Educational Psychology Review

Educational Psychology Review A Meditational Model Linking Witnessing Intimate Partner Violence and Bullying Behaviors and Victimization among Youth --Manuscript Draft-Manuscript Number:

EDPR-342R2

Full Title:

A Meditational Model Linking Witnessing Intimate Partner Violence and Bullying Behaviors and Victimization among Youth

Article Type:

Review

Keywords:

intimate partner violence, youth, bullying, victimization, pathways

Corresponding Author:

Dexter Voisin, PhD University of Chicago Chicago, UNITED STATES

Corresponding Author Secondary Information: Corresponding Author's Institution:

University of Chicago

Corresponding Author's Secondary Institution: First Author:

Dexter Voisin, PhD

First Author Secondary Information: Order of Authors:

Dexter Voisin, PhD Jun Sung Hong, MSW

Order of Authors Secondary Information:

Powered by Editorial Manager® and Preprint Manager® from Aries Systems Corporation

BLIND Response to Reviewer Comments--SHOULD NOT CONTAIN AUTHOR INFORMATION

THE SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SERVICE ADMINISTRATION

969 EAST SIXTIETH STREET

SSA/CHICAGO

CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60637

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

April 25, 2012 Daniel H. Robinson The University of Texas at Austin Department of Educational Psychology 1 University Station, D5800 Austin, TX 78712-1294 Phone: (512) 471-0683 Email: [email protected] Dear Dr. Robinson, Thank you very much for accepting our article “A Meditational Model Linking Witnessing Intimate Partner Violence and Bullying Behaviors and Victimization among Youth” with minor revisions. My co-author and I made revisions based on the reviewer’s suggestions, which have been most informative in strengthening the article. Below is a point-by-point response to the reviewer’s comments. Additions to the text are noted in yellow highlights. We are delighted to have our article accepted in Educational Psychology Review. We look forward to your next correspondence. Sincerely,

Dexter R. Voisin, LCSW, PhD Associate Professor

DEXTER R. VOISIN, PH.D.

PHONE: 773-702-1124

Associate Professor

FAX: 773-702-0874 E

-MAIL: [email protected]

RESPONSE TO REVIEWER 1. Reviewer #2: This is a revision of a paper examining the mediators and moderators of the associations between witnessing intimate partner violence and youth bullying/victimization. The authors have adequately addressed most of my concerns. Only one concern regarding the moderators remains. The highlighted information on pages 17 and 18 regarding age and gender as moderators will need to be revised to more clearly describe how age and gender moderate the associations depicted in Figure 1. As evidence for moderation by age, the authors indicate that there are developmental differences in frequency of bullying across the middle and high school years. However, a moderator is a variable that changes the strength and/or direction of an association between two variables. As the authors correctly note, moderators can mitigate or amplify the impact of one variable on another. Thus, the authors might hypothesize how age differences (or gender differences) might contribute to moderation, but the evidence they provide does not "demonstrate a moderating effect." We very much appreciate your detailed comments, which have greatly assisted us in improving the clarity and rigor of this literature review and conceptual model. We fully agree with you that our treatment of age and gender in a few instances does not address moderation. Therefore, we have revised the manuscript to clarify and correct these examples. In such cases we have removed these examples to highlight how age, gender and race might be related to prevalence of interpersonal violence exposures, victimization or bullying and brought those examples in the earlier section of the paper where we discuss prevalence. In the “Moderation Section” of the paper we preserve the literature that clearly addresses moderation. These changes are highlighted in yellow in the revised manuscript. 2. Minor There are some grammatical issues that should be addressed. E.g., page 6, lines 1213 - prevalence rate should be plural and the word "at" should be replaced with "that." “Prevalence rate” has been replaced with “Prevalence rates,” and the word “at” has been replaced with “that”. Page 10, lines 56-57, the word "success" should follow "low school .." The word “success” follows “low school...” Page 14, line 51, remove the word "which" and the comma that precedes it. The word “which” and the comma that precedes it have been removed.

*Title Page w/ ALL Author Contact Info.


Dexter R. Voisin 1,2, Jun Sung Hong 3

1

2

3

University of Chicago, School of Social Service Administration STI/HIV Intervention Network University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, School of Social Work

Correspondence/Reprints: Dexter R. Voisin, PhD, Associate Professor University of Chicago, School of Social Service Administration 969 East 60th Street Chicago, IL 60636

*BLIND Manuscript--SHOULD NOT CONTAIN AUTHOR INFORMATION Click here to view linked References

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

Intimate-Partner Violence and Bullying Running head: EXPOSURE TO INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE


1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

Intimate-Partner Violence and Bullying

2

Abstract A growing body of research documents that various forms of violence exposures are interrelated. This paper presents a conceptual model, which accounts for the relationship between youth witnessing intimate partner violence (IPV) at home and their subsequent engagement in bullying behaviors and victimization by peers. A comprehensive search of major databases was conducted within a 12-year period (1999-2011). Based on this review, we provide empirical evidence, which documents that youth who witness IPV are at increased risk for bullying behaviors and peer victimization. Next, we posit a mediational model, which suggests that the relationship between witnessing IPV and bullying behavior and peer victimization is mediated by psychological problem behaviors, lower school success, and problematic peer interactions. We also explore potential moderating factors that may exacerbate or buffer the effects of witnessing IPV, such as age, gender, race/ethnicity, parenting practices, and peer relationships. This overall conceptual model should be empirically tested and has important implications for guiding future research on the relationship between IPV and bullying behaviors and victimization among youth.

Key words: intimate partner violence, youth, bullying, victimization, pathways

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65


3

Introduction Recently there is increasing interest in the relationship between witnessing intimate partner violence (IPV) and bullying behaviors and peer victimization among youth. Several studies document that violence within the home has deleterious effects on the emotional, social, and behavioral development of youth (e.g., Baldry, 2008; Cluver, Bowes, & Gardner, 2010; Corvo & deLara, 2010; Mustanoja et al., 2011). While researchers have posited several explanatory theories for the etiology of intimate partner perpetration (Corvo & deLara, 2010), prior research has not presented a conceptual formulation for linking IPV exposure with bullying behaviors and victimization by peers. In addition, bifurcated approaches across disciplinary silos have not clarified how problem behaviors across multiple domains may be interrelated (Bender, 2010). Based on our literature review, we provide empirical evidence, which documents that youth who witness IPV are at increased risk for bullying behaviors and peer victimization. Next, largely informed by existing literature, and social control (Hirschi, 2004) and social learning theories (Akers, 2009), we present a conceptual model which posits that the relationship between IPV and bullying and victimization is mediated by factors such as psychological problem behaviors, lower school success, and problematic peer interactions. More specifically we discuss how youth who witness IPV at home are at heightened risk for experiencing negative mental health sequelae such as depression, anxiety, aggression, and post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), than peers not exposed to such violence (Becker & McCloskey, 2002; Bogat, DeJonghe, Levendosky, Davidson, & vonEye, 2006; McDonald, Jouriles, Tart, & Minze, 2009; McCloskey & Walker, 2000; Shen, 2009; Vickerman, 2008). Such violence exposure can be critically damaging to children’s developmental progress, negatively impacting school success (Carrell &

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65


4

Hoekstra, 2010; Wolfe, Crooks, Lee, McIntyre-Smith, & Jaffe, 2003) and positive peer relations (McCloskey & Stuewig, 2001). Taken together, these problems can contribute to aggressive and bullying behavior and can advance the risk of these youth being victimized by peers (Holt, Buckley, & Wheelan, 2008). We also examine potential moderating factors that exacerbate or buffer the effects of IPV exposure, such as age, gender, race/ethnicity, parenting practices, and peer relationships. We conclude with an agenda for future research based on a critique of the extant literature in this field. We conducted a review of the published literature to identify studies linking witnessing IPV with bullying behaviors and victimization. We searched PsycINFO, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar for English-language publications from 1999 to present. This represents the period of time when the majority of research was conducted on IPV and bullying behaviors and victimization. Variations in the following terms were used in this search: IPV, inter-parental violence, domestic violence, and family violence. Additional studies were identified through bibliographic referencing. Criteria for inclusion in the literature review were youth as a population focus, quantitative studies with multivariate analyses, and assessment of at least one of the following outcome variables: depression, internalizing or externalizing behaviors, anxiety, aggression, PTSD, school difficulties, problems with peers, bullying, and victimization by peers. Intimate partner violence According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, IPV is defined as physical, sexual, or psychological abuse inflicted by a current or former partner or spouse (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2010). This is distinguished from family violence, which may also include child maltreatment, sibling abuse, or elder abuse (Corvo & deLara, 2010). However, children who witness IPV in the home have no legal designation as “victims.” Consequently,

