Testing the Spillover Effect of Intimate Partner Violence Victimization on Emotionally Abusive and Harsh Parenting Practices: The Application of Propensity Score Matching

Abstract

Prior research reported a significant association between intimate partner violence (IPV) victimization and negative parenting, but there was an overreliance on U.S. samples and families from low socioeconomic status backgrounds. Therefore, this quasi-experimental study examined the association between recent IPV victimization and abusive parenting practices in a sample of community-based women from Poland. Participants were mothers of children aged 2 to 5 years (N = 610) attending an outpatient clinic located in a city in south-eastern Poland. Mothers were asked about their IPV experiences in the past 12 months and were classed as either IPV positive or IPV negative. Outcome measures assessed emotionally abusive and harsh parenting practices. All data were collected online. To reduce bias in background characteristics (i.e., age, education, employment status, financial distress, self-esteem, childhood violence history, alcohol problems, current mental distress, social support, exposure to COVID-19-pandemic-related stressors, and child sex), we applied the propensity score matching (PSM) technique. Group differences before and after matching were examined using independent samples t-tests. Prematching analyses revealed that IPV-positive mothers used significantly more emotionally abusive and harsh parenting practices than IPV-negative mothers. However, the two samples differed substantially on six background characteristics which are known risk factors for IPV and child maltreatment (financial distress, self-esteem, childhood violence history, current mental distress, social support, and exposure to COVID-19-pandemic-related stressors). PSM was successful in reducing those imbalances. Postmatching group comparisons were statistically nonsignificant for emotionally abusive and harsh parenting, disproving the spillover hypothesis. We conclude that IPV victimization is not related to emotionally abusive and harsh parenting practices when controlling for confounding variables.

Keywords

intimate partner violence victimization emotionally abusive parenting harsh parenting propensity score matching quasi-experiment

Introduction

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a major public health issue with serious consequences. In recent decades, the prevalence and etiology of IPV has been a strong focus of research attention. For instance, a systematic review of global prevalence data found that globally in 2010, 30% of women aged 15 and over had experienced physical and/or sexual IPV (Devries et al., 2013). When prevalence was separated by region, there were disparate rates found in Western Europe (19.3%), Central Europe, (27.9%), and Eastern Europe (26.1%). A more recent review suggests that prevalence rates up until 2018 have remained at a similar level. Specifically, a review of 366 studies capturing data from 2 million women in 161 countries estimated that 27% of ever-partnered women aged 15 to 49 had experienced physical and/or sexual IPV in their lifetime, and 13% had experienced IPV in the past year (Sardinha et al., 2022). In the same study, Poland was listed among countries with some of the lowest prevalence estimates for lifetime physical or sexual violence (13%). However, there is also research indicating that women in Poland experience IPV at surprisingly high rates. For example, a Polish study with primary care female patients revealed that in excess of 35% of women reported IPV in the 12 months preceding the examination (Łukasik et al., 2015). Overall, the problem of IPV is blatantly under-researched in Poland and requires more exploration.

Further, it appears that the peculiar situation created during the COVID-19 pandemic altered the experience and prevalence of IPV (Peitzmeier et al., 2022). An initial review of IPV prevalence during the first weeks of the COVID-19 outbreak found that across several European countries, there was an increase in IPV reports and helpline calls (Brink et al., 2021). A more recent review supported these findings of an increase in IPV during the COVID-19 pandemic (McNeil et al., 2023). One reason for this increase could be that several known risk factors of IPV, including financial stress, mental distress, and alcohol problems, may have increased during the pandemic (Borrescio-Higa et al., 2022; Spencer et al., 2022). Responses to the COVID-19 pandemic, such as furloughing staff and closing certain businesses for indefinite periods of time, contributed to financial strains including reduction of income and job loss (Witteveen, 2020). The stressors of the pandemic and lack of access to normal social networks may have led people to turn to alcohol as a coping mechanism. A systematic review indicated that there was a trend toward increased alcohol consumption during the pandemic (Roberts et al., 2021), which could have led to a myriad of problems, including interpersonal aggression. Additionally, according to a study with a nationally representative sample, American adults in 2020 were eight times more likely to fit criteria for serious mental distress compared with 2018 (Twenge & Joiner, 2020). Elevated scores of mental distress were found for those living with children in the household, which suggests that there could have been unique stressors for families during the pandemic. Arguments have been made to the effect that mandated lockdown orders implemented by many countries, such as the requirement to stay at home and be socially distant from nonhousehold members, could have emboldened IPV perpetrators (van Gelder et al., 2020). For instance, the threat of exposure to COVID-19 itself or disobeying legal impositions, travel restrictions, and limited access to help may have been exploited by perpetrators to control victims. Consequently, it is likely that an indirect effect of the global COVID-19 pandemic response was an increased number of IPV victims and subsequent consequences.

