Abstract
Violence, in all its different manifestations, is a universal problem affecting individuals of different age groups, of different ethnic and religious backgrounds, and of different sexual orientations. Family violence and youth violence are interconnected. This special issue advances knowledge about child maltreatment, bullying, youth violence, dating violence, and intimate partner violence. This commentary critically discusses the contributions to the special issue in the context of the most recent research developments in family and youth violence. It concludes that long-term longitudinal studies with frequent assessments are needed to advance knowledge further, especially relating within-individual changes in influencing factors to within-individual changes in outcomes. It is highlighted that the intersection of family violence and youth violence remains a fertile field for further research, and that it is important to provide family, school and community services within an ecological focus.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
We are delighted to contribute to this special issue honoring the work of Anna Costanza Baldry, who was a doctoral student of David Farrington in the 1990s. We have had the privilege of collaborating with Anna to study many topics, including the effectiveness of interventions to tackle bullying (Ttofi et al. 2008; 2010) and cyberbullying (Baldry et al. 2018; Sorrentino et al. 2018), the overlap between bullying and cyberbullying (Baldry et al. 2017), the epidemiology of cyberbullying in Europe (Sorrentino et al. 2019), risk factors for bullying (Baldry and Farrington 1998; Baldry and Farrington 2010), protective factors against bullying (Baldry and Farrington 2005), and risk factors for cyberbullying (Baldry et al. 2015; Zych et al., 2019a.
Violence, in all its different manifestations, is a universal problem affecting the lives of millions of individuals across the world (Krug et al. 2002). It is a complex multifaceted phenomenon that transcends social (Zietz et al. 2020), economic (Font and Maguire-Jack 2020; Reichel 2017), and geographic borders (Barter et al. 2017; Mesman et al. 2020). Beyond its negative implications for physical health (Skinner et al. 2020) and mental health (Lagdon et al. 2014), violence also impacts societies at the financial level (Wickramasekera et al. 2015). A recent international review of interpersonal violence --defined as violence between family members and intimates, and violence between acquaintances and strangers that is not intended to further the aims of any formally defined group or cause-- provides clear evidence of the financial costs of violence for societies across the world, with US estimates reaching 3.3% of GDP (Waters et al. 2005).
Child maltreatment within the family, in all its varying severity levels, is particularly damaging, because of the betrayal of supposed close relationships of trust within that environment (Malloy et al. 2014; Morrison et al. 2018). Child abuse and neglect are often seen as subdivisions of the overarching umbrella of child maltreatment, which includes both acts of commission (i.e. physical, emotional and/or abuse) and acts of omission (i.e. neglect; Del Vecchio et al. 2018). Using the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System Child Files (2003–2014) and Census data to develop synthetic life tables of the cumulative prevalence of reported childhood maltreatment in the US, Kim et al. (2017) estimated that 37.4% of all American children experienced a child protective services investigation by age 18. In the United Kingdom, the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) estimated that one in five adults aged 18 to 74 (a total of 8.5 million people) had experienced at least one form of child abuse, including emotional abuse, physical abuse, sexual abuse, or witnessing domestic violence or abuse, before the age of 16 (Office for National Statistics 2020). Research shows that children who experience maltreatment rarely experience only one type, likely causing compounding effects (Zeanah and Humphreys 2018).
This special issue provides up-to-date evidence on the linkage between family violence and youth violence within school and community settings. It brings together a wealth of unique data, both cross-sectional and longitudinal, a plethora of data collection methods (based on self-reported interviews, observations, and officially recorded data) and sensitive modes of analyses to examine issues of violence from multidisciplinary perspectives, including developmental psychology, social work, criminology and criminal justice, medicine, and health sciences. With a particular focus on youth populations, these articles seek to understand various forms of family violence, their prevalence and etiology, and their consequences.
School bullying is a very important social problem. For example, large-scale surveys have shown that the prevalence of both perpetration and victimization in the previous month is about one-third of students (Zych et al. 2017). Longitudinal studies have proved that bullying often leads to offending (Ttofi et al. 2011b), violence (Ttofi et al. 2012), and drug use (Ttofi et al. 2016) up to 15 years later. Dating and intimate partner violence (IPV) are also very important social problems, affecting between one-fifth and one-third of young adults (Jennings et al. 2017), and having important negative consequences for health (Copp et al. 2016). The good news is that there are many effective intervention programs for school bullying (Gaffney et al., 2019b), cyberbullying (Gaffney et al., 2019a) and for dating and IPV (Jennings et al. 2017).