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65


5

there are no official statistics on the number of youth who witness IPV (Margolin & Gordis, 2000). Conservative estimates suggest that such youth exposures are widespread. For example, the Bureau of Justice (2011) reported that 552,000 females and 101,000 males experienced nonfatal violence victimization by an intimate partner in the home in 2008. Compromised psychosocial resources in some households may increase the likelihood of IPV. Studies also show that IPV tends to be more prevalent in households with a higher proportion of children under the age of five (Fantuzzo & Mohr, 1999), among less educated parents (perhaps a proxy for socioeconomic status), and in households where there is problem drinking by parents (Farmer & Tiefenthaler, 2003; Grossman & Lundy, 2007; Jewkes, Levin, & Penn-Kekana, 2002; Leonard, 2001; Rennison & Planty, 2003). Bullying and victimization The World Health Organization (2002) defines bullying as intentional use of physical or psychological force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group that results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, mal-development, or deprivation. The term “bullying perpetrator” identifies someone who “chronically harasses someone else either physically or psychologically,” and a “bully victim” identifies someone who “is being bullied or victimized when he or she is exposed, repeatedly and over time, to negative actions on the part of one or more other students” (Olweus, 1993, p. 9). Several major subcategories of bullying and victimization have been identified. For instance, bullying involves both overt and covert acts of aggression (Crick, Casas, & Ku, 1999; Espelage & Horne, 2008; Espelage & Swearer, 2003). Overt acts results in confrontational behaviors Griffin & Gross, 2004. Other forms of bullying can be more covert. Bullying can be viewed as reactive—a defense reaction to perceived threat accompanied by anger (Price & Dodge, 1989);

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65


6

proactive –goal directed and an aversive means of influencing or coercing another person (Price & Dodge, 1989); and relational—such as social exclusion, spreading rumors, keeping secrets, or humiliating someone in a social setting (Griffin & Gross, 2004). The prevalence rates of bullying and victimization are difficult to generate given that measures used in research differ greatly (Crick, Casas, & Ku, 1999; Espelage & Horne, 2008; Espelage & Swearer, 2003). However, findings from a number of studies suggest that bullying is a common occurrence and widely prevalent among elementary to high school-aged youth. Glew et al. (2005) found that among students in an urban, West Coast, public elementary school, 22% of students were involved in bullying as a victim, a bully, or both. Haynie et al. (2001) found that among a sample of 4,263 middle school students in a Maryland school district, 24.1% of the students reported bullying a classmate or peer at least once within the past year, with 16.7% bullying one or two times and 7.4% bullying three or more times. Moreover, a total of 44.6% reported being victimized by a peer at least once within the previous year; of these, 13.7% indicated being victimized once or twice, and 30.9% being victimized three or more times. Klomek et al. (2007) documented that among a sample of high school students, 9% reported being victimized frequently and 13% reported bullying others. Moreover, according to a nationwide survey conducted by the U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Department of Justice, 24% of public schools reported that bullying was a daily or weekly occurrence from 2005 to 2006 (Indicators of School Crime and Safety, 2007). Factors such as age, gender and ethnicity may also influence levels of bullying and victimization among youth. Studies have shown that elementary school age children are more likely to report being bullied by their peers than older students (Hong & Espelage, 2012). Moreover, several researchers have documented that the frequency of bullying also increases

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65


7

during middle school years and decreases during high school years (Espelage & Horne, 2008; Nansel et al., 2001; Pellegrini & Bartini, 2000), as early adolescence (ages 10-14) is a period where youth explore their new social roles and their pursuit of status among their peer groups (Pellegrini, 2002). However, Varjas, Henrich, and Meyers’ (2009) findings suggest that middle school students reported less physical, verbal, and relational victimization than elementary school students (Varjas et al., 2009). Several findings also indicate that gender matters with regards to bullying and victimization. Males are more likely to engage in bullying than girls (Espelage, Bosworth, & Simon, 2000; Nansel et al., 2001; Seals & Young, 2003), as males have been considered the more aggressive gender (Espelage & Swearer, 2003). Studies however have produced mixed findings, and more recent studies report little gender differences in bullying behavior (e.g., Barboza et al., 2009), including relational aggression (Goldstein, Young, & Boyd, 2008; Swearer, 2008). Moreover, one aforementioned study (Baldry, 2003) reports that boys who are exposed to IPV at home are involved in school bullying more frequently than girls. Findings on the association between racial/ethnic identity and bullying and victimization also have been mixed. For instance, Hanish and Guerra’s (2000) study, which compared the experiences in bullying victimization of African American, Latino, and white elementary students in urban school, found that whites were considerably at higher risk of victimization than African American and Latinos. In contrast, other findings indicate that Latino youth reported higher level of bullying than white youth, and African Americans reported higher level of victimization than youth of other races/ethnicities (Nansel et al., 2001). More recent findings found little racial/ethnic differences in bullying and victimization (Seals & Young 2003).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65


8

The relationship between witnessing IPV, bullying behaviors, and victimization As shown in Table 1, a growing number of recent studies have examined whether there is a relationship between witnessing IPV exposure, engaging in bullying behaviors, and being victimized by peers. The majority of these studies provide empirical evidence that IPV, bullying behaviors, and victimization are interrelated (Baldry et al., 2003; Bowes et al., 2009; Culver et al., 2010; Ferguson, Miguel, & Hartley, 2009; Holt, Kantor, & Finkelhor, 2009; Moretti et al., 2009; Mustanoja et al., 2011). For instance, Baldry (2003) documented that, among a large sample of Italian elementary and middle school students, witnessing IPV correlated with bullying behaviors, especially among girls. Girls exposed to a father’s violence against the mother or to a mother’s violence against the father were among the most likely to bully others, compared to girls who had not been exposed to any form of IPV. Additionally, bullying and victimization were predicted by exposure to inter-parental violence, especially mother-to-father violence, over and above age, gender, and child abuse by the father. Other cross sectional studies report similar findings on the relationship between IPV and bullying behaviors (Culver et al., 2010; Ferguson et al., 2009; Holt et al., 2009; Moretti et al., 2006; Mustanjoa et al., 2011) and IPV and bullying victimization by peers (Mustanjoa et al., 2011). For instance, a South African study of 1,050 children controlling for important demographic factors (e.g., food insecurity and orphanhood status) documented that witnessing IPV domestic violence was a risk factor for aggressive behaviors and bullying peers (Cluver et al., 2010). Longitudinal findings based on children in the United Kingdom have also attempted to determine whether the relationship between IPV and bullying behaviors was consistent across a two-year period. A large representative sample also substantiated similar findings. Over and above socioenvironmental

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65


9

factors, boys and girls who witnessed IPV were at increased risk for perpetrating bullying (Bowes et al., 2009). Other findings suggest that the relationship between witnessing IPV and bullying behaviors might be mediated by psychological problems such as aggression and PTSD. For instance, among adolescents in a Canadian correctional facility, girls who had witnessed their mothers’ aggressive behavior toward intimate partners were considerably more aggressive toward friends than girls who had not observed IPV. Boys who observed their fathers’ aggression were more likely to display aggressive behavior towards friends as well. Youth of both genders who witnessed mothers’ aggression were significantly more likely to exhibit aggression toward their own romantic partners. Among these youth, the association between exposure to IPV and aggressive was particularly strong for those who met PTSD diagnostic criteria (Moretti, Obsuth, Odgers, & Reebye, 2006). Researchers posit that some youth who witness IPV may become highly sensitized or desensitized to detecting aggressive cues, either of which can make them more prone to bullying or becoming victimized by peers (Bauer et al., 2006). Youth who pick up excessively on aggressive cues in their interaction with other children may respond with more aggressive bullying behaviors to peers. Those who are overly desensitized to such cues and be at increased risk of being bullied or victimized (Bauer et al., 2006; Lundy & Grossman, 2005). However, one longitudinal study of youth found that although exposure to IPV was related to increased problematic behaviors, it was not associated with child-reported relational bullying behaviors or victimization by peers (Bauer et al., 2006). In summary, the majority of studies have found relationships between IPV exposure and peer victimization, and bullying behaviors. These studies also suggest that several potential

