the extent to which there was a feeling of togeth-
or shoved”, “thrown something at”, “hit with something”, “hit erness within the school class (“We stick together in my
with a fist or kicked”, or “beaten up”. Response options were class”, “If a classmate is in a bad way, we’ll take care of
never (1), once or twice (2), three to twelve times (3), several him”, “In case of dispute, we try to solve problems together”,
times a month (4), once a week (5), several times a week (6). and “I have great faith in my classmates”, Cronbach’s α =
The items were first recoded so that the value 0 was assigned .77). Items were also assessed on a 4-point scale [disagree
in the case of no exposure, and the value 5 if exposure oc- (1), somewhat disagree (2), somewhat agree (3), totally agree
curred “several times a week”. Second, a new variable was (4)] and loaded on a common factor (≥ .62).
constructed for each item, based on the highest value reported
across both parents. In a third step, a sum score of parent-to- Control Variables
child physical violence was built from the six items, ranging
from 0 to 30 (Cronbach’s α = .88). Iterated principal-factor Sociodemographic indicators included age (in years), sex
analysis revealed that all items loaded on a common factor (all [female (0), male (1)], four dummy variables on ethnic back-
factor loadings ≥ .50). ground, including the two largest migrant groups in Lower
Saxony (German, Turkish, Former Soviet Union/Eastern
Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) between Parents To measure European, and Other with German as the contrast category),
IPV between parents or caregivers, respondents were asked to family structure [no single parent-household (0), single-par-
answer two items on the extent to which they witnessed phys- ent household (1)], socioeconomic status [no social welfare
ical acts of aggression between their parents within the past 12 dependence (0), social welfare dependence (1)], school type
months. The items assessed how often “one parent pushed the (low [Special education schools and lower secondary school
other around or shook him/her hard”, and how often “parents (Hauptschule)] (1), medium [intermediate secondary school,
beat each other up” (Cronbach’s α =. 79). Answer categories (Realschule)], integrated secondary schools (Gesamtschule,
ranged from never (1) to several times a week (6), which were Oberschule, integrierte Haupt-und Realschule) (2), and high
recoded so that they ranged from 0 to 5. To build this measure, [upper secondary school (Gymnasium)] (3). Respondents
a sum scale was constructed across the two items (0–10). All were considered to have a migration background if they or
items strongly loaded on a common factor ≥ .77). their parents had a citizenship other than German or if they
or their parents were born in a country other than Germany.
Key Independent Variables: Classroom Social Resource Risk-seeking was measured by the mean score of four items
Variables derived from Grasmick et al. (1993) self-control scale (“I like
to test my limits by doing something dangerous”, “I some-
Teacher Control Perceived level of teacher control was mea- times like to do things which could endanger myself”, “I like
sured by two items: “The teachers intervene when violence to take a risk, just because it’s fun”, “Excitement and adven-
occurs between students”, and “The teachers look away when ture are more important to me than safety”). Items were
there are fights between students (reverse-coded)”, whereby assessed on a four-point scale [disagree (1), somewhat
answer categories were disagree (1), somewhat disagree (2), disagree (2), somewhat agree (3), totally agree (4)], whereby
somewhat agree (3), totally agree (4). Both items correlated high values on the scale indicated high risk-seeking.
 J Fam Viol

Cronbach’s α for the scale was .86, indicating good internal relationship and (b) have had a partner within the past 12
consistency. Iterated principal-factor analysis revealed that all months before the survey were kept (sample at risk). Of the
items strongly loaded on a common factor (all factor loadings 10,326 respondents with valid information on the initial ques-
≥ .79). Finally, class size reflected the number of students with tion of whether or not they ever had a boyfriend or girlfriend at
valid data within each classroom (4–31). some point in time, 6638 (64.3%) answered yes. Of all respon-
dents who have ever been in a dating relationship, 2287 re-
ported that they had no partner in the last 12 months. This
Analytical Strategy reduced the sample at risk to n = 4351 students. For the anal-
yses, we excluded classrooms for which data was available for
In a first step, prevalence rates of each type of aggression less than three students (n = 5), which reduced the adolescent-
suffered and perpetrated by adolescents are presented based to-parent-aggression sample to n = 3543 respondents, the
on the “zero tolerance” criterion (including “once or twice”) adolescent-to-teacher-aggression sample to n = 3529 respon-
and the technical abuse criterion (with a response of “three to dents, and the adolescent-to-partner-aggression sample to n =
five times”/“three to twelve times” or more in terms of fre- 4350 respondents. The mean age of the total analysis sample
quency to any indicator, see also Ibabe et al. 2016). In a sec- was 14.9 years (SD = .73), 50.2% were male, 24.2% had a
ond step, variable descriptives and spearman correlations are migration background, and 7.8% were dependent on social
presented, followed by the results of linear regression models. welfare.
To account for the hierarchical data structure of students
nested within classrooms, models with clustered standard er-
rors were employed. Missing data were addressed by using Results
full-information maximum likelihood (FIML) estimation
within the sem-command of Stata 14.2. Control variables Prevalence of Aggression in Multiple Social Contexts
and key independent variables were added in a hierarchical
fashion: In a first step, adolescent aggression was regressed on Table 1 shows that 14.8% of students had suffered technical
the set of control variables. In a second and third step, the physical abuse by parents (with a response of “three to twelve
family violence measures and classroom social resource vari- times” or higher). If we take into account the “zero tolerance”
ables were added. Fourth and fifth, interaction terms between criterion (including “once or twice”), the overall percentage
each classroom social resource and family violence variable rises to 41.2%. With regard to IPV, 1.7% of the respondents
were added in separate models. In case of significant interac- reported exposure to technical abuse between their parents.
tions, values at 1 standard deviation above and below the This percentage amounts to 4.7% if we consider the “zero
mean level of each moderator were used to calculate the sim- tolerance” criterion. Furthermore, 42.0% of adolescents re-
ple slopes, conducted as recommended by Holmbeck (2002). ported at least one act of verbal aggression toward their par-
For the analyses with dating violence as the dependent ents in the past 12 months, while 4.4% reported at least one act
variable, only respondents who (a) have ever been in a dating of physical aggression (“zero tolerance”). Applying the