IPV can have a wide range of negative consequences for victims, including mental and physical problems. For instance, female victims of IPV may develop complex problems such as traumatic brain injury and posttraumatic stress disorder (Iverson et al., 2017). Systematic reviews of the consequences of IPV victimization highlight depression and anxiety as common outcomes (Lagdon et al., 2014), as well as risk of mortality, injury, chronic pain, reproductive disorders, and poor pregnancy outcomes (Plichta, 2004). Longitudinal studies have found that other potential effects of IPV victimization include relationship instability, emotional problems, substance use, and deviant sexual behavior (Simmons et al., 2018), in addition to physical problems such as general health and higher levels of pain (Loxton et al., 2017). Those who experience multiple IPV types seem to have worse outcomes according to a review of studies, which utilized person-centered analyses (Hall et al., 2023).

However, the burden of IPV is not limited to the primary victim. Indeed, children from IPV-stricken households have a higher risk of developmental difficulties (Julio et al., 2023) and a two to three times higher likelihood to suffer mental distress in adulthood (Kieselbach, 2022), which demonstrates that effective IPV prevention is crucial for children’s well-being. In line with the spillover hypothesis of IPV indicating that martial conflict can affect parent–child relationship (Engfer, 1988), children living in households in which IPV occurs are also likely to experience child maltreatment. One meta-analytic review reported a moderate association between interparental conflict and negative parenting, with types of parenting behaviors most affected being harsh discipline and parental acceptance (Krishnakumar & Buehler, 2000). The spillover effect has been largely studied in relation to IPV perpetration. However, a recent review of research has suggested that IPV victimization can lead to abusive parenting practices and a reduction in positive parenting practices (Chiesa et al., 2018). Using a nationally representative sample of children in Scotland, Skafida et al. (2022) found that the extent and severity of maternal IPV is incrementally associated with subsequent parental aggression toward the child. This has been supported by a person-centered analysis of IPV, which indicated that a greater number of IPV victimization types were associated with greater use of harsh parenting by both mothers and fathers (Rousson et al., 2023). Longitudinal analyses using cross-lagged panel modeling have found evidence indicative of a transactional relationship between IPV victimization, child behavior problems, and subsequent maltreatment (Chung et al., 2021). Taken together, these studies seem to indicate a positive link between IPV victimization and negative parenting.

Nevertheless, there are several important limitations to consider in this field of research. For instance, there are issues with regard to the representativeness of samples examining the spillover effect of IPV victimization on abusive parenting. First, there is an overreliance on studies conducted with U.S. samples (Chiesa et al., 2018). As demonstrated above, the prevalence of IPV differs by region (Devries et al., 2013; Sardinha et al., 2022) and so the field would benefit from research using samples from a wider range of cultural settings. Second, most published studies examining the spillover effect sampled families from low socioeconomic status backgrounds (Chiesa et al. 2018; Chung et al., 2021). Given that financial and socioeconomic factors are associated with greater prevalence of both child maltreatment (van Ijzendoorn et al., 2020) and IPV (Reichel, 2017; Spencer et al., 2022), relying on research using samples from low socioeconomic status could mean the findings represent a spurious relationship. Overall, studies exploring the association between IPV victimization and negative parenting demonstrated modest effect sizes (Chiesa et al., 2018). Consequently, further research that isolates the effect of IPV on parenting practices and compares parents with and without IPV victimization history is needed to inform knowledge about this topic.

With the above limitations in mind, the main purpose of the current study was to examine the effect of IPV victimization on emotionally abusive and harsh parenting practices among community mothers living in Poland. More specifically, we compared parenting practices among mothers with and without IPV victimization history. In considering empirical evidence suggesting that parenting practices are most affected by recent IPV (Kelleher et al., 2008), we focused on IPV experienced in the last 12 months. Since a true experiment was not possible in this area of inquiry, we utilized a quasi-experimental design with propensity score matching (PSM) procedure to minimize the effect of treatment selection bias. To our knowledge, no study so far has utilized PSM to study the effect of IPV victimization on negative parenting behaviors. Based on previous studies and in line with the spillover hypothesis, we predicted that mothers with recent IPV victimization history would use significantly more emotionally abusive and harsh parenting practices than mothers without recent IPV victimization history.

Methods

Participants and Data Collection

Study participants were community mothers of children aged 2 to 5 years recruited in an outpatient clinic of a large hospital located in a city in south-eastern Poland. Women were asked to participate in the study in two ways: (a) by a healthcare professional during a routine medical check-up they attended with their child, or (b) by an email invitation sent by the clinic’s administration staff. The second form of recruitment was only used among women who attended a routine check-up with their child at the clinic in the past and whose personal email address was included in the child’s medical record. All approached women were made aware that their decision to participate or not in the study would not affect their or their child’s medical care. Women who agreed to participate were asked to follow a link to the study in Qualtrics, and all data were collected online. Inclusion criteria included being a mother of a child aged 2 to 5 years, fluent in Polish, and minimum 18 years old. All participants who did not meet these criteria were automatically taken to the end of the survey. Informed consent was requested from each participant. The study was approved by an appropriate bioethics committee. The data were collected anonymously during the COVID-19 pandemic (May–July 2021).

