1 / 27

Childhood exposure to domestic violence predicts relationship violence: A meta-analysis

Childhood exposure to domestic violence predicts relationship violence: A meta-analysis. Markus Kemmelmeier and Kerry Kleyman. Introduction. Problem of violence and abuse in families Immediate victims Witnesses (not immediately victimized) Short-term vs. long-term effects

abedi
Download Presentation

Childhood exposure to domestic violence predicts relationship violence: A meta-analysis

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Childhood exposure to domestic violence predicts relationship violence: A meta-analysis Markus Kemmelmeier and Kerry Kleyman

  2. Introduction • Problem of violence and abuse in families • Immediate victims • Witnesses (not immediately victimized) • Short-term vs. long-term effects • Short-term effects victims • Long-term effects victims • Short-term/concurrent effects witnesses (e.g., Kitzmann et al., 2003) • What about long-term effects in witnesses?

  3. The Cycle of Violence Hypothesis • Transmission of violence across generations • Parents/caregivers are an important influence • Child Witness  Adult Perpetrator • Child Witness  Adult Victim

  4. Causal processes • Social Learning Theory • Relationship norms • Gender norms • Norms for violent behavior • Relationship models • Psychodynamic approaches

  5. The “comorbidity” problem • Child is not only witness, but also • Victim • in dysfunctional family with • sexual abuse • alcohol abuse • drug abuse

  6. Research field • Scattered • Psychology • Social work • Sociology • Medicine • Criminal Justice • Etc. • Difference in focus, methods, findings • Needed: An integration & review

  7. Meta-analysis • Statistical synthesis of available research findings • Establishes cumulative science, • Can findings be generalized? • Moderators? • Hypothesis testing in the aggregate • But: “Garbage in, garbage out” • A meta-analysis is only as good as the data on which it is based

  8. The “How to” of a meta-analysis • Define problem, concepts based on literature • Decide on inclusion (exclusion) criteria • Compare apples with apples • Find studies • Databases • Asking colleagues, listservs • Ancestry approach • Code statistics • Effect sizes • Study characteristics File drawer problem

  9. The “How to” of a meta-analysis • Statistical size of the effect that is independent of sample size and specific measure used • Types r family (Pearson correlation) d family (Pearson correlation): Mean difference divided by standard deviation • Extract effect sizes • “read off” • compute • Transform • Infer Research reports might be --incomplete --wrong --unusable

  10. r -- Binomial Effect Size Display (BESD) • Transform variables into dichotomous categories • Correlation between being a witness and engaging in relationship violence r = .20 • Only 4% of the variance (r2) • Risk witnesses 60% • Risk non-witnesses 40% Witnesses are 50% more likely to become violent than nonwitnesses.

  11. Method: Literature Search • PsychINFO Database • Keywords: [(dating or courtship) AND (violence or abuse or aggression)] • 1008 identified, 283 included family-of-origin violence • Additional studies obtained from references and manual inspection of violence journals

  12. Method: Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria • Contained witnessing or experiencing parental violence and perpetrated or experienced violence in adult relationships • Included data on physical violence in family of origin or in current dating experience • Had to report the quantitative data necessary to calculate at least one effect size • Studies had to be reported in English between 1975 and 2006 • 53 research reports were retained for coding

  13. Method: Coding • Article-level coding, including: • Author gender, department affiliation, study design, location, sampling, year of publication • Construct-level coding, including: • Sample characteristics, theoretical constructs, methodological variations, and effect size • Each article was coded with on article-level, and most had multiple construct-level coding. • Two independent coders were used

  14. Method: Data Analysis • 402 effect-size estimates from 53 studies • Effect-size estimates (r coefficients) were calculated from a variety of reported statistics, including means and standard deviations, chi-square values, p-values, and frequencies or proportions. (Used program Dstat) • Correlational studies, point-biserial correlations or Pearson’s r were recorded as individual effect sizes. • Because normal distributions of coefficients could often not be assumed, we used a randomization/resampling (bootstrapping) approach to estimate statistical parameters. (Using program MetaWin)

  15. Check for File drawer problem • Across all studies coded, is the distribution of the effect sizes • Symmetrical • Funnel shaped?