Table 1 Prevalence Rates of

Aggression in Multiple Social Technical abuse criterion1 “Zero tolerance” criterion2
Contexts and Exposure to Family
Violence n % n %

Dependent variables
Adolescent-to-parent aggression – verbal a 500 14.1 1489 42.0
Adolescent-to-parent aggression – physical a 48 1.4 154 4.4
Adolescent-to-teacher aggression – verbal a 84 2.4 382 10.8
Adolescent-to-teacher aggression – physical a 13 0.4 32 0.9
Adolescent-to-partner aggression – verbal a 617 15.3 2073 51.3
Adolescent-to-partner aggression – physical a 89 2.2 351 8.7
Independent variables
Parent-to-child physical violence (PCV) b 1539 14.8 4277 41.2
Intimate partner violence (IPV) a 169 1.7 456 4.7
a
in the last 12 months; b during childhood (prior to age 12); 1 response category “three to five times”/“three to
twelve times” or higher in terms of frequency to any indicator; 2 response category “once or twice” or higher in
terms of frequency to any indicator; data are unweighted
J Fam Viol

technical abuse criterion, these rates decrease to 14.1% and except for adolescent-to-parent verbal aggression and teacher
1.4%, respectively. With regard to adolescent-to-teacher ag- control. Furthermore, both forms of family violence were pos-
gression, 10.8% perpetrated verbal and 0.9% physical aggres- itively associated with each other (r = .220, p < .001), which
sion at least once. More than half of the sample (51.3%) en- was also the case for the three classroom social resource var-
gaged in verbal dating violence within the past 12 months, iables (from r = .264, p < .001 to r = .407, p < .001).
while 8.7% perpetrated physical dating violence. Table 2
shows that adolescents who met the technical abuse criterion Results from Regression Models
in relation to the two types of family violence consistently
scored higher on aggression toward parents, schoolteachers, Table 4 presents the results from linear regression models on
and dating partners than those identified by the “zero toler- adolescent aggression in the three social contexts, whereby
ance” criterion, except for physical adolescent-to-teacher ag- both unstandardized (b) and standardized (ß) coefficients are
gression. All differences between the two groups were statis- shown. In Step 1 of each set of models, each dependent var-
tically significant with regard to parent-to-child physical vio- iable was regressed on the set of control variables. The rela-
lence but not in the case of IPV, where only group differences tionships were as expected for most variables, although not
in physical adolescent-to-parent aggression were statistically every relationship was statistically significant. In Step 2, the
significant (p < .01). two key independent variables on family violence were added.
In partial support for Hypothesis 1a, parent-to-child physical
Zero-Order Correlations violence was significantly related to verbal (b = .130, ß = .262,
p < .001) and physical (b = .037, ß = .206, p < .001) aggres-
Table 3 displays the means, standard deviations, and correla- sion toward parents, to verbal (b = .025, ß = .103, p < .001)
tion matrix of the dependent and key independent variables. aggression toward teachers as well as to both verbal (b = .034,
To handle non-normal distribution of variables, spearman cor- ß = .090, p < .001) and physical (b = .018, ß = .100, p < .001)
relations were employed. All aggression measures were pos- aggression toward dating partners. IPV showed only one sig-
itively correlated with each other, whereby the highest corre- nificant relationship with physical aggression toward parents
lations were observed between verbal and physical aggression (b = .109, ß = .156, p < .01). In line with Hypotheses 1b, the
measures within the same social context (adolescent-to-parent relationship between exposure to family violence and aggres-
aggression: r = .277, p < .001; adolescent-to-teacher aggres- sion was strongest for adolescent-to-parent aggression. In Step
sion: r = .210, p < .001; adolescent-to-partner aggression: r = 3, the three classroom resource variables were added as main
.333, p < .001). Aggression across contexts was positively and effects. The results partially corroborated Hypothesis 2, show-
significantly correlated with the two variables on family vio- ing that teacher-student support was significantly linked with
lence, except for the relationship between adolescent-to- less frequent verbal aggression across social contexts as well
teacher verbal aggression and IPV (from r = .072, p < .001 as with lower physical aggression toward dating partners.
to r = .277, p < .001). Verbal and physical aggression were Supportive student-student relationships were associated
furthermore inversely correlated with classroom social re- with less frequent verbal aggression toward parents and
sources (from r = −.034, p < .05 to r = −.150, p < .001), dating partners, as well as with less frequent physical

Table 2 Adolescent Aggression in Multiple Social Contexts by Exposure Level to Family Violence

Parent-to-child physical violence (PCV) Intimate partner violence (IPV)

Technical abuse “Zero tolerance” Technical abuse “Zero tolerance”

criterion1 criterion2 criterion1 criterion2

M SD M SD M SD M SD

Adolescent-to-parent aggression – verbal 1.68 c 2.09 1.24 1.66 1.67 2.29 1.58 2.07
Adolescent-to-parent aggression – physical .31 c .99 .17 .71 .65 b 1.43 .36 .10
Adolescent-to-teacher aggression – verbal .41 c 1.07 .25 .79 .22 .60 .20 .60
Adolescent-to-teacher aggression – physical .08 a .58 .04 .43 .07 .38 .10 .63
Adolescent-to-partner aggression – verbal 1.48 c 1.65 1.29 1.50 1.71 1.73 1.53 1.60
Adolescent-to-partner aggression – physical .35 c .97 .24 .77 .43 1.02 .40 1.00
1
response category “three to five times”/“three to twelve times” or higher in terms of frequency to any indicator; 2 response category “once or twice” or
higher in terms of frequency to any indicator; a difference between the groups significant at p < .05; b difference between the groups significant at p < .01;
c
difference between the groups significant at p < .001; data are unweighted
 J Fam Viol