A total of 728 participants who met all eligibility criteria and provided informed consent to participate were recruited for the study. One hundred eighteen (16%) participants did not provide full responses on covariates used in the PSM procedure, IPV items, emotionally abusive parenting items, or harsh parenting items and hence were excluded from analyses. The remaining 610 participants (M age = 32.54, SD = 4.34, min.–max. = 20–45) with full responses on the above-listed variables were included in the present study. The majority of participants had higher education (n = 454, 74.4%) and were currently employed (n = 402, 65.9%). More than half of the sample (n = 353, 57.9%) reported being in financial distress. Six hundred and six (n = 606, 99.3%) participants were born in Poland, two (0.3%) were born in another European country, and the remaining two (0.3%) were born in another non-European country. Nearly all participants (n = 591, 96.9%) were married. As for the sex of the child with reference to whom parenting measures were completed, 309 (50.7%) were girls. All children were aged between 2 and 5 years (M = 3.35, SD = 0.98) and the vast majority were participants’ biological children (n = 608, 99.7%).

Measures

IPV was assessed using the five-item Extended-Hurt, Insult, Threaten, Scream questionnaire (Chan et al., 2010; Sherin et al., 1998). The scale items inquire into experiences of physical (one item; physically hurt by partner), psychological (three items; e.g., insulted or talked down to by partner), and sexual (one item; forced to have sexual activities) IPV in the last 12 months. Since data were collected between May and July 2021, the IPV data collected here referred to IPV experiences in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Responses were recorded using a five-point Likert scale (1 = never, 2 = rarely, 3 = sometimes, 4 = fairly often, 5 = frequently). Likert scores were summed across all items. A total score of ≥7 is the widely accepted cut-off for a past-year IPV-positive screen (El-Serag & Thurston, 2020; Iverson et al., 2015). Therefore, participants who scored ≥7 were classified as “IPV positive,” whereas participants who scored <7 were classified as “IPV negative.” In the current study, more than one in four participants were IPV positive (n = 173, 28.4%).

Emotionally abusive parenting was measured using the unidimensional Emotionally Abusive Parenting Scale for Parents of Preschool Children developed for the purpose of the current study. We defined emotionally abusive parenting as rejecting, degrading, mocking, and terrorizing a child, making excessive demands on a child’s behavior, denying emotional responsiveness, and not engaging in behaviors that are important for a child’s psychological growth and development. Such practices may involve words, actions, or indifference. Based on this definition, we generated 17 scale items reflecting emotionally abusive parenting practices. The initial item pool was sent to 10 experts (research and practicing psychologists) who were asked to: (a) assess whether each item taps into the phenomenon we intended to measure, (b) evaluate clarity and conciseness of scale items for parents of preschool children, (c) indicate whether the items are easily understood, (d) assess whether the items are not too extreme and appropriate for parents drawn for the general population, (e) advise us on which items should and should not be included in the final version of the scale, and (f) inform us whether any important/common emotionally abusive parenting practices were missing from the scale. Qualitative feedback was collected from the experts. This content validity procedure resulted in 15 items, 4 of which are reverse scored (RS). Exemplar items include: “When my child misbehaved, I told him/her I would send him/her away,” “I comforted my child when (s)he was upset or sad (RS),” and “I intentionally did or said something to embarrass my child in front of other people” (for the full scale please see Supplemental Appendix A). For each item, respondents were asked to indicate on a five-point Likert scale (1 = never, 2 = hardly ever, 3 = occasionally, 4 = a lot of the time, 5 = nearly all the time) how often they engaged in the listed behaviors toward their child in the last 6 months. Participants who had more than one child aged between 2 and 5 years, were asked to answer questions about the one whose birthday was closest. In case of twins, mothers were instructed to think about the one who was born first. Likert scores were summed across items. Higher scores indicate increased levels of emotionally abusive parenting (range of scores: 15–75; full sample M = 25.01, SD = 6.24, Cronbach’s α = .81; confirmatory factor analysis results: chi-square = 428.32, df = 90, Comparative Fit Index [CFI] = 0.91, Tucker Lewis Index [TLI] = 0.90, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation [RMSEA] = 0.07, 90% confidence interval [CI] [0.07, 0.08], composite reliability = 0.89).