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

Intimate-Partner Violence and Bullying 10 mediators may account for this relationship. Next, we describe our conceptual model and briefly review the empirical and theoretical literatures, which support some hypothesized mediators linking IPV and aggressive and bullying behaviors among adolescents. Conceptual model Figure 1 illustrates our integration of ecological factors (e.g., mental health, school and peer factors) that are rarely considered collectively when examining the developmental impact of IPV on bullying behaviors and victimization. Based on a socio-ecological approach (Bronfenbrenner, 1977) youth interact in several primary spheres (e.g., family, schools, and peer groups) that are likely to be influenced by their witnessing IPV. Based on our review of the extant literature, we have already documented direct relationships between IPV and bullying behaviors and peer victimization. These relationships are illustrated by solid bolded lines. In addition, based on existing research and theoretical underpinnings we posit that witnessing IPV places youth at increased risk for psychological difficulties (e.g., internalizing and externalizing behaviors and PTSD) (Evans, Davies, & DiLillo, 2008; Fantuzzo & Mohr, 1999; Kitzmann, Gaylord, Holt, & Kenny, 2003) and low school success (Carrell & Hoekstra, 2010). Youth who exhibit problematic behaviors at school are more likely to be negatively assessed by teachers, and concurrently more inclined to engage in aggressive bullying behaviors (Kokkinos & Panayiotou, 2004), or becoming victims of peer violence (Schwartz, McFadyen-Ketchum, Dodge, Pettit, & Bates, 1999). In addition to the empirical literature, social learning (Akers, 2009) and social control (Hirschi, 2004) theories provide theoretical and temporal support for the associations posited in this model. With regards to explanatory reasons for direct links between IPV and bullying and aggressive behaviors, youth who witness such violence may learn to view violence as a

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

Intimate-Partner Violence and Bullying 11 sanctioned way of handling conflict and consequently may be more likely to use aggressive bullying in response to peers when conflicts arise (Baldry, 2003). Researchers also posit that youth identified as aggressive may believe that aggressive acts enhance their reputation or selfimage (Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004; deBruyn & Cillessen, 2006), which further reinforces their use of bullying behaviors. In addition, as earlier mentioned heightened sensitization or desensitization to violence may infer a higher risk for bullying or peer victimization. Several mediated pathways also exist. Youth witnessing IPV are known to be at increased risk for experiencing depression, anxiety, aggression, and PTSD (Becker & McCloskey, 2002; Bogat, DeJonghe, Levendosky, Davidson, & vonEye, 2006; McDonald, Jouriles, Tart, & Minze, 2009; McCloskey & Walker, 2000; Shen, 2009; Vickerman, 2008). Such psychological problem behaviors (e.g., anxiety or aggression) may result in these youth becoming more prone to bullying, while sequelae such as depression may leave them more prone to becoming victimized by peers (Fekkes et al., 2005). Psychological problem behaviors may also directly lead to more problematic peer interactions given that these youth may exhibit lower social competency skills compared their counterparts (Margolin & Gordis, 2000; Repetti, Taylor, & Seeman, 2002). Additionally, psychological problem behaviors may mediate the relationships between witnessing IPV and low school success. Youth exhibiting psychological distress symptoms (e.g., depression, aggression, PTSD) resulting from IPV are at greater risk for school failure and poor bonding with teachers (Margolin & Gordis, 2000). Additionally, witnessing IPV may negatively impact school success directly or through psychological problem behaviors. According to one formulation of social control (Hirschi, 2004), youth exposed to violence may not develop important attachment bonds with teachers because they are more prone to exhibit behavioral problems (e.g., aggressive, anxiety, depression) and/or

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

Intimate-Partner Violence and Bullying 12 perform poorly in their academics. Such dynamics increase the risk of poor connections to prosocial adults and institutions and involvement in problematic peers groups and further modeling of aggressive behaviors. Furthermore, some research has documented that low school success is associated with increased bullying behaviors among youth (Schwartz et al., 2002). Moreover, there are also direct links between witnessing IPV and problematic peer interactions. Children from violent homes report lower levels of social competencies (Fantuzzo & Mohr, 1999; Repetti, Taylor, & Seeman, 2002), and are less likely to be involved in social activities compared to peers not exposed to IPV (Margolin & Gordis, 2000). The model we are proposing is in congruence with other studies that have also identified psychological problem behaviors, low school success and negative peer interactions as common mediators that influence a number of other youth problem behaviors, including bullying involvement. For instance, Bender (2010) posits that mental health problems, school difficulties, and negative peer networks are some of the factors mediating the relationship between child maltreatment and delinquent behaviors (e.g., committing violent crimes). Additionally, Voisin, Jenkins, and Takahashi (2011) document that mental health problems, low school success, and negative peer influences mediate the relationship between community violence exposures and risky sexual behaviors. Such conceptual congruence implicating mental health problems, negative school success, and problematic peer relations as intervening variables across various problem domains, provides support for problem behavior theory, which posits that many negative youth problem behaviors are interrelated and may include common antecedents (Jessor & Jessor, 1991). Psychological problem behaviors

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

Intimate-Partner Violence and Bullying 13 Numerous studies provide evidence that witnessing IPV increases youth’s vulnerability to internalizing and externalizing symptoms and PTSD. For instance, studies on the effects of exposure to IPV consistently report that children who witness such violence are at a significant risk for experiencing internalizing behaviors, such as depression and anxiety (Fantuzzo & Mohr, 1999; Reynolds, Wallace, Hill, Weist, & Nabors, 2001; Sternberg, Lamb, Guterman, & Abbott, 2006; Ybarra, Wilkens, & Lieberman, 2007). Scholars have theorized some mechanisms linking IPV with parents’ and children’s internalizing behavior. For instance, exposure to IPV may heighten children’s emotional insecurity (Grych, Fincham, Jouriles, & McDonald, 2000) and fear of death or parental loss, which can potentially lead to depression and anxiety (Osofsky, 2003). It is also common for children witnessing IPV to experience feelings of guilt and a sense of responsibility for the violence (Groves, 1999). Youth who witness violence in the home are also likely to display externalizing behaviors, such as conduct and oppositional defiant disorders and aggressive interactions with peers (Herrera & McCloskey, 2001; Jouriles, McDonald, Norwood, & Ezell, 2001; McFarlane, Groff, O’Brien, & Watson, 2003; Pelcovitz, Kaplan, DeRosa, Mandel, & Salzinger, 2000). Social learning theory is frequently used to explain children’s aggressive behavior (Simons, Lin, & Gordon, 1998) and is relevant to the link between those behaviors and exposure to IPV. By observing violence within the home, youth learn to accept aggression as a legitimate way to resolve peer conflicts and to interact with others. Several researchers have also shown that some children who witness IPV display adjustment problems (Jouriles, McDonald, Norwood, & Ezell, 2001; McDonald, Jouriles, Briggs-Gowan, Rosenfeld, & Carter, 2007). For example, Levendosky et al. (2002) found that preschool-aged children exposed to IPV are at elevated risk for trauma and adjustment problems. IPV can compromise parents’ ability to develop warm,

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

Intimate-Partner Violence and Bullying 14 affectionate relationships with their children, which contributes to breakdowns in parental discipline and subsequent youth behavioral problems (Levendosky & Graham-Bermann, 2001). Bowlby (1969) viewed interpersonal anger arising from frustrated attachment needs and aggression as a form of behavior aimed at regaining contact with attachment figures. Children exposed to IPV are also at increased risk for exhibiting PTSD. Evidence shows that approximately one-third of participants witnessing IPV met the diagnostic criteria for PTSD (Moretti, Obsuth, Odgers, & Reebye, 2001). Lehmann (1997) theorized that children who witness assault and violence inflicted against a parent are likely to feel terrorized, helpless, and threatened, which compels them to search for a reason for what has occurred. Consequently, children’s recovery from trauma and PTSD may be hindered by effects of their victimization, such as guilt, self-blame, vulnerability, and a perception of the world as dangerous (Lehmann, 1997). As earlier noted, youth exhibiting psychological distress symptoms (e.g., depression, aggression, PTSD) resulting from IPV are at greater risk for school failure and poor bonding with teachers (Margolin & Gordis, 2000). The links between psychological problem behaviors and increased bullying and peer victimizations have also supported by empirical evidence. Both internalizing and externalizing behaviors have been empirically linked to bullying and victimization (Espelage, Bosworth, & Simon, 2001; Fekkes et al., 2005; Klomek et al., 2007). Fekkes et al. (2005) examined the association between mental health symptoms and bullying victimization among 1,118 children in the Netherlands. Results indicated that students with depressive symptoms were significantly more likely to be victimized by their peers. Internalizing behaviors, such as depression and anxiety resulting from IPV can make children an easy target for bullying victimization, as they appear to be more vulnerable than children who do not display internalizing behaviors. Children