Table 3 Mean, Standard Deviation, and Spearman Correlations Between Study Variables

Variable Range M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. AParA – Verbal 0–8 .82 1.36

2. AParA – Physical 0–8 .08 .49 .277***
3. AteaA – Verbal 0–8 .18 .66 .213*** .123***
4. AteaA – Physical 0–8 .02 .30 .044** .158*** .210***
5. APartA – Verbal 0–6 1.01 1.35 .182*** .076** .131*** .031
6. APartA – Physical 0–6 .16 .64 .100*** .104*** .129*** .055* .333***
7. PCV 0–30 1.27 2.89 .277*** .200*** .138*** .072*** .191*** .166***
8. IPV 0–10 .11 .68 .094*** .162*** .027 .085*** .108*** .112*** .220***
9. Teacher control 1–4 3.41 .62 −.034 −.050** −.094*** −.037* −.056*** −.065*** −.087*** −.061***
10. Teacher-student support 1–4 2.84 .66 −.111*** −.046** −.133*** −.034* −.144*** −.081*** −.122*** −.038*** .394***
11. Supportive SSR 1–4 2.68 .67 −.069*** −.041* −.101*** −.055** −.150*** −.067*** −.142*** −.079*** .264*** .407***
*
p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001; pairwise correlations are shown; AParA = Adolescent-to-parent aggression; ATeaA = Adolescent-to-teacher
aggression; APartA = Adolescent-to-partner aggression; PCV = Parent-to-child physical violence; IPV = Intimate partner violence (between parents);
STR = Student-teacher relationships; SSR = Student-student relationships; data are unweighted

aggression toward school teachers. Unexpectedly, teacher steepest at low-quality classroom resources, suggesting that
control was related to more frequent verbal aggression toward the strongest relationship between IPV and verbal aggression
dating partners. In Step 4 a-c, three two-way interaction terms toward parents is in those individuals who perceive low sup-
with parent-to-child physical violence and each classroom re- port by classmates or low teacher control. At high frequencies
source variable were added separately. None of these was, of IPV, low-quality classroom social resources resulted in the
however, statistically significant. Finally, Step 5 a-c intro- highest perpetration rates of verbal aggression toward parents.
duced two-way interaction terms between IPV and each of Surprisingly, the lowest rates of verbal aggression were iden-
the three classroom resource variables. Three of these interac- tified for those students who witnessed little IPV and who
tions were statistically significant, lending some support for perceived teacher control as low. At low frequencies of IPV,
Hypothesis 3. Teacher control (b = −.135, ß = −.220, p < .05) high teacher control resulted in the highest level of verbal
and supportive student-student relationships (b = −.158, ß = aggression toward parents. The same general pattern of results
−.206, p < .01) moderated the association between exposure to was identified for the “IPV x Student-student relationships”-
IPV and verbal aggression toward parents. In addition, sup- interaction in the case of physical aggression toward parents,
portive student-student relationships (b = −.089, ß = −.320, p whereby again, the slope was steepest at frequent IPV and
< .05) moderated the association between IPV and physical low-quality relationships with classmates. Again, the lowest
aggression toward parents. All interactions were of small to rates of aggression were identified in those students who
moderate effect size (see Cohen 1988). Decomposition of the witnessed little IPV and who perceived low-quality relation-
interaction terms revealed that more frequent IPV (+ 1 SD ships with classroom peers.
above the mean) was more strongly associated with verbal
aggression toward parents if adolescents perceived lower (b
= .890, p < .001) than higher (b = .845, p < .001) teacher
control, as well as lower (b = .976, p < .001) than Discussion
higher (b = .750, p < .001) support by classmates.
Similarly, more frequent IPV was less strongly related The current study examined whether classroom social re-
to physical aggression toward parents if the quality of sources can counter the negative impact conveyed by family
student-student-relationships was perceived as high (b = violence (parent-to-child physical violence and parental IPV)
.109, p < .001), compared to low (b = .160, p < .001). on adolescent aggression in various social contexts. Although
The significant interactions were also plotted graphically there are several studies showing that classroom social re-
(see Fig. 1a–c), depicting the respective regression slopes at sources play an important role in socializing aggressive be-
low (mean - 1 SD), medium (mean), and high (mean + 1 SD) havior in students (Thomas et al. 2011), scant evidence exists
levels of IPV and the classroom resource variables. on whether such resources can help overcome the be-
Concerning the “IPV x Teacher control”-interaction and the havioral consequences of high-risk family environments
“IPV x Student-student relationships”-interaction in relation by providing an environment where aggression is discouraged
to adolescent-to-parent verbal aggression, the slope was (Meehan et al. 2003; Vaughan-Jensen et al. 2018).
J Fam Viol

Table 4 Linear Regression Models on Adolescent Aggression in Multiple Social Contexts

Adolescent-to-parent aggression Adolescent-to-teacher aggression Adolescent-to-partner aggression

(AParA) (ATeaA) (APartA)