Harsh parenting was measured with five items inquiring into mothers’ hostility toward their children (four items: “When my child whines or disobeys me, I feel like hitting him/her,” “I often get irritated by my child,” “I have frequent battles of wills with my child,” “My child gets on my nerves”) and hitting behavior (one item: “When I am at home with my child, I sometimes hit/spank them when they are naughty”). Items were derived from Fisher et al.’s (2013) preschool hostility scale, Holland et al.’s (2020) harsh parenting single item measure, and Waylen et al.’s (2008) hostility subscale. Participants were asked to indicate how often (1 = never, 2 = almost never, 3 = sometimes, 4 = often, 5 = very often) in the past 6 months they engaged in the listed behaviors or felt in the way described by the items. Participants who had more than one child aged between 2 and 5 years were asked to answer questions about the one whose birthday was closest. In case of twins, mothers were instructed to think about the one who was born first. Likert scores were summed across items. Higher scores indicate higher levels of harsh parenting (range of scores: 5–25; full sample M = 8.57, SD = 3.17, Cronbach’s α = .79).

Current mental distress was measured using the four-item Patient Health Questionnaire for Depression and Anxiety (Kroenke et al., 2009). Respondents were asked to indicate how often (from 0 = not at all to 3 = nearly every day) over the last 2 weeks they had been bothered by certain symptoms of depression (e.g., “Little interest or pleasure in doing things”) and anxiety (e.g., “Not being able to stop or control worrying”). Total scores were calculated by adding together the scores of each of the four items. Higher scores indicate increased current mental distress (range of scores: 0–12; full sample M = 3.02, SD = 2.59, Cronbach’s α = .80).

Alcohol problems were assessed using two questions: (a) “Have you ever had a drinking problem?” and (b) “Have you had a drink in the last 24 hours.” The two questions combined were reported to have a sensitivity of 91.5% to detect alcohol problems (Cyr & Wartman, 1988). Scoring was dichotomous (0 = no, 1 = yes). Scores were summed across the two items. The higher the score, the greater the likelihood of alcohol problems (range of scores: 0–2; full sample M = 0.16, SD = 0.39, Mode = 0).

Childhood violence history was measured using three items constructed by Debowska and Boduszek (2017) referring to emotional abuse (“Did a parent/guardian in your childhood call you names, said mean things to you, or said you were worthless?”), physical abuse (“Did a parent/guardian in your childhood physically hurt you in any way [e.g., hit, beat, kick]?”), and neglect (“In your childhood, did you have to look after yourself because a parent/guardian drank too much alcohol, took drugs, or was completely uninterested in you?”). Scoring was dichotomous (0 = no, 1 = yes). Scores were summed across the three items. Higher scores indicate increased levels of childhood violence (range of scores: 0–3; full sample M = 0.57, SD = 0.88).

Social support was measured with the six-item Brief Social Support Scale (Beutel et al., 2017). The scale assesses emotional-informational support (three items; exemplar item: “If you needed it, how often is someone available who understands your problems”) and tangible support (three items; exemplar item: “If you needed it, how often is someone available to take you to the doctor if you need it”). Responses were recorded using a four-point Likert scale (1 = never, 2 = occasionally, 3 = mostly, 4 = always). Likert scores were summed across items. Higher scores indicate higher levels of social support (range of scores: 6–24; full sample M = 18.54, SD = 4.53, Cronbach’s α = .90).

Self-esteem was assessed with a Single-Item Self-Esteem Scale (Robins et al., 2001), which measures global self-esteem and was designed as an alternative to using the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. Participants answer the single item (“I have high self-esteem”) on a seven-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (not very true of me) to 7 (very true of me). Higher scores indicate higher levels of self-esteem (full sample M = 3.79, Mdn = 4, Mode = 5).

Financial distress was assessed with a single question developed by Finnbogadóttir et al. (2020). For the purpose of the current study, we changed the currency in the original question from Swedish SEK to Polish PLN. In considering differences in the average salary between Sweden and Poland, the amount provided in the question was adjusted accordingly: “If you received an unexpected bill of 2000 PLN, how easy would it be for you to pay within a week?” Possible responses were 0 = no problem, 1 = fairly hard, and 2 = very hard. Responses 1 and 2 were collapsed to indicate financial distress.

Exposure to COVID-19-pandemic-related stressors was measured with 12 items asking about possible stressful situations that participants could have been exposed to during the COVID-19 pandemic. The specific situations included: (a) a drop in household income, (b) uncertainty about employment or the risk of an adult in the household losing their job, (c) no or little support in caring for children, (d) the need to quarantine or self-isolate, (e) the need to help school-age children in remote learning, (f) the need to work from home, (g) disrupted family ties, (h) deterioration of the relationship with a partner, (i) fear of losing a family member, (j) death of a relative or a close friend, (k) COVID-19 infection, and (l) a close family member’s COVID-19 infection. Scoring was dichotomous (0 = no, 1 = yes). Scores were summed across items. Higher scores indicate increased levels of exposure to COVID-19-pandemic-related stressors (range: 0–12; full sample M = 4.76, SD = 2.45).