In this special issue, particular emphasis is given to providing up-to-date evidence on the impact of child maltreatment across different countries. Based on a stratified random sample of 6233 fourth graders in Taiwan, the study by Hsieh et al. (2020) offers support for the detrimental effect of child maltreatment on internalizing and externalizing problem behavior. Specifically, physical neglect, psychological neglect, physical abuse, psychological abuse, and PTSD were positively related to children’s bullying, after controlling for gender. It was also established that children with higher levels of bullying were likely to report more neglect at home. Anna Baldry also carried out research on the link between school bullying (and cyberbullying) and PTSD (Baldry et al. 2019).
Another study featured in this special issue, by Adams et al. (2020), with a sample of racially and ethnically diverse low-income adolescents from an urban setting in upstate New York, examined the differential associations between maltreatment and suicidal ideation and non-suicidal self-harming behavior, based on adolescent dating violence profiles. Using latent class analyses, Adams et al. (2020) present a three-class model of dating violence: female adolescents without dating violence, those in relationships with mutual verbal abuse, and those in a romantic relationship with multiple and severe forms of dating violence. The effects of child maltreatment on suicidal ideation differed according to adolescent dating violence class membership, with the effects of maltreatment on self-harming behaviors being stronger for females in the multi-subtype victim/perpetrator group.
A positive family environment is crucial for the healthy psychosocial development of children. Healthy family relationships with parents and siblings, and healthy family dynamics more generally, provide ‘behavioral guidelines’ and a nurturing environment for young children (Hoeve et al. 2009). Harsh discipline, for example, in the form of disintegrative/rejecting shaming of a child’s wrongdoing, is significantly associated with a child’s dysfunctional emotion regulation, which in turn is significantly predictive of both sibling aggression within the family and peer aggression within the school (Ttofi and Farrington 2008). Poor family relationships are predictive of long-term maladjustment and life failure. In the Pittsburgh Girls Study (discussed later), negative emotion regulation by parents predicted involvement in dating violence by daughters (Ahonen and Loeber 2016).
Longitudinal data analyses of the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development (CSDD), which is a prospective longitudinal study of 411 London males, demonstrate the long-term impact of parental conflict and harsh discipline (Farrington et al. 2009). Specifically, harsh parental discipline at ages 8–10 was predictive of persistent offending up to age 50, with 48.4% of persistent offenders having experienced harsh discipline, as opposed to only 24.9% of non-offenders, a statistically significant difference. Similarly, there was a statistically significant difference in the prevalence of individuals who had experienced parental conflict at age 8–10: only 18.2% of non-offenders as opposed to a staggering 35.1% of individuals who persistently offended up to age 50. Later analyses by Farrington and Malvaso (2019) showed that harsh discipline was the most important predictor of violence convictions of the original CSDD males, while parental physical punishment was the second most important predictor of violence convictions of their sons.
Intimate partner violence (IPV) is another form of family violence. While acknowledging the need for continuous revisions to the definitions of IPV (Breiding et al. 2015), this umbrella term refers to threatening or injurious physical, psychological, verbal, or economic behavior directed toward an adult romantic partner, regardless of marital status, and including both ongoing and terminated relationships (Worden 2000). Breiding et al. (2008) utilized data on IPV from over 70,000 respondents of the first-ever administered IPV module within the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. This was a random-digit-dialed telephone survey, sponsored by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, providing surveillance of health behaviors and health risks among the non-institutionalized adult population of the United States and several US territories. Their results suggest that one in four women and one in seven men reported some form of lifetime IPV victimization. Women experienced significantly higher lifetime and 12-month IPV prevalence, and were more likely to report IPV-related injury than men. IPV prevalence also varied according to state of residence, race/ethnicity, age, income, and education.
In this special issue, based on data from a national sample of 1525 Latino teens and their caregivers, using the Dating Violence among Latino Adolescents Study, Mariscal et al. (2020) identified latent classes of interpersonal victimization and compared these classes on the demographic characteristics, mental health, and delinquency of participants. Their findings indicated a six-class solution: multiform victimization by multiple perpetrators, psychological dating violence victimization, psychological victimization by peers, physical victimization by peers, physical violence victimization by juvenile family members, and uninvolved. Those teens with multiform victimization by multiple perpetrators, and those who were victimized physically and/or stalked by non-family members, scored significantly highest on physical delinquency, lending support to the offender-victim overlap literature (Beckley et al. 2018).