Verbal Physical Verbal Physical Verbal Physical

Step 1: Control variables b ß b ß b ß b ß b ß b ß

Age .038 .021 .002 .003 .051** .057** .019* .047* .155*** .087*** .027 .032
Sex (1 = male) −.400*** −.148*** −.019 −.019 .042 .032 .016 .027 −.537*** −.198*** −.137*** −.107***
Ethnicity (Ref. = German)
Turkish −.268* −.041* −.037 −.016 .118 .037 .023 .016 .399** .058** .223* .069*
Former SU/Eastern Europe −.049 −.011 .074 .046 .141** .065** .004 .004 .341*** .078*** .108* .052*
Other −.165* −.037* −.045* −.028* −.007 −.003 .027 .027 .289*** .068*** .047 .023
Single-parent household .178** .053** .010 .009 .047 .028 .010 .014 .071 .022 −.018 −.012
Social welfare dependence .165 .033 .082 .045 .032 .013 .027 .024 .284** .064** .176** .084**
School type (Ref. = High)
Low −.069 −.017 .059 .039 .184** .091** .055* .060* .084 .020 .098 .049
Medium −.149** −.055** −.026 −.026 .011 .008 .009 .016 .025 .009 .029 .022
Risk-seeking .354*** .198*** .082*** .127*** .171*** .196*** .014 .035 .263*** .153*** .067*** .082***
Class size .002 .008 −.002 −.018 −.004 −.033 .000 .007 −.003 −.012 −.005 −.039
R2 .062 .028 .075 .013 .086 .042
Step 2: Family Violence Variables
Parent-to-child physical .130*** .262*** .037*** .206*** .025*** .103*** .009 .085 .034*** .090*** .018*** .100***
violence (PCV)
Intimate partner violence (IPV) .102 .053 .109** .156** −.038 −.040 .016 .037 .057 .037 .035 .047
R2 .135 .103 .085 .022 .096 .055
Step 3: Classroom Social Resource Variables
Teacher control (TC) .032 .014 −.007 −.009 −.035 −.032 −.001 −.001 .089* .042* −.012 −.012
Teacher-student support (TSS) −.105* −.051* −.006 −.008 −.073 −.073 −.003 −.006 −.214
** ** ***
−.109*** −.035* −.038*
Supportive student-student −.082* −.041* .009 .013 −.016 −.017 −.019* −.043* −.128*** −.066*** −.025 −.027
relationships (SSR)
R2 .139 .103 .092 .024 .113 .058
Step 4 a-c: Two-way-interactions (PCV)
PCV x TC .026 .166 −.001 −.017 −.001 −.009 −.006 −.175 .013 .105 .001 .019
R2 .140 .103 .092 .025 .113 .058
PCV x TSS .023 .120 .009 .136 .011 .116 −.000 −.010 .010 .067 −.005 −.070
R2 .141 .105 .093 .024 .114 .058
PCV x SSR .014 .067 .002 .034 −.004 −.045 −.009 −.209 .020 .123 .004 .059
R2 .140 .103 .092 .028 .115 .059
Step 5 a-c: Two-way-interactions (IPV)
IPV x TC −.135* −.220* −.062 −.281 .003 .012 −.003 −.022 −.024 −.051 −.013 −.056
2
R .143 .108 .092 .024 .113 .058
IPV x TSS −.073 −.104 −.030 −.117 .013 .038 .016 .099 .008 .014 −.006 −.022
2
R .140 .104 .092 .025 .113 .058
IPV x SSR −.158** −.206** −.089* −.320* −.015 −.040 .008 .048 .043 .070 .019 .065
2
R .144 .113 .092 .024 .114 .059
n 3543 3539 3529 3529 4350 4350
*
p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001; unstandardized (b) and standardized (ß) coefficients are shown; FIML estimation with clustered standard errors; data
are unweighted

In partial support for Hypothesis 1a, parent-to-child phys- physical adolescent-to-teacher aggression), while parental
ical violence was consistently related to verbal and physical IPV showed significant associations with physical aggression
aggression across social contexts (with the exception of toward parents. There was also support for Hypotheses 1b:
 J Fam Viol

a observation that physical aggression is a more reactive form

of aggression, occurring predominantly in direct response to
being aggressed, rather than as a result of social learning (see
also Browne and Hamilton 1998).
Finally, the findings corroborate results of prior studies
on adolescent school samples, according to which direct
victimization by parents is more relevant for later
adolescent-to-parent aggression than is witnessing IPV be-
tween parents (Izaguirre and Calvete 2016). Estimated
prevalence rates of family violence exposure and aggres-
sion in different contexts were comparable to those found
in other studies on community samples of adolescents
b (e.g., Ibabe and Bentler 2016; Izaguirre and Calvete
2016; Khoury-Kassabri et al. 2009).
There was mixed support for Hypotheses 2 and 3. While
teacher control was unexpectedly linked with more fre-
quent verbal aggression toward dating partners, teacher-
student support was consistently related to lower verbal
aggression across contexts, as well as to lower physical
aggression toward dating partners. Furthermore, support-
ive student-student relationships were linked with less fre-
quent verbal aggression toward parents and dating part-
ners, as well as with less frequent physical aggression to-
ward school teachers. Three significant interaction effects
were idenfified between IPV, classroom social resources,
c
and aggression toward parents: Verbal aggression toward
parents in the context of high exposure to IPV was reduced
at high-quality relationships with classmates, as well as at
high levels of teacher control. In addition, students who
reported more frequent IPV behaved less physically ag-
gressive toward parents if teacher control was high.
The finding that the detrimental impact of violent home
environments was moderated by social resources available
in the classroom is consistent with a stress-buffering per-
spective (Cohen and Wills 1985) and corroborates prior
research demonstrating the protective effects of supportive
relationships with peers on violent behavior (Bokhorst
Fig. 1 a. Simple Slopes Representing the Relationship Between IPV and et al. 2010; Obsuth et al. 2017). It also complements other
Adolescent-to-Parent Verbal Aggression at Different Levels of Teacher
Control b Simple Slopes Representing the Relationship Between IPVand strands of research analyzing school factors as substitutes
Adolescent-to-Parent Verbal Aggression at Different Levels of Student- for low parent-child attachment and low parental involve-
Student Support. c Simple Slopes Representing the Relationship Between ment in their children’s academic lives (Hoffmann and
IPV and Adolescent-to-Parent Physical Aggression at Different Levels of Dufur 2008). The beneficial effect of high-level classroom
Student-Student Support
resources is likely driven by the social capital which is
available to students in these classrooms (Gottfredson
The relationship between family violence and aggression be- et al. 2005). The identified pattern of interactions suggests
ing strongest for adolescent-to-parent aggression, the results a synergistic interplay between family and peer contexts,
lend support for the idea that the ‘cycle of family violence’ is which has also been found in prior studies (Benson and
primarily perpetuated within the family. Nevertheless, our Buehler 2012). However, it must be said that most of the
findings demonstrate that the cycle of violence also extends relationships among family violence and adolescent ag-
to domains outside the family, including relationships with gression were not significantly impacted by classroom
teachers and romantic partners. Parent-to-child physical vio- social resources (for similar results, see Vaughan-Jensen
lence was furthermore more strongly related to verbal than to et al. 2018). This indicates that the buffering potential of
physical aggression toward parents, which may reflect the social resources in the classroom is highly limited and
J Fam Viol