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

Intimate-Partner Violence and Bullying 15 with internalizing behaviors are perceived as less likely to stand up for themselves when they are victimized, and bullies may fear less retaliation from them (Fekkes et al., 2005). Research findings also revealed that externalizing behavior, such as hyperactivity and aggression places children at heightened risk of bullying and aggressive behaviors at school (Campbell, Shaw, & Gilliom, 2000; Roland & Idsoe, 2001). To illustrate, Roland and Idsoe’s (2001) study, which investigated the relationship between proactive and reactive aggression and bullying and victimization among 1,801 fifth graders and 2,083 eighth graders in Norwegian schools, reported a strong relationship between both proactive and reactive aggression and bullying perpetration among younger youth. For older youth, only proactive aggression was significantly associated with perpetration. Interestingly, the researchers also found little gender differences in the association between reactive aggression and bullying involvement. School success There are direct relationships between IPV and school success. School success (e.g., academic achievement, strong cognitive abilities, and positive school behaviors) can also be compromised among school-aged youth who witness IPV (Fantuzzo & Mohr, 1999; Osofsky, 2003). Acting out in school and truancy are common outcomes of exposure to violence at home. Moreover, children exposed to IPV demonstrate difficulty in concentration, low academic performances, and significantly lower scores on measures of verbal, motor, and cognitive skills (Fantuzzo & Mohr, 1999; Huth-Bocks, Levendosky, & Semel, 2001; Koenen, Moffitt, Caspi, Taylor, & Purcell, 2003; Mabanglo, 2002; Margolin & Gordis, 2000). Researchers found that children of abused mothers are considerably more likely to exhibit behavioral problems than children of non-abused mothers (McFarlane, Groff, O’Brien, & Watson, 2003). Longitudinal studies have also established this relationship between IPV and school success. Findings

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

Intimate-Partner Violence and Bullying 16 provided evidence that exposure to IPV was a major predictor of low academic performance among males and a moderate predictor among females (Whitney, Renner, & Herrenkohl, 2010). Emerging research also documents that school performance is associated with bullying behaviors, although more research is needed to better understand this complex relationship. For instance, Schwartz et al. (2002) documented that among a sample of South Korean elementary school age children, participants who performed poorly in school compared to their counterparts reported higher rates of bullying behaviors and peer victimization. In contrast, Woods and Wolke (2002) found that children with low school performance were not likely to experience direct bullying. However, those with high academic performance were often involved in relational bullying (e.g., social exclusion). The researchers posit that children who use social manipulation are socially skilled and intelligent, and therefore can avoid being caught in the act of bullying other children. Findings from the abovementioned studies support linkages between academic achievement, bullying behaviors, and peer victimization, although the findings suggest a complex relationship warranting further investigation. Osofsky (1995) has theorized that children who frequently witness violence at home might lose hope that they will survive through adolescence or early adulthood, a belief that can negatively affect their behaviors and performances in school. Additionally, depression may lead to poor study skills or other psychological problems could lead to anger, fear, and low interest in school activities. Problematic peer interactions There are also direct links between witnessing IPV and problematic peer interactions. Children from violent homes report lower levels of social competencies (Fantuzzo & Mohr, 1999; Repetti, Taylor, & Seeman, 2002), and are less likely to be involved in social activities

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

Intimate-Partner Violence and Bullying 17 compared to children from nonviolent homes (Margolin & Gordis, 2000). As a result, these children also report lower-quality peer relationships outside the home (Fantuzzo & Mohr, 1999; Margolin & Gordis, 2000). Given the unpredictability of their living environments, such youth are more prone to difficulties in forming positive interpersonal relations with others outside the home (McCloskey & Stuewig, 2001). Longitudinal research further substantiates that youth who have been exposed to IPV may affiliate with negative peer groups who endorse the use of violence as a way of dealing with disputes or frustrations (Ehrensaft, 2008; Margolin & Gordis, 2000). For instance, Williamson and Silverman (2001) found that exposure to IPV is predictive of negative peer relationships among older adolescents and young adults. In this review, we have already established that both boys and girls who witnesses IPV are at increased risk for exhibiting externalizing behaviors, such as aggression towards peers (Cummings, Pepler, & Moore, 1999; Herrera & McCloskey, 2001; Jouriles, McDonald, Norwood, & Ezell, 2001; Mabanglo, 2002; McFarlane, Groff, O’Brien, & Watson, 2003; Pelcovitz, Kaplan, DeRosa, Mandel, & Salzinger, 2000). Prior research has shown that externalizing behaviors are significant predictors of interpersonal problems, such as peer rejection and aggressive peer interactions (Egan et al., 1998; Hodges et al., 1999; McCloskey & Stuewig, 2001; Pope & Bierman, 1999; Schwartz, McFadyen-Ketchum, Dodge, Pettit, & Bates, 1999). Longitudinal research provides evidence that externalizing behaviors (i.e., aggression, hyperactive-disruptive behavior, and irritable-inattentive behavior) predicted adolescent peer problems and antisocial behavior among middle school boys. Problematic peer interactions can also heighten subsequent risk for peer victimization. Empirical findings have documented that aggression is linked to peer problems in elementary school through adolescence, resulting in significant risk for peer rejection and victimization

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

Intimate-Partner Violence and Bullying 18 (Pope & Bierman, 1999). Additionally, research has also shown that negative peer responses to a child’s behavior can predict long-term vulnerability to peer victimization through reputational processes. Children who develop an unfavorable reputation, particularly during the first years of school, are likely to encounter peer rejection and victimization in later years (Schwartz et al., 1999). Driven by the need for acceptance, youth who are rejected by positive peers may be drawn to or recruited by negative peer networks, which may advance further aggressive or bullying behaviors (Bender, 2010; Ferguson, Miguel, & Hartley, 2009). Ferguson et al.’s (2009) research, which investigated multiple risk factors for youth violence (aggression, bullying, and delinquent behavior) from a sample of 603 predominantly Latino children revealed that antisocial personality traits and delinquent peer associations were the strongest predictors of bullying behavior. More specifically, bullying behavior was best predicted by antisocial personality traits and delinquent peer association. In summary, we have provided ample evidence supporting all linkages in our conceptual model. However, negative consequences, though likely, are not always associated with witnessing IPV and its sequelae given that several factors can either mitigate or amplify the strength and direction of such violence exposures. In the next section, we discuss several of these moderators. Factors moderating witnessing IPV and its consequences As shown in Figure 1, there are a number of factors that can likely moderate exposure to IPV and its associated sequelae. The meta-factors that would most likely moderate all the relationships posited in this conceptual model are highlighted with broken lines. Factors such as age, gender, race/ethnicity, parenting practices, parent-child relationships, and positive peer relations are among such potential moderators (Holt, Buckley, & Whelan, 2008), which can

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

Intimate-Partner Violence and Bullying 19 mitigate the strength of the relationship between IPV exposure and bullying and peer victimization. Age often affects exposure responses to IPV, especially with regards to psychological symptoms. At younger ages, children may still be individuating from parents. Therefore, they may not be able to distinguish witnessing from actual victimization, and may perceive such violence as a personal threat to themselves (Edmond, Fitzgerald, & Krackle, 2005). Younger children may also not have the language or cognitive capacity to express or cope with such violence exposure. Therefore, the negative sequelae of such exposure may be more psychologically damaging to younger versus older youth. Gender is another likely moderator of the association between exposure to IPV and bullying and peer victimization. Boys exposed to IPV might respond differently than girls with regards to psychological symptoms. In this review, we have shown that boys and girls often tend to respond to IPV exposure in “gendered” ways. Younger boys are more likely to display externalizing behaviors, such as aggression and violent behaviors, while younger girls have the tendency to exhibit internalizing behaviors, such as depression and low self-esteem (Edleson, 1999; Herrera & McCloskey, 2001; Jaycox et al., 2002; Martin, 2002). However, such patterns may reverse with age (see Evans, Davies, & DiLillo, 2008; and Kitzmann, Gaylord, Holt, & Kenny, 2003 for meta-analytic reviews). During adolescence, some boys may exhibit feelings of depression (Evans et al., 2008), while some girls may exhibit higher levels of anger and aggression (Evans et al., 2008; Voisin & Neilands, 2010). Endocrine functions appear to play a significant role in gender-based expression of youth aggression as well. Controlling for age, grade, stage of pubertal development, and economic status of families, findings indicate that testosterone levels were significantly positively