In another study in this special issue, located in four middle schools in the Midwest of the USA, Valido et al. (2020) utilized multi-level within- and between-person longitudinal analyses to test the association between sibling aggression and witnessing family violence on verbal and physical forms of peer aggression. Their study findings lend further support to existing evidence on how aggressive behavior is learned and maintained across contexts in a person’s life (Walters and Espelage 2018). More importantly, they present evidence on explanatory protective variables (such as school belonging) that buffer these associations and which may form the basis for future intervention strategies (Dray et al. 2017; Luthar and Cicchetti 2000). It is important to study protective factors as well as risk factors (e.g. Farrington et al. 2016; Ttofi et al. 2014; Zych et al., 2019a, b, c).
Another study in this special issue, by Perry et al. (2020), based on a sample of 216 mother-infant dyads, examined the complexity of multi-related explanatory factors in the family setting, including maternal aggression, sibling aggression, and environmental risk such as maternal substance use during pregnancy, maternal exposure to violence, and caregiving instability. Their longitudinal path analyses show how environmental risk and child physical aggression in early childhood predicted higher levels of middle childhood caregiver power- assertive discipline, which subsequently predicted lower levels of early adolescent reactive relational aggression.
Contributions in this special issue underscore the importance of evaluating the multiple facets of family violence, family adversity and wider environmental risk when examining the etiology and antecedents of youth violence and victimization, in line with an ecological perspective (Swearer and Doll 2001). Violent youth are quite often also victims of violence (Jennings et al. 2012). Enhancing positive outcomes for troubled children and youth entails addressing their multiple risks and needs (Craig et al. 2017) and adapting service-use towards a positive youth development framework (Sanders et al. 2017), particularly in the case of high-resource-using youth within mental health and criminal justice systems (Whittaker 2009).
In this special issue, two studies address challenges faced by youth involved in the criminal justice system (Mowen and Fisher 2019;Wagers et al. 2020) while another study focuses on referred adolescents within the mental health system (Benton et al. 2020). Based on the the male-only youth subsample of the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative, Mowen and Fisher (2019) used a series of dynamic panel data models to investigate how family dynamics may simultaneously promote and/or inhibit family violence perpetration among youth undergoing the process of re-entry. Both pre- and post-release levels of family conflicts were significantly related to increased family violence during reintegration, highlighting the pressing need to reduce family conflict among incarcerated and recently released youth to curb family violence perpetration. Parental discord has often been found to be an important predictor of antisocial behavior, for example in the meta-analysis by Derzon (2010), based on 233 reports from 119 longitudinal studies.
In another study in this special issue, based on four waves of data from 808 young men with histories of serious offending, Wagers et al. (2020) explored rates of physical and emotional IPV victimization and perpetration, the offender-victim overlap, and the associations between IPV in young adulthood and early exposure to violence in early adolescence. Their results stress the importance of addressing violence and victimization across different contexts and for different age groups, and how intervening during adolescence is critical to prevent IPV during young adulthood.
There have been a number of studies of IPV and dating violence in the CSDD. Theobald and Farrington (2012) investigated the childhood predictors of male perpetrators of IPV, and found that they included a convicted father, a disrupted family, poor parental supervision, unpopularity, daring, and low verbal intelligence. In adulthood, these males had problems of drinking, drug use and unemployment. Earlier, Lussier et al. (2009) showed how antisocial behavior in adolescence and low verbal intelligence led to IPV at age 48. Theobald et al. 2016b, c) compared risk factors for males who were violent both inside and outside the home with risk factors for males who were only violent in one setting. The generally violent males tended to be worse on psychopathy, personality disorders, and life success. Theobald et al. (2016a) investigated the childhood and adolescent predictors of dating violence committed in their 20s by the male and female children of the original male sample. For the daughters, the most important predictors were a convicted father, parental conflict, large family size, and poor housing. For the sons, the most important predictors were a young mother and father, a disrupted family, truancy, and convictions. Farrington et al. (2017) summarized conclusions from systematic reviews of explanatory risk factors for violence, sex offending, dating violence, and IPV.