furthermore only observable in the context of IPV and Implications for Practice
aggression toward parents.
The unexpected finding that teacher control was The results on the adverse and potentially long-lasting effects
linked with more instead of less frequent verbal aggres- of family violence on adolescent aggression across social con-
sion toward dating partners could be partly explained by texts highlight the importance of working to prevent inci-
the possibility that teachers more often employ class- dences of aggression toward primary caregivers, school-
room management practices characterized by high con- teachers, and dating partners through policies and programs
trol and supervision if the student body shows elevated that can support the prevention of aggression. Some of such
conduct problems. One way for teachers try to control interventions have already been implemented to reduce spe-
students is through disciplinary rules and punitive con- cific types of violence exposures and aggression (Leen et al.
sequences for breaking those rules, which, in turn, may 2013; MacMillan et al. 2009). Such programs targeting the
give rise to student misbehavior, such as bullying (Allen risk factor of family violence have the potential to prevent
2010). Thus, high teacher control may be a reaction to aggression in several social contexts. Seeing that schools are
problematic student behavior, which might extend to often the service in closest and longest contact with an ado-
intra-family aggressive interactional patterns. The find- lescent living with domestic violence, teachers can play a vital
ing that less frequently witnessed IPV combined with role in helping families access welfare services, thereby reduc-
low perceived teacher control and student-student sup- ing one major risk factor for adolescent aggression. Our find-
port was associated with the lowest rates of aggression ings point furthermore to policy actions concerning the ques-
toward parents may indicate that there might be a sub- tion how factors within the family and school environment
group of students from non-abusive families who are might compensate for one another. If students establish close
rejected by classmates or who socially withdraw from bonds with classmates and experience high teacher control,
peers. Consequently, they might not engage in retalia- exposure to family adversities appear to matter less, although
tion of aggressive behavior within the family. Rather, beneficial effects were only observable for aggression directed
such adolescents may show psychological impairment, toward parents in the context of IPV. Our results generally
which should be more thoroughly assessed in future point to the need for specialized interventions that focus on
research. Alternatively, this may be a ‘floor effect’, enhancing teachers' classroom management practices and the
meaning that students in the lower range of the respec- quality of student-student relationships for adolescents ex-
tive measures cannot be validly distinguished due to posed to known family risk factors. High-quality relationships
low variance, notably because there are many students in the school context may foster self-esteem and problem-
who reported low levels of IPV. solving skills in at-risk-students, while reducing stress levels
Future research should explore more thoroughly the mod- and maladaptive coping strategies. Essentially, teacher train-
erating role of classroom social resources in the context of ings that aim at implementing classroom management strate-
abusive families while using longitudinal samples in order to gies that enhance prosocial student behavior (see Oliver et al.
assess the temporal order of events (Powers 2010). 2011 for a systematic review) seem important for reducing at-
Furthermore, dynamic theories, such as the life-course risk adolescents’ aggression toward parents.
approach (Sampson and Laub 2005) represent a fruitful To sum up, our findings highlight the importance of creat-
framework for studying the development of aggression ing effective classroom management practices and supportive
after exposure to family violence. Such a dynamic per- peer relationships during secondary school in order to prevent
spective would also consider the impact of family vio- and reduce engagement in aggression, particularly among at-
lence as depending on the timing, type, and chronicity risk individuals.
of violence exposure. Besides the need for further re-
search to put a stronger theoretical and empirical focus
on the potentially changing role of classroom-related Limitations
resources, research should also focus on the question
of how buffering effects of various social contexts Three major limitations can be identified in the current study.
(e.g., family, school, peer group) might work together, and These concern the use of cross-sectional data, the use of ado-
how they do so at various developmental stages. Finally, lescent self-report, and the use of measures that sometimes
school environment could affect boys and girls in different relied on a small number of items. The cross-sectional nature
ways. For instance, Estévez López et al. (2008) found that a of the study makes it impossible to identify causal relation-
positive classroom environment was a stronger protective fac- ships between family adversities, classroom social resources,
tor for boys in the development of problems of behavior at and adolescent aggression. In order to have a stronger ratio-
school, whereas for girls this was the case for a positive family nale for cause and effect, and to further be able to address
environment. change in adjustment outcomes associated with exposure to
 J Fam Viol