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

Intimate-Partner Violence and Bullying 20 associated with aggressive behaviors in both boys and girls. Additionally, given that levels of testosterone are usually higher among boys than girls (Yu & Shi, 2009), this may be one reason why higher levels of externalizing behaviors have been noted more among boys than girls. Race/ethnicity is another important moderator of IPV exposure and bullying and victimization, although findings have been mixed. Some studies have shown that racial/ethnic minority children exposed to IPV exhibited fewer externalizing behaviors than their white peers (see Graham-Bermann & Hughes, 2003 for a review). In contrast, others have shown that Latino children were less likely to have lower externalizing scores than non-Latino, white children (Hazen, Connelly, Kellcher, Barth, & Landsverk, 2006). Along similar lines, other studies report that externalizing behavior, such as aggression, was higher among racial/ethnic minorities than white peers, particularly when considering socioeconomic status (Ehrensaft et al., 2003; Morrel, Dubowitz, Kerr, & Black, 2003). Not surprising, parenting practices have also been found to buffer the negative consequences associated with children’s exposure to IPV (Levendosky & Graham-Bermann, 2003; Sousa et al., 2011). For instance, Levendosky and Graham-Bermann (2003) reported that children who witness IPV but have a degree of maternal authority or control exhibit more positive behaviors than peers who lack high maternal control. Researchers speculate that mothers who experience IPV may also overcompensate with positive parenting practices that may help ameliorate the negative consequences of such exposures on their youth (Levendosky, HuthBocks, Shapiro, & Semel, 2003). In contrast, IPV can also result in negative parenting practices. When a parent is physically abused, such violence may compromise their ability to nurture, support, monitor, or disciple their youth, which in turn may have negative developmental consequences for those

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

Intimate-Partner Violence and Bullying 21 youth (Margolin & Gordis, 2000). Abused parents are likely to feel helpless and may not be emotionally available to their children (Appleyard & Osofsky 2003). Some mothers may also become overprotective or may expect their children to protect them, which can negatively affect children’s emotional development (Zerk, Mertin, & Proeve, 2009). Such compensation responses from parents may thwart the development of autonomy in these youth, and therefore heighten the actual victimization of children who are at-risk for peer victimization. Duncan (2004) argues that boys with overprotective mothers frequently experience peer victimization at school because they have trouble exploring new social situations alone or with peers. They are typically sheltered from negative experiences, and therefore do not develop the social skills necessary for handling and resolving conflicts. On the other hand, girls are likely to experience peer victimization if their mothers are emotionally abused and become hostile, and distant. Such youth may be unable to learn proper social skills because their mothers failed to model healthy interpersonal skills, which can lead to poor emotional regulation and communication problems. In contrast, parenting that is characterized as supportive can reduce the likelihood of bullying involvement. Baldry and Farrington’s (2005) study, which included a sample of 679 male youth in an Italian high school, reported that the quality of family relationships could foster or inhibit youth’s experiences with bullying and victimization. Youth with punitive parents were at a heightened risk of bullying and victimization. On the contrary, those with supportive and authoritative parents were less likely to be involved. Peer relationships are also a significant moderator of violence exposure sequelae. Kinniburgh, Blaustein, and Spinazzola (2005) theorize that successful establishment of positive peer relationships in middle childhood can buffer the negative impact of IPV. These researchers argue that positive peer relationships can enhance children’s success in forming secure

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

Intimate-Partner Violence and Bullying 22 attachment relationships, which can result in competencies across cognitive, emotional, intrapersonal, and school domains. Consequently, children can build an internal sense of efficacy and achievement that allows them to approach new challenges with confidence (Kinniburgh, Blaustein, & Spinazzola, 2005). Indeed, several empirical studies support this assumption (Levendosky, Huth-Bocks, Shapiro, & Semel, 2002; Muller, Goebel-Fabbri, Diamond, & Dinklage, 2000; Tajima, Herrenkohl, Moylan, & Derr, 2011). For instance, results show that positive social support from peers is a consistent moderator of IPV sequelae (Tajima, Herrenkohl, Moylan, & Derr, 2011). Positive peer relationships and peer social support is also a protective factor against bullying and victimization, as evident in several research findings (Bollmer et al., 2005; Demaray & Malecki, 2003; Schmidt & Bagwell, 2007). Demaray and Malecki (2003) found that peer acceptance and peer social support protected youth from peer victimization in school. Rigby (2005) also reported that youth with positive peer relationships and friendships are less likely to be victimized by their peers at school. Methodological considerations and future directions We anticipate that this conceptual model will help to begin integrating disparate fields of violence that have traditionally been examined in silos. Our conceptual framework is preliminary and an empirical examination of it will help to identify more specified causal pathways. For instance, does depression or aggression lead to alternate explanatory pathways? Though preliminary in nature, this model provides an integrative framework for guiding future empirical research. Additionally, this framework might also be used to examine whether the mediating domains we identified provide theoretical or empirical explanations for other co-occurring youth problem behaviors (e.g., exposure to community violence and bullying behaviors).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

Intimate-Partner Violence and Bullying 23 In reviewing this literature, several limitations need to be mentioned. In general, the vast preponderance of social science studies is based on cross-sectional designs. Likewise, our knowledge regarding how witnessing IPV exposures relates to bullying behaviors and victimization is based on cross-sectional studies. Therefore, the short and long-term consequences of such violence exposures are not fully understood. Additionally, conceptualizations of IPV and bullying behaviors vary greatly in the literature. Some studies refer to domestic violence when in fact they are evaluating IPV while others assess it differently (Holt, Buckley, & Whelan, 2008). Additionally, bullying measures differ greatly across studies (Crick, Casas, & Ku, 1999; Espelage & Horne, 2008; Espelage & Swearer, 2003). This presents a major challenge when attempting to compare overall findings across multiple studies, which may contribute to some of the mixed findings noted in this review (Bauer et al., 2006). Additionally, some studies on IPV have oversampled shelter populations. Shelter life may pose additional stressors on mental health and social functioning beyond that of exposure to IPV (McIntosh, 2003). Consequently, findings from such studies may have limited generalizability to broader IPV populations (McIntosh, 2003). Moreover, some studies have used parents as the index person to assess IPV exposure while others have used children. Such variability poses major challenges for underreporting or over reporting such violence and can introduce significant measurement errors (McIntosh, 2003). We have identified several potential moderators in this manuscript. However, others may exist. McIntosh (2003) highlights those factors, such as culture and socioeconomic status, which are likely to play an important role in how youth may experience IPV and its after-effects. Additionally, Fantuzzo and Mohr (1999) point out that while the majority of research controls for a child’s age, gender, and socioeconomic status, fewer studies have considered how marital

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

Intimate-Partner Violence and Bullying 24 status, mother’s age, and family size may influence IPV exposure outcomes. Finally, other researchers have noted that some studies have assessed lifetime exposure to IPV while others have focused on more recent occurrences (Appel & Holden, 1998). Such measurement variations can make it difficult to disentangle temporal ordering among variables. Another major methodological consideration is the high correlation between witnessing IPV and child maltreatment (Herrenkohl, Sousa, Tajima, Herrenkohl, & Moylan, 2008). While some investigators have controlled for child maltreatment in their studies (Baldry, 2003), it is not always clear that others have done so. This is especially challenging given that younger children who witness IPV may not be able to disentangle witnessing from personal maltreatment (Edmond, Fitzgerald, & Krackle, 2005). Additionally, intimate partner and community violence are also highly correlated (Margolin & Gordis, 2000). Consequently, families that experience high levels of IPV may also live in communities that are besieged by community violence and other stressors. Therefore, disentangling the unique effects of witnessing IPV on negative sequelae from those of child maltreatment or other stressors can pose a major dilemma for social scientists. The fact that exposure to community violence and other environmental stressors can challenge the capacity of youth to adjust to IPV further heightens this dilemma. Finally, the pathways we presented in this model are meant to be illustrative and are by no means exhaustive. Other indirect paths may also exist. In conclusion, this conceptual model integrates several youth problem domains that have all too often been examined in silos. Our review and critique of the literature provides a framework for future empirical work in this field. We hope that researchers will test this conceptual model and identify empirically grounded moderators. When tested, this conceptual

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

Intimate-Partner Violence and Bullying 25 formulation may provide promising points for interventions to curtail the negative consequences associated with witnessing violence within the home.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