Youth violence and antisocial behavior in general has detrimental effects on mental health (Reising et al., 2019b; Ttofi et al. 2011a), and addressing issues of mental health is imperative in both community and clinical samples (Reising et al., 2019a). One study in this special issue, based on a sample of 151 clinically referred adolescents aged 12–18, investigated subgroups of adolescents with varying experiences of maltreatment, bullying perpetration and peer victimization, and explored how subgroups were related to depressive symptoms, hopelessness, and impairment (Benton et al. 2020). Rates of exposure to maltreatment, bullying, and peer victimization were high overall, but the high exposure group reported more severe depressive symptoms, higher levels of hopelessness, and more impairment, and they had worse clinical outcomes overall than the low exposure group.
Addressing the multifaceted interconnections between family, school, and community violence requires careful analyses not only at the micro-level but also at the macro-level. One entry in the special issue offers just that. Using cross-national data collected in almost 200 countries, Narvey et al. (2020) examined the association between women’s rights (based on whether women experience more gender discrimination in economic and family decisions) and overall homicide rates. Using finite mixture modeling, they found that countries with the least gender discrimination had the lowest overall average homicide rate, pointing towards the importance of education for all youth, irrespective of gender, in tackling violence in societies.
Four of the articles in this special issue have analyzed longitudinal data. Prospective longitudinal studies are extremely important in making it possible to draw conclusions about causal effects, because they can establish the time ordering of possible causes and possible effects (see e.g. Farrington 2013; Loeber and Farrington 2008; Murray and Farrington 2010). The article by Valido and colleagues is especially important in comparing results between and within individuals. The concept of a cause requires that within-individual changes in a causal factor are reliably followed by within-individual changes in an outcome. Similarly, prevention and intervention research requires changes within individuals. However, most research in psychology and the social sciences is based on between-individual differences, and conclusions about within-individual changes cannot necessarily be drawn. There have been some previous efforts to compare results between and within individuals (e.g. Farrington et al. 2002; Hemphill et al. 2015), but more within-individual research in longitudinal studies is greatly needed in order to advance knowledge about causes.
Only one of the articles in this special issue (Perry et al. 2020) followed up children over a period of 10 years or more, into adolescence. There is a great need for long-term longitudinal studies with frequent assessments from childhood to adulthood, to advance knowledge about the development of bullying, youth violence, dating violence, and IPV. Jolliffe et al. (2017) reviewed longitudinal studies of community samples of at least 300 persons that started in childhood or early adolescence and followed up to at least age 30, and found only 11 that included measures of official and self-reported offending.
More longitudinal studies are needed like the Pittsburgh Youth Study or PYS (Loeber et al., 2017a and the Pittsburgh Girls Study or PGS (Loeber et al. 2017b). In the PYS, one sample of 503 males was followed up annually from age 7 to age 19, and then up to age 28, while another sample of 506 males was followed up annually from age 13 to age 25, and then up to age 34 (with high retention rates). In the PGS, 2450 females were assessed annually from age 11 to age 19, and subsamples were followed up to age 23. These kinds of studies make it possible to draw convincing conclusions about causes, by studying changes within individuals in influencing factors that are reliably followed by within-individual changes in outcomes. They would permit great advances in knowledge about the development and causes of bullying, youth violence, dating violence, and IPV.
Policy makers, evaluation researchers and practitioners who seek to enhance outcomes for troubled children and youth need to keep in mind the multiple challenges faced by children and youth within their early family environments. The intersection of family violence and youth violence remains a fertile field for further research, and it is important to provide family, school and community services within an ecological focus (Dembo and Walters 2003; Espelage and Swearer 2004). We are very happy to comment that this special issue has greatly advanced knowledge about bullying youth violence, child maltreatment, dating violence, and IPV. Anna Baldry would have been pleased with it, and we hope that it will be widely read.
References
Adams, T, R., Handley, E, D., Warmingham, J, M., Manly, J, T., Cicchetti, D., & Toth, S, L. (2020). Patterns of dating violence moderate the effect of child maltreatment on suicide risk among disadvantaged minority female adolescents with depressive symptoms. Journal of Family Violence. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-020-00153-5.
Ahonen, L., & Loeber, R. (2016). Dating violence in teenage girls: Parental emotion regulation and racial differences. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 26, 240–250.
Baldry, A. C., & Farrington, D. P. (1998). Parenting influences on bullying and victimization. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 3, 237–254.
Baldry, A. C., & Farrington, D. P. (2005). Protective factors as moderators of risk factors in adolescent bullying. Social Psychology of Education, 8, 263–284.
Baldry, A. C., & Farrington, D. P. (2010). Individual risk factors for school bullying. Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research, 2, 4–16.