family violence, longitudinal data would be desirable. Social Interpersonal Violence, 28(4), 755–772. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0886260512455869.
desirability bias, notably regarding the reporting of events
Cascardi, M., & Jouriles, E. N. (2018). Mechanisms underlying the asso-
associated with aggressive conduct, may result underestima- ciation of exposure to family of origin violence and adolescent dat-
tions of own behavioral adjustment. Although we relied on ing violence. In D. A. Wolfe & J. R. Temple (Eds.), Adolescent
retrospective measures of parent-to-child aggression, re- dating violence: Theory, research, and prevention (pp. 159–188).
sponses might be furthermore affected by current parent- London: Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-
811797-2.00007-4.
child-relationships that overshadow previous memories and Chen, J.-K., & Astor, R. A. (2009). Students’ reports of violence against
thus potentially bias results. In order to limit social desirability teachers in Taiwanese schools. Journal of School Violence, 8(1), 2–
bias in the data generating process, we stressed the principle of 17. https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220802067680.
anonymity and took care that each student filled out their Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences
(2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
questionnaire by himself or herself. To decrease shared meth-
Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering
od variance, a multi-informant approach should be followed, hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 98(2), 310–357. https://doi.org/
in which other sources are used to gather information on ad- 10.1037/0033-2909.98.2.310.
justment difficulties, such as parents, or teachers. These limi- Conger, R. D., Conger, K. J., & Martin, M. J. (2010). Socioeconomic
tations notwithstanding, the results of the present study extend status, family processes, and individual development. Journal of
Marriage and Family, 72(3), 685–704. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
the yet scant knowledge about classroom social resources as 1741-3737.2010.00725.x.
buffers of family adversities. In particular, the results support Demaray, M. K., Malecki, C. K., Davidson, L. M., Hodgson, K. K., &
the need for preventive efforts targeting violent-free home Rebus, P. J. (2005). The relationship between social support and
environments as well as school environments characterized student adjustment: A longitudinal analysis. Psychology in the
Schools, 42(7), 691–706. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20120.
by high-quality interpersonal resources .
Douglas, K. S., & Lyon, D. R. (1999). Violence against British Columbia
teachers: Report of the Simon Fraser University/British Columbia
Teachers’ Federation violence against teachers survey. BCTF
Research.
Estévez López, E., Pérez, S. M., Ochoa, G. M., & Ruiz, D. M.
(2008). Adolescent aggression: Effects of gender and family
References and school environments. Journal of Adolescence, 31(4),
433–450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2007.09.007.
Allen, K. P. (2010). Classroom management, bullying, and teacher prac- Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J.
tices. Professional Educator, 34(1), 1–15 . (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice Hall: Englewood psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4, 272–299.
Cliffs. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.4.3.272.
Beckmann, L., Bergmann, M. C., Fischer, F., & Mößle, T. (2017). Fernández-González, L., Wekerle, C., & Goldstein, A. L. (2014). Measuring
Risk and protective factors of child-to-parent violence: A adolescent dating violence: Development of ‘conflict in adolescent
comparison between physical and verbal aggression. Journal dating relationships inventory’ short form. Advances in Mental
of Interpersonal Violence, 886260517746129. https://doi.org/ Health, 11(1), 35–54. https://doi.org/10.5172/jamh.2012.11.1.35.
10.1177/0886260517746129. Foshee, V. A., Karriker-Jaffe, K. J., Reyes, H. L., Ennett, S. T.,
Benson, M. J., & Buehler, C. (2012). Family process and peer deviance Suchindran, C., Bauman, K. E., & Benefield, T. S. (2008). What
influences on adolescent aggression: Longitudinal effects across ear- accounts for demographic differences in trajectories of adolescent
ly and middle adolescence. Child Development, 83(4), 1213–1228. dating violence? An examination of intrapersonal and contextual
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01763.x. mediators. The Journal of Adolescent Health, 42(6), 596–604.
Berg, J. K., & Cornell, D. (2016). Authoritative school climate, aggres- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.11.005.
sion toward teachers, and teacher distress in middle school. School Gámez-Guadix, M., & Calvete, E. (2012). Child-to-parent violence and
Psychology Quarterly, 31(1), 122–139. https://doi.org/10.1037/ its association with exposure to marital violence and parent-to-child
spq0000132 . violence. Psicothema, 24(2), 277–283.
Bergmann, M. C., Baier, D., Rehbein, F., & Mößle, T. (2017). Jugendliche Gershoff, E. T., & Grogan-Kaylor, A. (2016). Spanking and child out-
in Niedersachsen. Ergebnisse des Niedersachsensurveys 2013 und comes: Old controversies and new meta-analyses. Journal of Family
2015: [Adolescents in Lower Saxony. Results of two representative Psychology: JFP: Journal of the Division of Family Psychology of
school surveys conducted in 2013 and 2015]. Hannover: KFN the American Psychological Association (Division 43), 30(4), 453–
Forschungsbericht Nr. 131. 469. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000191.
Bokhorst, C. L., Sumter, S. R., & Westenberg, P. M. (2010). Social sup- Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime.
port from parents, friends, classmates, and teachers in children and Stanford: Stanford University Press.
adolescents aged 9 to 18 years: Who is perceived as most support- Gottfredson, G. D., Gottfredson, D. C., Payne, A. A., & Gottfredson, N.
ive? Social Development, 19(2), 417–426. https://doi.org/10.1111/j. C. (2005). School climate predictors of school disorder: Results
1467-9507.2009.00540.x. from a national study of delinquency prevention in schools.
Browne, K. D., & Hamilton, C. E. (1998). Physical violence Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 42(4), 412–444.
between young adults and their parents: Associations with a https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427804271931.
history of child maltreatment. Journal of Family Violence, Grasmick, H. G., Tittle, C., Bursik, R., & Arneklev, B. J. (1993). Testing
13(1), 59–79. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022812816957. the core empirical implications of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general
Calvete, E., Orue, I., & Gámez-Guadix, M. (2013). Child-to-parent vio- theory of crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency,
lence: Emotional and behavioral predictors. Journal of 30(1), 5–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427893030001002.
J Fam Viol