  16. Witnessing only vs. Experiencing only • Witnessing violence has as negative effects as experiencing physical violence. • Additive effect? • Type of Violence • Qb(3) = 23.17 ***/+ Types of Childhood Violence: Witnessing vs. Experiencing Effect Sizes + Note: +p<.10 *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

  17. Results: Overall Witnessing Overall Effects (weighted means) • Victimization r =.107 (CI .079/.137) [74 data points] • Perpetration r =.138(CI .113/.162) [116 data points] • Unspecified r =.112 (CI .030/.212) [7 data points] • Qb(2) = 8.02, p < .28. • Witnessing family violence is as strongly linked to becoming a victim of relationship violence as it is to inflicting violence onto others.

  18. Witnessing by Gender • Witnessing had stronger effects on men becoming perpetrators • No gender difference for victimization. • Victimization Qb(1) = 0.59 ns/ns • Perpetration Qb(1) = 23.85 ***/** Victimization vs. Perpetration by Gender Effect Sizes ** ns Note: +p<.10 *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

  19. Perpetrator in Family of Origin by Gender, VICTIM Victimization: Perpetrator in Family of Origin by Gender Effect Sizes • Witnessing the mother perpetrate violence had the strongest effect on becoming a victim of later relationship violence. Witnessing father violence had a weaker effect on men becoming victims. • Male/Father • Qb(1) = 2.39 ns/ns • Female/Mother • Qb(1) = 0.65 ns/ns • Unspecified • Qb(1) = 0.19 ns/ns ns ns ns Note: +p<.10 *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

  20. Perpetrator in Family of Origin by Gender, PERP Perpetration: Perpetrator in Family of Origin by Gender Effect Sizes • Whether male or female witnesses become perpetrators does not depend on whom they witnessed in their family of origin • Male/Father • Qb(1) = 3.30 +/ns • Female/Mother • Qb(1) = 0.49 ns/ns • Unspecified • Qb(1) = 21.32 ***/** ns ns ns Note: +p<.10 *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

  21. Decade of Publication and Effect Sizes Victimization Qb(2) = 4.04 ns/ns Perpetration Qb(2) = 23.40 ***/** Note: +p<.10 *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

  22. Witnessing by SES • Witnessing had the strongest effect on becoming a perpetrator in high SES samples • SES had no influence on whether witnesses became themselves victims of relationship violence • Victimization Qb(3) = 1.19 ns/ns • Perpetration Qb(4) = 29.81 ***/+ Victimization vs. Perpetration by SES Effect Sizes + ns Not enough “high” cases for analysis Note: +p<.10 *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

  23. Departmental Affiliation Effect Sizes Departmental Affiliation of 1st Author • The background and affiliation of a study’s first author produce great differences in the effect sizes obtained. This suggests that research training and goals have a substantial influence on outcomes. • Departmental Affiliation • Qb(4) = 48.30 ***/** ** Note: +p<.10 *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

  24. Physical vs. Psychological Violence • Witnessing violence in one’s family of origin make witnesses more likely to perpetrate psychological violence in their own relationships. • Victimization • Qb(1) = 0.01 ns/ns • Perpetration • Qb(1) = 16.42 ***/* Type of Violence: Physical vs. Psychological Violence Effect Sizes * ns Note: +p<.10 *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

  25. Meta-analysis of coefficients comparing region and exposure to family violence to non-exposure Region Qb(5) = 91.27 ***/*** Note: +p<.10 *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

  26. Discussion • Witnessing has pervasive effects on likelihood of becoming • a perpetrator • a victim Of relationship violence • Long-term effects! • Gender effects limited • Mainly males becoming perpetrators

  27. Discussion • Other moderators • Class • Discipline • Social Learning Theory can help explain • BUT very limited support for a gender specificity hypothesis • Limitations

More Related