Baldry, A. C., Farrington, D. P., & Sorrentino, A. (2015). “Am I at risk of cyberbullying”? A narrative review and conceptual framework for research on risk of cyberbullying and cybervictimization: The risk and needs assessment approach. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 23, 36–51.
Baldry, A. C., Farrington, D. P., & Sorrentino, A. (2017). School bullying and cyberbullying among boys and girls: Roles and overlap. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment and Trauma, 26(9), 937–951.
Baldry, A. C., Blaya, C., & Farrington, D. P. (Eds.). (2018). International perspectives on cyberbullying: Prevalence, risk factors and interventions. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Baldry, A. C., Sorrentino, A., & Farrington, D. P. (2019). Post-traumatic stress symptoms among Italian adolescents involved in school and cyber bullying and victimization. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 28, 2358–2364.
Barter, C., Stanley, N., Wood, M., Lanau, A., Aghtaie, N., Larkins, C., & Øverlien, C. (2017). Young people’s online and face-to-face experiences of interpersonal violence and abuse and their subjective impact across five European countries. Psychology of Violence, 7(3), 375–384.
Beckley, A. L., Caspi, A., Arseneault, L., Barnes, J. C., Fisher, H. L., Harrington, H., Houts, R., Morgan, N., Odgers, C. L., Wertz, J., & Moffitt, T. E. (2018). The developmental nature of the victim-offender overlap. Journal of Developmental and Life-Course Criminology, 4(1), 24–49.
Benton, T, D., Jones, J, D., Julye, S., Butler, L, L., & Boyd, R, C. (2020). ‘Web of violence’, depression, and impairment in a clinical sample of adolescents. Journal of Family Violence. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-020-00157-1.
Breiding, M. J., Black, M. C., & Ryan, G. W. (2008). Prevalence and risk factors of intimate partner violence in eighteen US states/territories, 2005. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 34(2), 112–118.
Breiding, M., Basile, K, C., Smith, S, G., Black, M, C., & Mahendra, R, R. (2015). Intimate partner violence surveillance: Uniform definitions and recommended data elements. Version 2.0. US: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (U.S.). division of violence prevention.
Copp, J. E., Giordano, P. C., Longmore, M. A., & Manning, W. D. (2016). Dating violence and physical health: A longitudinal lens on the significance of relationship dynamics and antisocial life characteristics. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 26, 251–262.
Craig, J. M., Piquero, A. R., Farrington, D. P., & Ttofi, M. M. (2017). A little early risk goes a long bad way: Adverse childhood experiences and life-course offending in the Cambridge study. Journal of Criminal Justice, 53, 34–45.
Del Vecchio, T., Heyman, R, E., Smith Slep, A, M., & Foran, H, M. (2018). Child abuse and neglect. In A, T. Vazsonyi, D, J. Flannery, & M. DeLisi (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of violent behavior and aggression (2nd ed., pp. 366–381). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Dembo, R., & Walters, W. (2003). Innovative approaches to identifying and responding to the needs of high risk youth. Substance Use & Misuse, 38(11–13), 1713–1738.
Derzon, J. H. (2010). The correspondence of family features with problem, aggressive, criminal, and violent behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 6, 263–292.
Dray, J., Bowman, J., Campbell, E., Freund, M., Wolfenden, L., Hodder, R. K., et al. (2017). Systematic review of universal resilience-focused interventions targeting child and adolescent mental health in the school setting. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 56(10), 813–824.
Espelage, D. L., & Swearer, S. M. (Eds.). (2004). Bullying in American schools: A social-ecological perspective on prevention and intervention. New York: Routledge.
Farrington, D. P. (2013). Longitudinal and experimental research in criminology. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice in America 1975–2025 (pp. 453–527). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Farrington, D. P., & Malvaso, C. G. (2019). Physical punishment and offending in two successive generations of males. In I. Bryce, Y. Robinson, & W. Petherick (Eds.), Child abuse and neglect: Forensic issues in evidence, impact and management (pp. 203–224). London: Academic Press.
Farrington, D. P., Loeber, R., Yin, Y., & Anderson, S. J. (2002). Are within-individual causes of delinquency the same as between-individual causes? Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 12, 53–68.
Farrington, D. P., Ttofi, M. M., & Coid, J. W. (2009). Development of adolescence-limited, late-onset, and persistent offenders from age 8 to age 48. Aggressive Behavior, 35(2), 150–163.