Demographics questionnaire included questions about age (reported in years), education (higher vs. secondary or lower), employment (currently employed vs. currently not employed), child’s sex assigned at birth (female vs. male), child’s age (in years), and biological child (yes vs. no).

Data Analysis Plan

Data analysis was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics version 28 and R version 4.2.1. The analysis in the current study is presented in a series of steps. First, using independent samples t-tests, we tested the effect of IPV victimization on emotionally abusive and harsh parenting in the full sample of participants. Second, the PSM procedure was applied to eliminate treatment selection bias. More specifically, PSM allows researchers to remove potential systematic differences on certain characteristics (confounding variables) between treatment and control participants before assessing the effect of treatment on outcome variables (Rosenbaum & Rubin, 1983, 1985; Rudner & Johnette, 2006). In the current study, a propensity score represents a participant’s conditional probability of being in the treated group (i.e., women who experienced IPV in the last 12 months = IPV positive) or the control group (i.e., women who did not experience IPV in the last 12 months = IPV negative) based on an array of covariates incorporated to generate the propensity score estimates for the entire sample. To retain the bias-reducing power of the PSM procedure, the choice of covariates must be guided by the theory (Astbury, 2012). Therefore, to remove observed systematic differences across the treatment group (i.e., IPV-positive women) and the control group (i.e., IPV-negative women), we included 11 propensity score covariates identified in the literature as potential confounding variables and demographic variables. These were age, education, employment status, financial distress, self-esteem, childhood violence history, alcohol problems, current mental distress, social support, exposure to COVID-19-pandemic-related stressors, and child sex (e.g., Garner et al., 2024; Heise, 1998; Li et al., 2019; Moreira & Da Costa, 2020; Mulder et al., 2018; Stith et al., 2009). The propensity score estimates were then used to eliminate observed systematic differences across the two groups and statistically generate the most comparable set of matched cases of mothers who experienced IPV in the last 12 months and mothers who did not experience IPV in the last 12 months. Third, covariate means for the treated and control participants as well as standardized and absolute mean differences were inspected to detect the magnitude of observable differences between the groups pre- and postmatching. The absolute difference of propensity scores equal to or greater than 20% is an indication of imbalance (Rosenbaum & Rubin, 1983, 1985). Finally, independent samples t-tests were performed to test the effect of IPV victimization on emotionally abusive and harsh parenting in the postmatching sample.

Results

Prematching Group Comparisons

The effect of IPV victimization on emotionally abusive and harsh parenting in the full sample (N = 610) was investigated using independent samples t-tests. IPV-positive women (n = 173; M = 27.10, SD = 6.38), compared with IPV-negative women (n = 437; M = 24.18, SD = 5.99), used statistically significantly more emotionally abusive parenting practices, t(608) = −5.34, p < .001, M difference = −2.93, 95% CI of the difference [−4.00, −1.85], Cohen’s d = −0.48. IPV-positive women (M = 9.46, SD = 3.24) also scored statistically significantly higher than IPV-negative women (M = 8.22, SD = 3.08) on the use of harsh parenting practices, t(608) = −4.39, p < .001, M difference = −1.23, 95% CI of the difference [−1.78, −0.68], Cohen’s d = −0.40. These results may indicate that IPV victimization has an adverse effect on parenting practices among mothers of young children. However, as explained in the introduction, significant differences between the two groups of participants on background variables could affect these results. Thus, in order to eliminate covariate imbalance, a PSM procedure was utilized.

PSM Procedure

PSM was performed using the “MatchIt” package in R version 4.2.1 as per instructions provided by Randolph et al. (2014). We used the nearest neighbor method with one-to-one matching, which means that every treatment case was matched with one control case. The maximum permitted difference between matched subjects (the “caliper”) was 0.25 SDs (Rosenbaum & Rubin, 1983, 1985). To remove observed systematic differences across the treatment group (IPV-positive women) and the control group (IPV-negative women), we included 11 propensity score covariates identified in the literature as potential confounding variables. These were age, education, employment status, financial distress, self-esteem, childhood violence history, alcohol problems, current mental distress, social support, exposure to COVID-19-pandemic-related stressors, and child sex.

The PSM procedure resulted in 160 matched sets of cases (i.e., 320 participants in total). Thirteen treated cases and 277 control cases were unmatched and, hence, were not included in the final analysis. Descriptive statistics (Ms and SDs), standardized and absolute mean differences, and bivariate comparisons before and after matching are reported in Table 1. The results revealed that matching worked very well for this data set. Before matching, 6 out of 11 covariates were imbalanced, as indicated by both absolute mean difference values equal or greater than 20% and bivariate comparisons. More specifically, IPV-negative mothers reported significantly higher self-esteem and social support than IPV-positive mothers. IPV-positive mothers, in turn, reported more childhood violence, higher current mental distress, greater exposure to COVID-19-pandemic-related stressors, and were more likely to report financial distress than IPV-negative mothers. After matching, however, those imbalances were reduced dramatically, with no significant differences between the groups on any of the covariates.