Intimate-Partner Violence and Bullying 26 References Akers, R. L. (2009). Social learning and social structure: A general theory of crime and deviance. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Appel, A. E., & Holden, G. W. (1998). The co-occurrence of spouse and physical child abuse: A review and appraisal. Journal of Family Psychology, 12, 578-599. Appleyard, K., & Osofsky, J. D. (2003). Parenting after trauma: Supporting parents and caregivers in the treatment of children impacted by violence. Infant Mental Health Journal, 24, 111-125. Baldry, A. C. (2003). Bullying in schools and exposure to domestic violence. Child Abuse & Neglect, 27, 713-732. Baldry, A. C., & Farrington, D. P. (2005). Protective factors as moderators of risk factors in adolescence bullying. Social Psychology of Education, 8, 263-284. Barboza, G. E., Schiamberg, L. B., Oehmke, J., Korzeniewski, S. J., Post, L. A., & Heraux, C. G. (2009). Individual characteristics and the multiple contexts of adolescent bullying: An ecological perspective. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38, 101-121. Bauer, N. S., Herrenkohl, T. I., Lozano, P., Rivara, F. P., Hill, K. G., & Hawkins, J. D. (2006). Childhood bullying involvement and exposure to intimate partner violence. Pediatrics, 118, e235-e242. Becker, K. B., & McCloskey, L. A. (2002). Attention and conduct problems in children exposed to family violence. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 72, 83-91. Bender, K. (2010). Why do some maltreated youth become juvenile offenders? A call for further investigation and adaptation of youth services. Children and Youth Services Review, 32, 466-473.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

Intimate-Partner Violence and Bullying 27 Bogat, G. A., DeJonghe, E., Levendosky, A. A., Davidson, W. S., & vonEye, A. (2006). Trauma symptoms among infants exposed to intimate partner violence. Child Abuse & & Neglect, 30, 109-125. Bollmer, J. M., Milich, R., Harris, M. J., & Maras, M. A. (2005). A friend in need: The role of friendship quality as a protective factor in peer victimization and bullying. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20, 701-712. Bowes, L., Arseneault, L., Maughan, B., Taylor, A., Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. E. (2009). School, neighborhood, and family factors are associated with children’s bullying involvement: A nationally representative longitudinal study. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 48, 545-553. Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss, Vol, 1: Attachment. NY: Basic Books. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American Psychologist, 32, 513-531. Bureau of Justice (2011). Intimate partner violence. Retrieved November 14, 2011, from http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=971 Campbell, S. B., Shaw, D. S., & Gilliom, M. (2000). Early externalizing behavior problems: Toddlers and preschoolers at risk for later maladjustment. Development and Psychopathology,12, 467-488. Carrell, S. E., & Hoekstra, M. L. (2010). Externalities in the classroom: How children exposed to domestic violence affect everyone’s kids. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, 2, 211-228. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2010). Intimate partner violence: Definitions. Retrieved October 10, 2011, from

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

Intimate-Partner Violence and Bullying 28 http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/intimatepartnerviolence/definitions.html Cillessen, A. H. N., & Mayeux, L. (2004). From censure to reinforcement: Developmental changes in the association between aggression and social status. Child Development, 75, 147-163. Cluver, L., Bowes, L., & Gardner, F. (2010). Risk and protective factors for bullying victimization among AIDS-affected and vulnerable children in South Africa. Child Abuse & Neglect, 34, 793-803. Corvo, K., & deLara, E. (2010). Towards an integrated theory of relational violence: Is bullying a risk factor for domestic violence? Aggression and Violent Behavior, 15, 181-190. Crick, N. R., Casas, J. F., & Ku, H. C. (1999). Relational and physical forms of peer victimization in preschool. Developmental Psychology, 35, 376-385. Cummings, J., Pepler, D., & Moore, T. (1999). Behavior problems in children exposed to wife abuse: Gender differences. Journal of Family Violence, 14, 133-156. deBruyn, E. H., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2006). Popularity in early adolescence: Prosocial and antisocial subtypes. Journal of Adolescent Research, 21, 607-627. Demaray, M. K., & Malecki, C. K. (2003). Perceptions of the frequency and importance of social support by students classified as victims, bullies and bully/victims in an urban middle school. School Psychology Review, 32, 471-489. Duncan, R. D. (2004). The impact of family relationships on school bullies and victim. In D. L. Espelage & S. M. Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in American schools: A social-ecological perspective on prevention and intervention (pp. 227-244). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Edleson, J. L. (1999). Children’s witnessing of adult domestic violence. Journal of

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

Intimate-Partner Violence and Bullying 29 Interpersonal Violence, 14, 839-870. Edmond, Y., Fitzgerald, M., & Kracke, K. (2005). Incidence and prevalence of children exposed to violence: A research review. Retrieved May 29, 2011, from http://www.safestartcenter.org Ehrensaft, M. K. (2008). Intimate partner violence: Persistence of myths and implications for intervention. Children and Youth Services Review, 30, 276-286. Ehrensaft, M. K., Cohen, P., Brown, J., Smailes, E., Chen, H., & Johnson, J. G. (2003). Intergenerational transmission of partner violence: A 20-year prospective study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71, 741-753. Espelage, D. L., Bosworth, K., & Simon, T. R. (2001). Short-term stability and prospective correlates of bullying in middle-school students: An examination of potential demographic, psychosocial, and environmental influences. Violence and Victims, 16, 411-426. Espelage, D., & Horne, A. (2008). School violence and bullying prevention: From research based explanations to empirically based solutions. In S. Brown & R. Lent (Eds.), Handbook of counseling psychology, 4th edition (pp. 588 – 606). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons. Espelage, D. L., & Swearer, S. M. (2003). Research on school bullying and victimization: What have we learned and where do we go from here? School Psychology Review, 32, 365-383. Evans, S. E., Davies, C., & DiLillo, D. (2008). Exposure to domestic violence: A metaanalysis of child and adolescent outcomes. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 13, 131-140. Fantuzzo, J. W., & Mohr, W. K. (1999). Prevalence and effects of child exposure to

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

Intimate-Partner Violence and Bullying 30 domestic violence. The Future of Children, 9, 21-32. Farmer, A., & Tiefenthaler, J. (2003). Explaining the recent decline in domestic violence. Contemporary Economic Policy, 21, 158-172. Fekkes, M., Pijpers, F. I. M., Verloove-Vanhorick, S. P. (2005). Bullying: Who does what, when and where? Involvement of children, teachers and parents in bullying behavior. Health Education Research, 20, 81-91. Ferguson, C. J., Miguel, C. S., & Hartley, R. D. (2009). A multivariate analysis of youth violence and aggression: The influence of family, peers, depression, and media violence. The Journal of Pediatrics, 155, 904-908. Glew, G. M., Fan, M. Y., Katon, W., Rivara, F. P., & Kernic, M. A. (2005). Bullying, psychosocial adjustment, and academic performance in elementary school. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 159, 1026-1031. Goldstein, S. E., Young, A., & Boyd, C. (2008). Relational aggression at school: Associations with school safety and social climate. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37, 641-654. Grossman, S. F., & Lundy, M. (2007). Domestic violence across race and ethnicity: Implications for social work practice and policy. Violence Against Women, 13, 1029-1052. Graham-Bermann, S. A., & Hughes, H. M. (2003). Intervention for children exposed to interparental violence (IPV): Assessment of needs and research priorities. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 6, 189-204. Griffin, R. S., & Gross, A. M. (2004). Childhood bullying: Current empirical findings and future directions for research. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9, 379-400.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

Intimate-Partner Violence and Bullying 31 Groves, B. M. (1999). Mental health services for children who witness domestic violence. The Future of Children, 9, 122-132. Grych, J. H., Fincham, F. D., Jouriles, E. N., & McDonald, R. (2000). Interparental conflict and child adjustment: Testing the mediational role of appraisals in the cognitivecontextual framework. Child Development, 71, 1648-1661. Hanish, L. D., & Guerra, N. G. (2000). The roles of ethnicity and school context in predicting children’s victimization by peers. American Journal of Community Psychology, 28, 201223. Haynie, D. L., Nansel, T., Eitel, P., Crump, A. D., Saylor, K., & Yu, K. (2001). Bullies, victims, and bully/victims: Distinct groups of at-risk youth. Journal of Early Adolescence, 21, 2949. Hazen, A. L., Connelly, C. D., Kelleher, K. J., Barth, R. P., & Landsverk, J. A. (2006). Female caregivers’ experiences with intimate partner violence and behavior problems in children investigated as victims of maltreatment. Pediatrics, 117, 99-109. Herrenkohl, T. I., Sousa, C., Tajima, E. A., Herrenkohl, R. C., & Moylan, C. A. (2008). Intersection of child abuse and children’s exposure to domestic violence. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 9, 84-99. Herrera, V., & McCloskey, L. A. (2001). Gender differences in the risk for delinquency among youth exposed to family violence. Child Abuse & Neglect, 25, 1037-1051. Hirschi, T. (2004). Self-control and crime. In R. F. Baumeister & K. D. Vohs (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and application (pp. 537-552). New York: Guilford Press. Hodges, E. V. E., Boivin, M., Vitaro, F., Bukowski, W. M. (1999). The power of friendship:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