Farrington, D. P., Ttofi, M. M., & Piquero, A. R. (2016). Risk, promotive and protective factors in youth offending: Results from the Cambridge study in delinquent development. Journal of Criminal Justice, 45, 63–70.
Farrington, D. P., Gaffney, H., & Ttofi, M. M. (2017). Systematic reviews of explanatory risk factors for violence, offending, and delinquency. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 33, 24–36.
Font, S. A., & Maguire-Jack, K. (2020). It’s not “just poverty”: Educational, social, and economic functioning among young adults exposed to childhood neglect, abuse, and poverty. Child Abuse and Neglect, 101, 104356.
Gaffney, H., Farrington, D. P., Espelage, D. L., & Ttofi, M. M. (2019a). Are cyberbullying intervention and prevention programs effective? A systematic and meta-analytical review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 45, 134–153.
Gaffney, H., Ttofi, M. M., & Farrington, D. P. (2019b). Evaluating the effectiveness of school-bullying prevention programs: An updated meta-analytical review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 45, 111–133.
Hemphill, S. A., Heerde, J. A., Herrenkohl, T. I., & Farrington, D. P. (2015). Within- individual versus between-individual predictors of antisocial behaviour: A longitudinal study of young people in Victoria, Australia. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 48, 429–445.
Hoeve, M., Dubas, J. S., Eichelsheim, V. I., Van der Laan, P. H., Smeenk, W., & Gerris, J. R. (2009). The relationship between parenting and delinquency: A meta-analysis. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 37(6), 749–775.
Hsieh, Y, P., Shen, A, C, T., Hwa, H, L., Wei, H, S., Feng, J, Y., & Huang, S, C, Y. (2020). Association between child maltreatment, dysfunctional family environment, post-traumatic stress disorder and children’s bullying perpetration in a national representative sample in Taiwan. Journal of Family Violence. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-020-00144-6.
Jennings, W. G., Piquero, A. R., & Reingle, J. M. (2012). On the overlap between victimization and offending: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17(1), 16–26.
Jennings, W. G., Okeem, C., Piquero, A. R., Sellers, C. S., Theobald, D., & Farrington, D. P. (2017). Dating and intimate partner violence among young persons ages 15-30: Evidence from a systematic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 33, 107–125.
Jolliffe, D., Farrington, D. P., Piquero, A. R., MacLeod, J. F., & Van de Weijer, S. (2017). Prevalence of life-course-persistent, adolescence-limited and late-onset offenders: A systematic review of prospective longitudinal studies. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 33, 4–14.
Kim, H., Wildeman, C., Jonson-Reid, M., & Drake, B. (2017). Lifetime prevalence of investigating child maltreatment among US children. American Journal of Public Health, 107(2), 274–280.
Krug, E, G., Dahlber, L, L., Mercy, J, A., Zwi, A, B., & Lozano, R. (2002). World report on violence and health. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization
Lagdon, S., Armour, C., & Stringer, M. (2014). Adult experience of mental health outcomes as a result of intimate partner violence victimisation: A systematic review. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 5(1), 24794.
Loeber, R., & Farrington, D. P. (2008). Advancing knowledge about causes in longitudinal studies: Experimental and quasi-experimental methods. In A. Liberman (Ed.), The long view of crime: A synthesis of longitudinal research (pp. 257–279). New York: Springer.
Loeber, R., Ahonen, L., Stallings, R., & Farrington, D. P. (2017a). Violence de-mystified: Findings on violence by young males in the Pittsburgh youth study. Canadian Psychology, 58, 305–315.
Loeber, R., Jennings, W. G., Ahonen, L., Piquero, A. R., & Farrington, D. P. (2017b). Female delinquency from childhood to young adulthood: Recent results from the Pittsburgh girls study. New York: Springer.
Lussier, P., Farrington, D. P., & Moffitt, T. E. (2009). Is the antisocial child father of the abusive man? A 40-year prospective longitudinal study on the developmental antecedents of intimate partner violence. Criminology, 47, 741–780.
Luthar, S. S., & Cicchetti, D. (2000). The construct of resilience: Implications for interventions and social policies. Development and Psychopathology, 12(4), 857–885.
Malloy, L. C., Quas, J. A., Lyon, T. D., & Ahern, E. C. (2014). Disclosing adult wrongdoing: Maltreated and non-maltreated children’s expectations and preferences. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 124, 78–96.
