Navas-Martínez María J, Cano-Lozano M Carmen
Department of Psychology, University of Jaén, 23071 Jaén, Spain.
Behav Sci (Basel). 2023 Jan 19;13(2):85. doi: 10.3390/bs13020085.
Recent research on child-to-parent violence (CPV) is advancing in the analysis of the specialist profile (aggressors who show only CPV) and the generalist profile (aggressors who show peer violence in addition to CPV). However, although differences have been found between girls and boys in the risk factors for CPV, there are no studies that analyze these differences according to the type of aggressor. Likewise, the importance of identifying the factors that differentially predict reactive and proactive CPV has been noted but has not been examined in different types of aggressors. The aims of this study were to examine gender differences in CPV patterns, emotional intelligence, parental victimization, and parental permissiveness and to analyze whether these variables predict reactive and proactive CPV, both according to aggressor type. A total of 1559 Spanish CPV aggressors (54.6% females) aged between 12 and 18 years from educational centers participated in the study (22.4% exercised only CPV (specialists) and 77.6% exercised peer violence in addition to CPV (generalists)). In general, no differences were found between girls and boys in the specialist profile, but differences were found in the generalist profile. Specifically, generalist girls exercised more psychological and control/domain violence toward mothers, while boys exercised more physical violence toward fathers and had more parental permissiveness. In specialists, parental victimization predicted reactive CPV, while parental permissiveness predicted proactive CPV. In contrast, in generalists, both parental victimization and parental permissiveness predicted both reactive and proactive CPV. Low emotional regulation was a significant predictor in both cases. This study identifies differences among girls and boys in CPV risk factors and among variables that predict reactive and proactive CPV and that these results differ between specialist and generalist aggressors. Implications for research and professional practice are discussed, highlighting the need to design and implement prevention and intervention programs specialized in the type of aggressor, paying special attention to gender differences and to the factors that motivate one or the other type of CPV.
近期关于儿童对父母暴力行为（CPV）的研究在对专家型（仅表现出CPV的攻击者）和通才型（除CPV外还表现出同伴暴力行为的攻击者）攻击者特征的分析方面取得了进展。然而，尽管在CPV的风险因素方面发现了女孩和男孩之间存在差异，但尚无研究根据攻击者类型来分析这些差异。同样，已经注意到识别不同预测反应性和主动性CPV的因素的重要性，但尚未在不同类型的攻击者中进行研究。本研究的目的是考察CPV模式、情商、父母受侵害情况和父母宽容度方面的性别差异，并分析这些变量是否根据攻击者类型预测反应性和主动性CPV。共有1559名来自教育中心、年龄在12至18岁之间的西班牙CPV攻击者（54.6%为女性）参与了该研究（22.4%仅实施CPV（专家型），77.6%除CPV外还实施同伴暴力行为（通才型））。总体而言，在专家型攻击者中未发现女孩和男孩之间存在差异，但在通才型攻击者中发现了差异。具体而言，通才型女孩对母亲实施更多的心理暴力和控制/领域暴力，而男孩对父亲实施更多的身体暴力且父母宽容度更高。在专家型攻击者中，父母受侵害情况预测反应性CPV，而父母宽容度预测主动性CPV。相比之下，在通才型攻击者中，父母受侵害情况和父母宽容度均预测反应性和主动性CPV。低情绪调节在两种情况下都是一个重要的预测因素。本研究确定了女孩和男孩在CPV风险因素方面以及预测反应性和主动性CPV的变量方面存在差异，并且这些结果在专家型和通才型攻击者之间有所不同。讨论了对研究和专业实践的启示，强调需要设计和实施针对攻击者类型的预防和干预项目，特别关注性别差异以及促使一种或另一种类型CPV发生的因素。