Table 1.

Means (SDs), Standardized and Absolute Mean Differences, and Bivariate Comparisons of Covariates Before and After Matching for IPV-Positive and IPV-Negative Participants.

Variables	Before Matching			After Matching
Variables	M (SD) for IPV-Positive Women (n = 173)	M (SD) for IPV-Negative Women (n = 437)	Standardized (and Absolute) Mean Difference	M (SD) for IPV-Positive Women (n = 160)	M (SD) for IPV-Negative Women (n = 160)	Standardized (and Absolute) Mean Difference
Age	32.46 (4.64)	32.58 (4.21)	−0.03 (3%)	32.43 (4.59)	32.46 (3.94)	−0.01 (1%)
Education	0.28 (0.45)	0.25 (0.43)	0.07 (7%)	0.27 (0.45)	0.27 (0.45)	0.00 (0%)
Employment status	0.35 (0.48)	0.34 (0.47)	0.02 (2%)	0.34 (0.48)	0.35 (0.48)	−0.01 (1%)
Financial distress	0.69 (0.46)	0.54 (0.50)	0.33 (33%)	0.67 (0.47)	0.69 (0.47)	−0.04 (4%)
Self-esteem	3.43 (1.42)	3.94 (1.52)	−0.36 (36%)	3.47 (1.43)	3.48 (1.49)	−0.01 (1%)
Childhood violence history	0.77 (0.94)	0.49 (0.84)	0.31 (31%)	0.73 (0.90)	0.74 (1.01)	−0.01 (1%)
Alcohol problems	0.17 (0.42)	0.16 (0.38)	0.01 (1%)	0.16 (0.40)	0.16 (0.39)	−0.01 (1%)
Current mental distress	4.18 (2.80)	2.56 (2.36)	0.58 (58%)	3.94 (2.68)	3.61 (2.77)	0.12 (12%)
Social support	16.50 (4.57)	19.35 (4.26)	−0.62 (62%)	16.90 (4.45)	16.68 (4.61)	0.05 (5%)
Exposure to COVID-19-pandemic-related stressors	5.62 (2.31)	4.42 (2.42)	0.52 (52%)	5.44 (2.21)	5.24 (2.46)	0.09 (9%)
Child sex	1.50 (0.50)	1.49 (0.50)	0.03 (3%)	1.48 (0.50)	1.55 (0.50)	−0.14 (14%)

Note. Significant group differences (p < .05) and mean difference imbalances (≥20%) are marked in bold. IPV = intimate partner violence.

Visual pre- and postmatching group comparisons are provided in Figures 1 and 2. Figure 1 is a jitter plot representing the distribution of propensity scores. Each circle in the plot represents a case’s propensity score. The uppermost and final stratifications show unmatched cases, which were discarded from further analysis. The two middle stratifications show the close match between the treatment cases and control cases achieved in the present study. In addition, Figure 2 presents histograms before and after matching. The histograms before matching presented on the left differ to a great degree. The histograms after matching on the right are very similar. Overall, the numerical and visual data indicate that matching in the current study was successful.

Postmatching Group Comparisons

An independent samples t-test was conducted to test the effect of IPV victimization on emotionally abusive and harsh parenting among the matched sample of IPV-positive (n = 160) and IPV-negative (n = 160) mothers. Results revealed that IPV-positive (M = 26.99, SD = 6.51) and IPV-negative (M = 25.97, SD = 6.43) mothers did not differ statistically significantly on emotionally abusive parenting, t(318) = −1.41, p = .160, M difference = −1.02, 95% CI of the difference [−2.44, 0.40], Cohen’s d = −0.16. Finally, IPV-positive mothers (M = 9.39, SD = 3.30) were not statistically significantly harsher toward their children than IPV-negative mothers (M = 8.95, SD = 3.34), t(318) = −1.20, p = .233, M difference = −0.44, 95% CI of the difference [−1.17, 0.29], Cohen’s d = −0.13.

Discussion

The main purpose of the current study was to test the spillover effect of IPV victimization on emotionally abusive and harsh parenting practices among community mothers of children aged 2 to 5 years living in Poland. In order to control for the influence of covariates and hence reduce selection bias, we utilized the PSM technique. The use of PSM in the current study increases the reliability and validity of the results.

To begin with, we found that more than one in four participants experienced IPV victimization in the prior year, which is much higher than most 12-month prevalence rates of IPV reported in Western societies. For example, in a study with 2,465 women recruited in healthcare settings in Boston, 14% participants experienced IPV in the past year (McCloskey et al., 2005). While this increased rate could be partly explained by the COVID-19 pandemic, during which increases in IPV prevalence were reported (Peitzmeier et al., 2022), a pre-pandemic study among Polish women found IPV rates comparable to ours (Łukasik et al., 2015). This indicates that IPV against women is a significant yet largely under-researched issue in the Polish society. More studies exploring IPV prevalence rates, risk factors, consequences (including parenting strategies and child functioning), and best methods of prevention are urgently needed to address target 5.2 of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals.