Hawkins, J. D., & Weis, J. G. (1985). The social development model: An Leen, E., Sorbring, E., Mawer, M., Holdsworth, E., Helsing, B., &
integrated approach to delinquency prevention. The Journal of Bowen, E. (2013). Prevalence, dynamic risk factors and the efficacy
Primary Prevention, 6(2), 73–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/ of primary interventions for adolescent dating violence: An interna-
BF01325432. tional review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 18(1), 159–174.
Haynie, D. L., Farhat, T., Brooks-Russell, A., Wang, J., Barbieri, B., & https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2012.11.015.
Iannotti, R. J. (2013). Dating violence perpetration and victimization Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2009). A review of empirical evi-
among U.S. adolescents: Prevalence, patterns, and associations with dence about school size effects: A policy perspective. Review
health complaints and substance use. The Journal of Adolescent of Educational Research, 79(1), 464–490. https://doi.org/10.
Health : Official Publication of the Society for Adolescent 3102/0034654308326158.
Medicine, 53(2), 194–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth. Lewis, S. F., & Fremouw, W. (2001). Dating violence: A critical review of
2013.02.008. the literature. Clinical Psychology Review, 21(1), 105–127.
Hoffmann, J. P., & Dufur, M. J. (2008). Family and school capital effects on Longobardi, C., Badenes-Ribera, L., Fabris, M. A., Martinez, A., &
delinquency: Substitutes or complements? Sociological Perspectives, McMahon, S. D. (2019). Prevalence of student violence against
51(1), 29–62. https://doi.org/10.1525/sop.2008.51.1.29. teachers: A meta-analysis. Psychology of Violence, 9(6), 596–610.
Holmbeck, G. N. (2002). Post-hoc probing of significant moderational https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000202.
and mediational effects in studies of pediatric populations. Journal Lösel, F., & Farrington, D. P. (2012). Direct protective and buffering
of Pediatric Psychology, 27(1), 87–96. protective factors in the development of youth violence. American
Hong, J. S., Kral, M. J., Espelage, D. L., & Allen-Meares, P. (2012). The Journal of Preventive Medicine, 43, S8–S23. https://doi.org/10.
social ecology of adolescent-initiated parent abuse: A review of the 1016/j.amepre.2012.04.029 .
literature. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 43(3), 431– Ludy-Dobson, C., & Perry, B. (2010). The role of healthy relational
454. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-011-0273-y. interactions in buffering the impact of childhood trauma. In E. Gil
Ibabe, I., & Bentler, P. M. (2016). The contribution of family relationships (Ed.), Working with children to heal interpersonal trauma: The
to child-to-parent violence. Journal of Family Violence, 31(2), 259– power of play (pp. 26–43). New York [et al.]: Guilford.
269. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-015-9764-0. MacMillan, H. L., Wathen, C. N., Barlow, J., Fergusson, D. M.,
Ibabe, I., Arnoso, A., & Elgorriaga, E. (2016). Ambivalent sexism inven- Leventhal, J. M., & Taussig, H. N. (2009). Interventions to prevent
tory: Adaptation to Basque population and sexism as a risk factor of child maltreatment and associated impairment. The Lancet,
dating violence. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 19, E78. 373(9659), 250–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(08)
https://doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2016.80. 61708-0.
Ibabe, I., & Jaureguizar, J. (2010). Child-to-parent violence: Profile of
Maldonado-Carreño, C., & Votruba-Drzal, E. (2011). Teacher-child rela-
abusive adolescents and their families. Journal of Criminal Justice,
tionships and the development of academic and behavioral skills
38(4), 616–624. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2010.04.034.
during elementary school: A within- and between-child analysis.
Ibabe, I., Jaureguizar, J., & Bentler, P. M. (2013). Protective factors for
Child Development, 82(2), 601–616. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
adolescent violence against authority. The Spanish Journal of
1467-8624.2010.01533.x.
Psychology, 16, E76. https://doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2013.72.
Margolin, G., & Baucom, B. R. (2014). Adolescents’ aggression to par-
Idema, H., & Phalet, K. (2007). Transmission of gender-role values in
ents: Longitudinal links with parents’ physical aggression. The
Turkish-German migrant families: The role of gender, intergenera-
Journal of Adolescent Health, 55(5), 645–651. https://doi.org/10.
tional and intercultural relations. Zeitschrift für Familienforschung,
1016/j.jadohealth.2014.05.008.
19(1), 71–105.
Izaguirre, A., & Calvete, E. (2016). Exposure to family violence as a McGrath, K. F., & van Bergen, P. (2015). Who, when, why and to what
predictor of dating violence and child-to-parent aggression in end? Students at risk of negative student–teacher relationships and
Spanish adolescents. Youth & Society, 49, 1–20. https://doi.org/10. their outcomes. Educational Research Review, 14, 1–17. https://doi.
1177/0044118X16632138. org/10.1016/j.edurev.2014.12.001.
Johnson, W. L., Giordano, P. C., Manning, W. D., & Longmore, M. A. Meehan, B. T., Hughes, J. N., & Cavell, T. A. (2003). Teacher-student
(2014). The age-IPV curve: Changes in intimate partner violence relationships as compensatory resources for aggressive children.
perpetration during adolescence and young adulthood. Journal of Child Development, 74(4), 1145–1157. https://doi.org/10.1111/
Youth and Adolescence, 44(3), 708–726. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 1467-8624.00598.
s10964-014-0158-z. Miller-Lewis, L. R., Searle, A. K., Sawyer, M. G., Baghurst, P. A., &
Kennedy, T. D., Edmonds, W. A., Dann, K. T. J., & Burnett, K. F. (2010). Hedley, D. (2013). Resource factors for mental health resilience in
The clinical and adaptive features of young offenders with histories early childhood: An analysis with multiple methodologies. Child
of child-parent violence. Journal of Family Violence, 25(5), 509– and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, 7, 6. https://doi.
520. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-010-9312-x. org/10.1186/1753-2000-7-6 .
Khoury-Kassabri, M., Astor, R. A., & Benbenishty, R. (2009). Middle Mortimer, J. T., & Call, K. T. (2001). Arenas of comfort in adolescence. A
eastern adolescents’ perpetration of school violence against peers study of adjustment in context. New York: Psychology Press. https://
and teachers: A cross-cultural and ecological analysis. Journal of doi.org/10.4324/9781410600226.
Interpersonal Violence, 24(1), 159–182. https://doi.org/10.1177/ Muñoz-Rivas, M. J., Graña, J. L., O’Leary, K. D., & González, M. P.
0886260508315777. (2007). Aggression in adolescent dating relationships: Prevalence,
Kinsfogel, K. M., & Grych, J. H. (2004). Interparental conflict and ado- justification, and health consequences. The Journal of Adolescent
lescent dating relationships: Integrating cognitive, emotional, and Health, 40(4), 298–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2006.
peer influences. Journal of Family Psychology: JFP: Journal of 11.137 .
the Division of Family Psychology of the American Psychological O’Hara, K. L., Duchschere, J. E., Beck, C. J. A., & Lawrence, E. (2017).
Association (Division 43), 18(3), 505–515. https://doi.org/10.1037/ Adolescent-to-parent violence: Translating research into effective
0893-3200.18.3.505. practice. Adolescent Research Review, 2(3), 181–198. https://doi.
Kuay, H. S., Lee, S., Centifanti, L. C. M., Parnis, A. C., Mrozik, J. H., & org/10.1007/s40894-016-0051-y.
Tiffin, P. A. (2016). Adolescents as perpetrators of aggression within Obsuth, I., Mueller Johnson, K., Murray, A. L., Ribeaud, D., & Eisner, M.
the family. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 47, 60–67. (2018). Violent poly-victimization: The longitudinal patterns of
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2016.02.035. physical and emotional victimization throughout adolescence (11-
 J Fam Viol