Intimate-Partner Violence and Bullying 32 Protection against escalating cycle of peer victimization. Developmental Psychology, 35, 94-101. Holt, M. K., Kantor, G. K., & Finkelhor, D. (2009). Parent/child concordance about bullying involvement and family characteristics related to bullying and peer victimization. Journal of School Violence, 8, 42-63. Holt, S., Buckley, H., & Whelan, S. (2008). The impact of exposure to domestic violence on children and young people: A review of the literature. Child Abuse & Neglect, 32, 797-810. Hong, J. S., & Espelage, D. L. (in press). A review of research on bullying and peer victimization in school: An ecological system analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior. Huth-Bocks, A. C., Levendosky, A. A., & Semel, M. A. (2001). The direct and indirect effects of domestic violence on young children’s intellectual functioning. Journal of Family Violence, 16, 269-290. Indicators of School Crime and Safety (2007). Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2007. Washington, DC: Author. Jaycox, L. H., Stein, B. D., Kataoka, S. H., Wong, M., Fink, A., Escudero, P., & Zaragoza, C. (2002). Violence exposure, posttraumatic stress disorder, and depressive symptoms among recent immigrant schoolchildren. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 41, 1104-1110. Jewkes, R., Levin, J., Penn-Kekana, L. (2002). Risk factors for domestic violence: Findings from a South African cross-sectional study. Social Science and Medicine, 5, 16031617.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

Intimate-Partner Violence and Bullying 33 Jouriles, E., McDonald, R., Norwood, W. D., & Ezell, E. (2001). Issues and controversies in documenting the prevalence of children’s exposure to domestic violence. In S. A. Graham-Bermann & J. L. Edleson (Eds.), Domestic violence in the lives of children (pp. 13-34). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Kinniburgh, K. J., Blaustein, M., & Spinazzola, J. (2005). Attachment, self-regulation, and competency. Psychiatric Annals, 35, 425-430. Kitzmann, K. M., Gaylord, N. K., Holt, A. R., & Kenny, E. D. (2003). Child witnesses to domestic violence: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71, 339-352. Klomek, A., Marrocco, F., Kleinman, M., Schonfeld, I. S., & Gould, M. S. (2007). Bullying, depression, and suicidality in adolescents. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 46, 40-49. Koenen, K. C., Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., Taylor, A., & Purcell, S. (2003). Domestic violence is associated with environmental suppression of IQ in young children. Development and Psychopathology, 15, 297-311. Kokkinos, C. M., & Panayiotou, G. (2004). Predicting bullying and victimization among early adolescents: Associations with disruptive behavior disorders. Aggressive Behavior, 30, 520-533. Lehmann, P. (1997). The development of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in a sample of child witnesses to mother assault. Journal of Family Violence, 12, 241-257. Leonard, K. (2001). Domestic violence and alcohol: What is known and what do we need to know to encourage environmental interventions? Journal of Substance Use, 6, 235247.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

Intimate-Partner Violence and Bullying 34 Levendosky, A. A., Huth-Bocks, A. C., Semel, M. A., & Shapiro, D. L. (2002). Trauma symptoms in preschool-age children exposed to domestic violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17, 150-164. Levendosky, A. A., & Graham-Bermann, S. A. (2001). Parenting in battered women: The effects of domestic violence on women and their children. Journal of Family Violence, 16, 171-192. Levendosky, A. A., Huth-Bocks, A. C., Shapiro, D. L., & Semel, M. A. (2003). The impact of domestic violence on the maternal-child relationship and preschool-age children’s functioning. Journal of Family Psychology, 17, 275-287. Lundy, M., & Grossman, S. F. (2005). The mental health and service needs of young children exposed to domestic violence: Supportive data. Families in Society, 86, 1729. Mabanglo, M. (2002). Trauma and the effects of violence exposure and abuse on children: A review of the literature. Smith College Studies in Social Work, 72, 231-251. Margolin, G., & Gordis, E. B. (2000). The effects of family and community violence on children. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 445-479. Martin, S. G. (2002). Children exposed to domestic violence: Psychological considerations for health care practitioners. Holistic Nursing Practice, 16, 7-15. McCloskey, L. A., & Stuewig, J. (2001). The quality of peer relationships in children exposed to family violence. Development and Psychopathology, 13, 91-94. McCloskey, L. A., & Walker, M. (2000). Posttraumatic stress in children exposed to family violence and single-event trauma. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 39, 108-115.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

Intimate-Partner Violence and Bullying 35 McDonald, R., Jouriles, E. N., Briggs-Gowan, M. J., Rosenfeld, D., & Carter, A. S. (2007). Violence toward a family member, angry adult conflict, and child adjustment difficulties: Relations in families with 1- to 3-year-old children. Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 176-184. McDonald, R., Jouriles, E. N., Tart, C. D., & Minze, L. C. (2009). Children’s adjustment problems in families characterized by men’s severe violence toward women: Does other family violence matter? Child Abuse & Neglect, 33, 94-101. McFarlane, J., Groff, J., O’Brien, J., & Watson, K. (2003). Behaviors of children who are exposed and not exposed to intimate partner violence: An analysis of 330 Black, White, and Hispanic children. Pediatrics, 112, e202-e207. McIntosh, J. E. (2003). Thought in the face of violence: A child’s need. Child Abuse & Neglect, 26, 229-241. Moretti, M. M., Obsuth, I., Odgers, C. L., & Reebye, P. (2006). Exposure to maternal vs. paternal partner violence, PTSD, and aggression in adolescent girls and boys. Aggressive Behavior, 32, 385-395. Morrel, T. M., Dubowitz, H., Kerr, M. A., & Black, M. M. (2003). The effect of maternal victimization on children: A cross-informant study. Journal of Family Violence, 18, 2941. Muller, R. T., Goebel-Fabbri, A. E., Diamond, T., & Dinklage, D. (2000). Social support and the relationship between family and community violence exposure and psychopathology among high risk adolescents. Child Abuse & Neglect, 24, 449-464. Mustanoja, S., Luukkonen, A. H., Hakko, H., Rasanen, P., Saavala, H., Riala, K., & The STUDY-70 workgroup (2011). Is exposure to domestic violence and violent crime

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

Intimate-Partner Violence and Bullying 36 associated with bullying behaviour among underage adolescent psychiatric inpatients? Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 42, 495-506. Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M. D., Haynie, D. L., Ruan, J., & Scheidt, P. C. (2003). Relationships between bullying and violence among US youth. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 157, 348-353. Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Oxford & Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers. Osofsky, J. D. (1995). Children who witness domestic violence: The invisible victims. Social Policy Report: Society for Research in Child Development, IX, 1-16. Osofsky, J. D. (2003). Prevalence of children’s exposure to domestic violence and child maltreatment: Implications for prevention and intervention. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 6, 161-170. Pelcovitz, D., Kaplan, S., DeRosa, R., Mandel, F., & Salzinger, S. (2000). Psychiatric disorders in adolescents exposed to violence and abuse. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 70, 360-369. Pellegrini, A. D. (2002). Bullying, victimization, and sexual harassment during the transition to middle school. Educational Psychologist, 37, 151-163. Pellegrini, A. D., & Bartini, M. (2000). A longitudinal study of bullying, victimization, and peer affiliation during the transition from primary school to middle school. American Educational Research Journal, 37, 699-725. Pope, A. W., & Bierman, K. L. (1999). Predicting adolescent peer problems and antisocial activities: The relative roles of aggression and dysregulation. Developmental Psychology, 35, 335-346.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

Intimate-Partner Violence and Bullying 37 Price, J. M., & Dodge, K. A. (1989). Reactive and proactive aggression in childhood: Relations to peer status and social context dimensions. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 17, 455-471. Rennison, C., & Planty, M. (2003). Nonlethal intimate partner violence: Examining race, gender, and income patterns. Violence and Victims, 18, 433-443. Rennison, C. M., & Welchans, S. (2000). Intimate partner violence. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice. Repetti, R. L., Taylor, S. E., & Seeman, T. E. (2002). Risky families: Family social environments and the mental and physical health of offspring. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 330-366. Reynolds, M. W., Wallace, J., Hill, T. F., Weist, M. D., & Nabors, L. A. (2001). The relationship between gender, depression, and self-esteem in children who have witnessed domestic violence. Child Abuse & Neglect, 25, 1201-1206. Rigby, K. (2005). Why do some children bully at school? School Psychology International, 26, 147-161. Roland, E., & Idsoe, T. (2001). Aggression and bullying. Aggressive Behavior, 27, 446-462. Schmidt, M. E., & Bagwell, C. L. (2007). The protective role of friendships in overtly and relationally victimized boys and girls. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 53, 439-460. Schwartz, D. (2000). Subtypes of victims and aggressors in children’s peer groups. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 28, 181-192. Schwartz, D., Farver, J. M., Chang, L., & Lee-Shin, Y. (2002). Victimization in South Korean children’s peer groups. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 30, 113-125. Schwartz, D., McFadyen-Ketchum, S., Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., & Bates, J. E. (1999). Early