Previous research has indicated that individuals who experience IPV have an increased risk of using abusive parenting practices (see Chiesa et al., 2018). This is because parental conflict and stress associated with IPV may “spill over” and affect parent–child relationship quality. However, as explained above, the focus of prior studies tended to be on participants representing low socioeconomic status, which is a known risk factor for both IPV and child maltreatment (Reichel, 2017; Spencer et al., 2022; van Ijzendoorn et al., 2020), meaning that this effect may not be generalizable to the wider population. In the current study, the majority of participants had higher education (74%) and were currently employed (66%). Although nearly 60% of participants reported being in financial distress, this could have been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic (see Borrescio-Higa et al., 2022). These data indicate that most participants came from what in the Polish society would be labeled middle class. Our initial results supported the spillover hypothesis, with evidence that mothers who reported recent IPV engaged in more emotionally abusive and harsh parenting behaviors than mothers who did not experience recent IPV. The effect sizes were low to moderate. However, those initial comparisons were based on a nonmatched sample, meaning that some uncontrolled covariates could have affected the difference. Indeed, we found that the two samples differed substantially (mean difference ≥ 20%) on six background variables, including financial distress, self-esteem, childhood violence history, current mental distress, social support, and exposure to COVID-19-pandemic-related stressors, which are known risk factors for both IPV and child maltreatment (Garner et al., 2024; Heise, 1998; Li et al., 2019; Moreira & Da Costa, 2020; Mulder et al., 2018; Stith et al., 2009). The application of PSM was successful is correcting all these imbalances. Comparisons performed on the matched sample revealed no statistically significant differences in emotionally abusive and harsh parenting practices between IPV-positive and IPV-negative mothers. Therefore, the spillover effect of IPV victimization on negative parenting was not supported.

These findings are critical from both the methodological and social perspective. First, the current study shows the importance of isolating a characteristic of interest when making group comparisons between individuals with and without this specific characteristic. In observational studies, such a goal can be attained by using the PSM technique. Here, we controlled for 11 confounding factors, which eliminated selection bias and changed the association between IPV victimization and emotionally abusive and harsh parenting practices from statistically significant to statistically nonsignificant. This is a clear and important illustration of how wrong conclusions can be reached without strong research designs. A similar problem was earlier noted in research comparing biological parents and stepparents on aggressive behavior toward their wards (see Debowska et al., 2020 for a review). Some of the earliest studies in the area revealed a significant relationship between stepparenting and child maltreatment (e.g., Burgess & Garbarino, 1983; Gil, 1970; Martin & Walters, 1982). However, it was quickly noted that this finding could have been heavily influenced by not controlling for important socio-demographic factors which may confound the relationship between type of caretaker and child abuse (Giles-Sims & Finkelhor, 1984). Notably, the importance of strong methodology goes beyond the realm of research—research conclusions can affect the treatment of certain groups and individuals within society. In the current context, IPV victims can be unjustly blamed for the use of negative parenting behaviors, which can adversely influence their healing process and contribute to further traumatization. Moreover, if incorrect research conclusions are used for intervention development, programs can waste resources and time on reducing behaviors which are not problematic for the majority of the target population.

There are important limitations to this study that should be noted. First, we relied on self-reports which are subject to social desirability bias in responding. However, the study participation was anonymous and data were collected online, which should have alleviated this issue to a certain extent. Moreover, with this limitation in mind, we included reverse-scored items in the emotional abusive parenting scale. Second, we only recruited participants from one area in Poland. Future studies should aim to recruit more geographically diverse samples. Third, due to the nature of the IPV measure used, we could not study the effect of exposure to different forms of IPV on negative parenting. In spite of the above-listed limitations, the current study provides some important insights into the impact of IPV victimization on harsh and emotionally abusive parenting behaviors in a community-based, largely middle-class sample. To the extent of our knowledge, this is the first study to have applied PSM technique to isolate the effect of IPV victimization on negative parenting behaviors and demonstrated that the effect turned from statistically significant to statistically nonsignificant once important confounders were controlled for.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-jiv-10.1177_08862605241258998 – Supplemental material for Testing the Spillover Effect of Intimate Partner Violence Victimization on Emotionally Abusive and Harsh Parenting Practices: The Application of Propensity Score Matching

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-jiv-10.1177_08862605241258998 for Testing the Spillover Effect of Intimate Partner Violence Victimization on Emotionally Abusive and Harsh Parenting Practices: The Application of Propensity Score Matching by Agata Debowska, Grzegorz Inglot, Rafal Piasek, Grzegorz Sokol, Beata Horeczy, George K. Hales and Daniel Boduszek in Journal of Interpersonal Violence

Footnotes

Author Note

During the preparation of this work, the authors did not use any Artificial Intelligence (AI)-assisted technologies.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interests with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.