Mariscal, E, S., Sabina, C., & Cuevas, C, A. (2020). Interpersonal victimization of Latino youth: A latent class analysis. Journal of Family Violence.
Mesman, J., Branger, M., Woudstra, M. L., Emmen, R., Asanjarani, F., Carcamo, R., et al. (2020). Crossing boundaries: A pilot study of maternal attitudes about child maltreatment in nine countries. Child Abuse and Neglect, 99, 104257.
Morrison, S. E., Bruce, C., & Wilson, S. (2018). Children’s disclosure of sexual abuse: A systematic review of qualitative research exploring barriers and facilitators. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 27, 176–194.
Mowen, T, J., & Fisher, B, W. (2019). Youth reentry from prison and family violence perpetration: The salience of family dynamics. Journal of Family Violence. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-019-00098-4.
Murray, J., & Farrington, D. P. (2010). Risk factors for conduct disorder and delinquency: Key findings from longitudinal studies. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 55, 633–642.
Narvey, C., Piquero, N, L., & Piquero, A, R. (2020). Countries where women have more positive interactions with economic decisions and legal rights have lower homicide rates: An exploratory study. Journal of Family Violence. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-020-00148-2.
Office for National Statistics (2020). Child abuse extent and nature, England and Wales: Year ending March 2020. Retrieved from: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/childabuseinenglandandwales/march2020
Perry, K, J., Ostrov, J, M., Shisler, S., Eiden, R, D., Nickerson, A, B., Godleski, S, A., & Schuetze, P. (2020). Pathways from early family violence to adolescent reactive aggression and violence victimization. Journal of Family Violence. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-019-00109-4.
Reichel, D. (2017). Determinants of intimate partner violence in Europe: The role of socioeconomic status, inequality, and partner behavior. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 32(12), 1853–1873.
Reising, K., Farrington, D. P., Ttofi, M. M., Piquero, A. R., & Coid, J. W. (2019a). Childhood risk factors for personality disorder symptoms related to violence. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 49, 101315.
Reising, K., Ttofi, M. M., Farrington, D. P., & Piquero, A. R. (2019b). Depression and anxiety outcomes of offending trajectories: A systematic review of prospective longitudinal studies. Journal of Criminal Justice, 62, 3–15.
Sanders, J., Munford, R., & Liebenberg, L. (2017). Positive youth development practices and better outcomes for high risk youth. Child Abuse and Neglect, 69, 201–212.
Skinner, G. C., Farrington, D. P., & Shepherd, J. P. (2020). Offender trajectories, health and hospital admissions: Relationships and risk factors in the longitudinal Cambridge study in delinquent development. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 113(3), 110–118.
Sorrentino, A., Baldry, A. C., & Farrington, D. P. (2018). The efficacy of the Tabby improved prevention and intervention program in reducing cyberbullying and cybervictimization among students. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15, 2536.
Sorrentino, A., Baldry, A. C., Farrington, D. P., & Blaya, C. (2019). Epidemiology of cyberbullying across Europe: Differences between countries and genders. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 19(2), 74–91.
Swearer, S. M., & Doll, B. (2001). Bullying in schools: An ecological framework. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 2(2–3), 7–23.
Theobald, D., & Farrington, D. P. (2012). Child and adolescent predictors of male intimate partner violence. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 53, 1242–1249.
Theobald, D., Farrington, D. P., Ttofi, M. M., & Crago, R. V. (2016a). Risk factors for dating violence versus cohabiting violence: Results from the third generation of the Cambridge study in delinquent development. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Healtlongitudinal analysis of the criminal careersh, 26, 229–239.
Theobald, D., Farrington, D. P., Coid, J. W., & Piquero, A. R. (2016b). A longitudinal analysis of the criminal careers of intimate partner violence offender subtypes: Results from a prospective survey of males. Violence and Victims, 31, 999–1020.
Theobald, D., Farrington, D. P., Coid, J. W., & Piquero, A. R. (2016c). Are male perpetrators of intimate partner violence different from convicted violent offenders? Examination of psychopathic traits and life success in males from a community survey. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 31, 1687–1718.
Ttofi, M. M., & Farrington, D. P. (2008). Reintegrative shaming theory, moral emotions and bullying. Aggressive Behavior, 34, 352–368.
Ttofi, M, M. Farrington, D, P. & Baldry, A, C. (2008) Effectiveness of programs to reduce school bullying. Stockholm, Sweden: National Council for Crime Prevention.