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

Intimate-Partner Violence and Bullying 38 behavior problems as a predictor of later peer group victimization: Moderators and mediators in the pathways of social risk. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 27, 191201. Seals, D., & Young, J. (2003). Bullying and victimization: Prevalence and relationship to gender, grade level, ethnicity, self-esteem, and depression. Adolescence, 38, 735-747. Shen, A. C. –T. (2009). Long-term effects of interparental violence and child physical maltreatment experiences on PTSD and behavior problems: A national survey of Taiwanese college students. Child Abuse & Neglect, 33, 148-160.; Simons, R. I., Lin, K. H., & Gordon, L. C. (1998). Socialization in the family of origin and male dating violence: A prospective study. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 467-478. Sousa, C., Herrenkohl, T. I., Moylan, C. A., Tajima, E. A., Klika, J. B., Herrenkohl, R. C., & Russo, M. J. (2011). Longitudinal study on the effects of child abuse and children’s exposure to domestic violence, parent-child attachments, and antisocial behavior in adolescence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 111-136. Sternberg, K. L., Lamb, M. E., Guterman, E., & Abbott, C. B. (2006). Effects of early and later family violence on children’s behavior problems and depression: A longitudinal, multiinformant perspective. Child Abuse & Neglect, 30, 283-306. Swearer, S. M. (2008). Relational aggression: Not just a female issue. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 611-616. Tajima, E. A., Herrenkohl, T. I., Moylan, C. A., & Derr, C. A. (2011). Moderating the effects of childhood exposure to domestic violence: Examining the roles of parenting characteristics and adolescent peer support, 21, 376-394. Varjas, K., Henrich, C. C., & Meyers, J. (2009). Urban middle school students’ perceptions of

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

Intimate-Partner Violence and Bullying 39 bullying, cyberbullying, and school safety. Journal of School Violence, 8, 159-176. Vickerman, K. A. A. (2008). Posttraumatic stress in children and adolescents exposed to family violence: II. Treatment. Professional Psychology, Research and Practice, 38, 620-628. Voisin, D., Jenkins, E., & Takahashi, L. (2011). Towards conceptual model linking community violence and HIV-related risk behaviors among adolescents: Directions for Research. Journal of Adolescent Health, 49, 230-236. Voisin, D., & Neilands, T. (2010). Community violence and health risk factors among adolescents on Chicago’s Southside: Does gender matter? Journal of Adolescent Health, 46(6), 600-602. Whitney, S. D., Renner, L. M., & Herrenkohl, T. I. (2010). Gender differences in risk/protection profiles for low academic performance. Journal of Community Psychology, 38, 435-455. World Health Organization (2002). World report on violence and health. Retrieved February 14, 2010, from http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/violence/world_report/en/full_en.pdf Williamson, G. M., & Silverman, J. G. (2001). Violence against female partners: Direct and interactive effects of family history, communal orientation, and peer-related variables. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18, 535-549. Wolfe, D. A., Crooks, C. V., Lee, V., McIntyre-Smith, A., & Jaffe, P. G. (2003). The effects of children’s exposure to domestic violence: A meta-analysis and critique. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 6, 171-187. Woods, S., & Wolke, D. (2004). Direct and relational bullying among primary school children and academic achievement. Journal of School Psychology, 42, 135-155. Ybarra, G. J., Wilkens, S. L., & Lieberman, A. F. (2007). The influence of domestic violence on

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

Intimate-Partner Violence and Bullying 40 preschooler behavior and functioning. Journal of Family Violence, 22, 33-42. Yu, Y., & Shi, J. (2009). Relationship between levels of testosterone and cortisol in saliva in aggressive behaviors of adolescents. Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 22(1), 44-49. Zerk, D. M., Mertin, P. G., Proeve, M. (2009). Domestic violence and maternal reports of young children’s functioning. Journal of Family Violence, 24, 423-432.

Figure

Intimate-Partner Violence and Bullying Figure 1. Conceptual model linking witnessing IPV and bullying and victimization

Increased Psychological Problem Behaviors Witnessing IPV

Bullying

Problematic Peer Interactions

Peer Victimization

Low School Success

Moderators Age Gender Race/Ethnicity Parenting Peer Support

1

Table

Table 1. Exposure to intimate partner violence and bullying and peer victimization Reference Baldry, 2003

Purpose/Design To investigate the relationship between bullying and victimization in school and exposure to violence between parents in a nonclinical sample Cross-sectional

Bauer et al., 2006

To describe the prevalence of bullying involvement among children from a multigenerational study and to examine the relationship between bullying and victimization and exposure to IPV Longitudinal

Bowes et al., 2009

To examine whether school, neighborhood, and family factors were associated with children’s involvement in bullying from a nationally representative sample of children Longitudinal

Sample N: 1058 Age: 8-15 Race/Ethnicity: Italian Gender: both Control variables: gender, age, parents living together, occupation of father and mother

Results Exposure to physical violence between parents and direct bullying were significant for girls. Girls exposed to violence between parents were most likely to directly bully others. Bullying and peer victimization were predicted by exposure to violence between parents, age, gender, and abuse by the father

N: 112 Age: 6-13 Race/Ethnicity: white, Black, other Gender: both Control variables: gender, age of mother, marital status, ethnicity/race, socioeconomic status, substance abuse

73% of youth reported being victimized and 33.9% reported bullying behavior. Majority (97%) of bullies were also victims themselves. IPV was not associated with relational bullying or peer victimization, but was a predictor for externalizing behavior and physical aggression, and internalizing behaviors

N: 2232 Age: 5-7 Race/ethnicity: not reported Gender: both Control variables: school characteristics

School, neighborhood, family, and individual factors assessed at age 5 were associated with bullying at age 7. Witnessing domestic violence and low maternal warmth were associated with perpetration while

maltreatment was associated with victimization

Cluver et al., 2010

To investigate whether bullying is a risk factor for psychological distress among poor, urban children in South Africa Cross-sectional

Ferguson et al., 2009

To investigate multivariate risk factors for youth violence among Latino children Cross-sectional

Holt et al., 2009

To investigate parents’ perspectives on bullying, parent/child concordance about bullying, and family characteristics associated with bullying involvement Cross-sectional

N: 1,050 children Age: 10-19 years of age Race/Ethnicity: Black Africans Gender: both Control variables: abuse at home, domestic and community violence, food insecurity, orphanhood status,

34% of children reported being victimized by peers. Witnessing domestic violence was a risk factor for bullying peers

N: 603 Age: 10-14 Race/ethnicity: Latino Gender: both Control variables: gender, negative life events, family environment, family violence

Family violence (parental use of psychological aggression in romantic relationships) and negative relations between child and adults predicted youth aggressive and rulebreaking behavior, and bullying

N: 205 Age: 5th grade (1012) students and parents Race/ethnicity: multiracial Gender: both Control variables: Gender, age, grade, race/ethnicity

Bullies reported that they lived in homes with poor parental monitoring are were maltreatment and domestic violence occurred

Moretti et al., 2006

To examine the association between maternal vs. paternal physical intimate-partner violence and adolescent boys’ and girls’ aggression towards parents, friends, and romantic partners

N: 144 Age: 13-18 Race/Ethnicity: white, Aboriginal, other Gender: both Control variables: gender, clinical history

Mothers’ aggressive behavior toward their intimate-partners was a predictor for girls’ aggression toward friends. Boys who witnessed their fathers’ aggression towards mothers were more likely to be aggressive towards friends. Both boys and girls who witnessed mothers’ aggression towards fathers were aggressive toward their romantic partners. Association between exposure to IPV and aggressive behavior was stronger for youth who met criteria for PTSD.

N: 508 Age: 12-17 Race/Ethnicity: Finnish Gender: both Control variables: Age, gender, mental status and substance use

Among boys and girls, bullying was associated with witnessing interparental violence and witnessing physical abuse for girls only. Among boys, only witnessing interparental violence increased the risk of bullying victimization. In girls, witnessing violent crime increased the likelihood of bullying perpetration

Cross-sectional

Mustanoja et al., 2011

To investigate the relationship between children’s exposure to inter-parental violence and violence outside the home to bullying Cross-sectional