The Relationship Between Parent’s IPV Victimization and Youths’ ARA Victimization and Perpetration: A Dual Latent Class Analysis

Introduction: Supported by social learning theory and theory of inter-generational transmission of violence, ample evidence shows that parents’ intimate partner violence (IPV) victimization is positively related to their offspring’s likelihood of experiencing adolescent relationship aggression (ARA) victimization as well as their likelihood of perpetrating ARA. However, despite the recent findings that different types IPV or ARA perpetration/victimization often co-occur, studies have not examined how profiles of co-occurring parents’ IPV victimization are differentially related to profiles of their children’s ARA experiences. This study fills this important research gap.

Method: Data used for the analysis were drawn from the National Survey on Teen Relationships and Intimate Violence (STRiV) study. We examined a subsample of 527 youths of 12-18 years of age who reported a current or past-year dating relationship and whose parents were married, living together with a partner or in a dating relationship. Parents reported five types of their own IPV victimization in the past year, while youth currently reported their ARA victimization and perpetration (measured by CADRI subscales as physical, psychological and sexual victimization and perpetration separately) in the past year. A dual latent class analysis (LCA) was employed to identify profiles of parents IPV victimization, youth ARA victimization and perpetration, and relate the class memberships together.

Results: Three classes, i.e., high victimization (5.0%), psychological only victimization (13.6%) and low victimization (81.4%), were found for parent IPV victimization and three classes, i.e., high victimization/perpetration (11.5%), psychological only victimization/perpetration (33.9%), and low victimization/perpetration (54.5%) were found for youth ARA victimization and perpetration. Youth with parents in the high IPV victimization class were eight times as likely to be in the high victimization/perpetration class, compared to those youth with parents in the low IPV victimization class.

Conclusion: Above and beyond a positive relationship between parents IPV victimization and youth ARA victimization/perpetration as found in other studies, we found that youths face an elevated risk of ARA victimization and perpetration when their parents experience multiple types of IPV victimization. However, youths of those parents who experience only psychological victimization are not necessarily more likely to experience ARA victimization or engage in ARA perpetration. Findings have important implications in guiding targeted prevention efforts. The concurrent measures of parents’ IPV victimization and youth ARA victimization and perpetration show that the influence of parents’ behavior on their offspring is salient beyond early childhood.