Ttofi, M. M., Farrington, D. P., & Baldry, A. C. (2010). Effective programs to reduce school bullying. In D.W. Springer & A.R. Roberts (Eds.), Juvenile justice and delinquency (pp. 167–185). Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett.
Ttofi, M. M., Farrington, D. P., Lösel, F., & Loeber, R. (2011a). Do the victims of school bullies tend to become depressed later in life? A systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research, 3(2), 63–73.
Ttofi, M. M., Farrington, D. P., Lösel, F., & Loeber, R. (2011b). The predictive efficiency of school bullying versus later offending: A systematic/meta-analytic review of longitudinal studies. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 21, 80–89.
Ttofi, M. M., Farrington, D. P., & Lösel, F. (2012). School bullying as a predictor of violence later in life: A systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective longitudinal studies. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17, 405–418.
Ttofi, M. M., Bowes, L., Farrington, D. P., & Lösel, F. (2014). Protective factors interrupting the continuity from school bullying to later internalizing and externalizing problems: A systematic review of prospective longitudinal studies. Journal of School Violence, 13, 5–38.
Ttofi, M. M., Farrington, D. P., Lösel, F., Crago, R. V., & Theodorakis, N. (2016). School bullying and drug use later in life: A meta-analytic investigation. School Psychology Quarterly, 31, 8–27.
Valido, A., Ingram, K., Espelage, D, L. Torgal, C., Merrin, G, J., & Davis, J, P. (2020). Intra-familial violence and peer aggression among early adolescents: Moderating role of school sense of belonging. Journal of Family Violence. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-020-00142-8.
Wagers, S., Piquero, A, R., Narvey, C., Reid, J., & Loughran, T, A. (2020). Variation in exposure to violence in early adolescence distinguishes between intimate partner violence victimization and perpetration among young men involved in the justice system. Journal of Family Violence.
Walters, G. D., & Espelage, D. L. (2018). Hostility, anger, and dominance as mediators of the sibling aggression–school fighting relationship: Mechanisms of violence generalization. Psychology of Violence, 10(1), 48–57.
Waters, H. R., Hyder, A. A., Rajkotia, Y., Basu, S., & Butchart, A. (2005). The costs of interpersonal violence—An international review. Health Policy, 73, 303–315.
Whittaker, J. K. (2009). Evidence-based intervention and services for high-risk youth: A north American perspective on the challenges of integration for policy, practice and research. Child and Family Social Work, 14(2), 166–177.
Wickramasekera, N., Wright, J., Elsey, H., Murray, J., & Tubeuf, S. (2015). Cost of crime: A systematic review. Journal of Criminal Justice, 43(3), 218–228.
Worden, A. P. (2000). The changing boundaries of the criminal justice system: Redefining the problem and the response in domestic violence. Office of Justice Programs. Retrieved from: National Criminal Justice Reference Services. https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=185525.
Zeanah, C. H., & Humphreys, K. L. (2018). Child abuse and neglect. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 57, 637–644.
Zietz, S., Kajula, L., Reyes, H. L. M., Moracco, B., Shanahan, M., Martin, S., & Maman, S. (2020). Patterns of adverse childhood experiences and subsequent risk of interpersonal violence perpetration among men in Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania. Child Abuse and Neglect, 99, 104256.
Zych, I., Baldry, A. C., & Farrington, D. P. (2017). School bullying and cyberbullying: Prevalence, characteristics, outcomes, and prevention. In V. B. Van Hasselt & M. L. Bourke (Eds.), Handbook of behavioral criminology: Contemporary strategies and issues (pp. 113–138). New York: Springer.
Zych, I., Baldry, A. C., Farrington, D. P., & Llorent, V. J. (2019a). Are children involved in cyberbullying low on empathy? A systematic review and meta-analysis of research on empathy versus different cyberbullying roles. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 45, 83–97.
Zych, I., Farrington, D. P., & Ttofi, M. M. (2019b). Protective factors against bullying and cyberbullying: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 45, 4–19.
Zych, I., Ttofi, M. M., & Farrington, D. P. (2019c). Empathy and callous–unemotional traits in different bullying roles: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Trauma, Violence, and Abuse, 20, 3–21.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Farrington, D.P., Ttofi, M.M. Advancing Knowledge about Youth Violence: Child Maltreatment, Bullying, Dating Violence, and Intimate Partner Violence. J Fam Viol 36, 109–115 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-020-00189-7
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-020-00189-7