17 years). Journal of Research on Adolescence, 28(4), 786–806. go. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 38, 31–52. https://doi.org/10.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12365. 1016/j.avb.2017.11.001.
Obsuth, I., Murray, A. L., Malti, T., Sulger, P., Ribeaud, D., & Eisner, M. Straus, M. A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The
(2017). A non-bipartite propensity score analysis of the effects of conflict tactics (CT) scales. Journal of Marriage and the Family,
teacher-student relationships on adolescent problem and prosocial 41(1), 75–88. https://doi.org/10.2307/351733.
behavior. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 46(8), 1661–1687. Thomas, D. E., Bierman, K. L., & Powers, C. J. (2011). The influence of
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-016-0534-y. classroom aggression and classroom climate on aggressive-
O’Leary, K. D., Smith Slep, A. M., Avery-Leaf, S., & Cascardi, M. disruptive behavior. Child Development, 82(3), 751–757. https://
(2008). Gender differences in dating aggression among multiethnic doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01586.x.
high school students. The Journal of Adolescent Health, 42(5), 473– Vaughan-Jensen, J., Smith, D. M., Blake, J. J., Keith, V. M., & Willson, V.
479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.09.012. K. (2018). Breaking the cycle of child maltreatment and intimate
Oliver, R. M., Wehby, J. H., & Reschly, D. J. (2011). Teacher classroom partner violence: The effects of student gender and caring relation-
management practices: Effects on disruptive or aggressive student ships with teachers. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment &
behavior. Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness. Trauma, 1, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2018.1522407.
Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED519160.pdf Walsh, J. A., & Krienert, J. L. (2007). Child–parent violence: An empir-
Piotrowska, P. J., Stride, C. B., Croft, S. E., & Rowe, R. (2015). ical analysis of offender, victim, and event characteristics in a na-
Socioeconomic status and antisocial behaviour among children tional sample of reported incidents. Journal of Family Violence,
and adolescents: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinical 22(7), 563–574. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-007-9108-9.
Psychology Review, 35, 47–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2014.
Wang, M.-T., Brinkworth, M., & Eccles, J. (2013). Moderating effects of
11.003.
teacher-student relationship in adolescent trajectories of emotional
Powers, J. (2010). Ecological risk and resilience perspective: A theoret-
and behavioral adjustment. Developmental Psychology, 49(4), 690–
ical framework supporting evidence-based practice in schools.
705. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027916.
Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work, 7(5), 443–451.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15433714.2010.509216. Wathen, C. N., & MacMillan, H. L. (2013). Children’s exposure to inti-
Rabold, S., & Baier, D. (2011). Why are some ethnic groups more violent mate partner violence: Impacts and interventions. Paediatrics &
than others? The role of friendship network’s ethnic composition. Child Health, 18(8), 419–422.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(15), 3127–3156. https://doi. Wentzel, K. R., Russell, S., & Baker, S. (2016). Emotional support and
org/10.1177/0886260510390944. expectations from parents, teachers, and peers predict adolescent
Routt, G., & Anderson, L. (2011). Adolescent violence towards parents. competence at school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(2),
Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 20(1), 1–19. 242–255. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000049.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2011.537595. Willems, Y. E., Li, J.-B., Hendriks, A. M., Bartels, M., & Finkenauer, C.
Rutter, M. (1985). Resilience in the face of adversity. British Journal of (2018). The relationship between family violence and self-control in
Psychiatry, 147(6), 598–611. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.147.6.598. adolescence: A multi-level meta-analysis. International Journal of
Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (2005). A life-course view of the develop- Environmental Research and Public Health, 15, 2468. https://doi.
ment of crime. Annals of the American Academy of Political and org/10.3390/ijerph15112468 .
Social Science, 602, 12–45. Wincentak, K., Connolly, J., & Card, N. (2017). Teen dating violence: A
Silver, R. B., Measelle, J. R., Armstrong, J. M., & Essex, M. J. meta-analytic review of prevalence rates. Psychology of Violence,
(2005). Trajectories of classroom externalizing behavior: 7(2), 224–241. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0040194.
Contributions of child characteristics, family characteristics, Wolfe, D. A., Scott, K., Reitzel-Jaffe, D., Wekerle, C., Grasley, C., &
and the teacher–child relationship during the school transi- Straatman, A. L. (2001). Development and validation of the conflict
tion. Journal of School Psychology, 43(1), 39–60. https:// in adolescent dating relationships inventory. Psychological
doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2004.11.003. Assessment, 13(2), 277–293.
Simmons, R. G., & Blyth, D. A. (1987). Moving into adolescence: The
impact of pubertal change and school context. New York: Aldine de Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdic-
Gruyter. tional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Simmons, M., McEwan, T. E., Purcell, R., & Ogloff, J. R. P. (2018). Sixty
years of child-to-parent abuse research: What we know and where to