ORCID iD

Agata Debowska

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Author Biographies

Agata Debowska, PhD, is an Associate Professor at the SWPS University (Warsaw, Poland) and an honorary academic at the University of Sheffield (Sheffield, United Kingdom). Her research focuses on intimate partner violence (IPV), child abuse and neglect (CAN), scale development, psychopathy, and criminal social identity.

Grzegorz Inglot, MD, is a Pediatric Orthopedist at the Specialized Hospital Pro-Familia (Rzeszow, Poland).

Rafal Piasek, MD, is a Pediatric Orthopedist at the Specialized Hospital Pro-Familia (Rzeszow, Poland).

Grzegorz Sokol, MD, is a Pediatric Orthopedist at the Specialized Hospital Pro-Familia (Rzeszow, Poland).

Beata Horeczy, MD, is an Anaesthesiologist at the Specialized Hospital Pro-Familia (Rzeszow, Poland). She is also affiliated with the University of Rzeszow Medical College (Rzeszow, Poland).

George K. Hales, PhD, is a Lecturer at University of Chester in the Department of Psychology (Chester, United Kingdom). His current research interests include violence against children, adverse childhood experiences, and resilience. He is interested in exploring resilience in the context of childhood adversities.

Daniel Boduszek, PhD, is a Professor of Psychology at SWPS University (Wroclaw, Poland) and University of Huddersfield (Huddersfield, United Kingdom). His current research and publications include interpersonal violence, criminal psychopathy, recidivism, and application of advanced statistical modeling in social sciences.

References

Astbury

(2012). Using theory in criminal justice evaluation. In Bowen

Brown

(Eds.), Perspectives of evaluating criminal justice and corrections (pp. 3–28). Emerald.

Beutel

M. E.

Brähler

Wiltink

Michal

Klein

E. M.

Jünger

Wild

P. S.

Münzel

Blettner

Lackner

Nickels

Tibubos

A. N.

(2017). Emotional and tangible social support in a German population-based sample: Development and validation of the Brief Social Support Scale (BS6). PLoS One, 12(10), Article e0186516. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186516

Borrescio-Higa

Droller

Valenzuela

(2022). Financial distress and psychological well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Public Health, 67, 1604591. https://doi.org/10.3389/ijph.2022.1604591

Brink

Cullen

Beek

Peters

S. A. E.

(2021). Intimate partner violence during the COVID-19 pandemic in Western and Southern European countries. European Journal of Public Health, 31(5), 1058–1063. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckab093

Burgess

R. L.

Garbarino

(1983). Doing what comes naturally? An Evolutionary perspective on child abuse. In Finkelhor

Gelles

R. J.

Hotaling

G. T.

Straus

M. A.

(Eds.), The dark side of families: Current family violence research (pp. 88–101). SAGE Publications.

Chan

C. C.

Chan

Y. C.

Cheung

G. O. C.

(2010). Reliability and validity of the “Extended-Hurt, Insult, Threaten, Scream” (E-HITS) screening tool in detecting intimate partner violence in hospital emergency departments in Hong Kong. Hong Kong Journal of Emergency Medicine, 17(2), 109–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/102490791001700202

Chiesa

A. E.

Kallechey

Harlaar

Ford

C. R.

Garrido

E. F.

Betts

W. R.

Maguire

(2018). Intimate partner violence victimization and parenting: A systematic review. Child Abuse & Neglect, 80, 285–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2018.03.028

Chung

Jensen

T. M.

Parisi

Macy

R. J.

Lanier

(2021). Impact of intimate partner violence on parenting and children’s externalizing behaviors: Transactional processes over time. Violence Against Women, 27(14), 2576–2599. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801220985125

Cyr

M. G.

Wartman

S. A.

(1988). The effectiveness of routine screening questions in the detection of alcoholism. JAMA, 259(1), 51–54. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1988.03720010029035

10.

Debowska

Boduszek

(2017). Child abuse and neglect profiles and their psychosocial consequences in a large sample of incarcerated males. Child Abuse & Neglect, 65, 266–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2016.12.003

11.

Debowska

Hales

Boduszek

(2020). Violence against children by stepparents. In Shackelford

T. K.

(Ed.), The SAGE handbook of domestic violence (pp. 553–569). SAGE Publishing.

12.

Devries

K. M.

Mak

J. Y. T.

Gracia-Moreno

Petzold

Child

J. C.

Falder

Lim

Bacchus

L. J.

Engell

R. E.

Rosenfeld

Pallitto

Vos

Abrahams

Watts

C. H.

(2013). The global prevalence of intimate partner violence against women. Science, 340(6140), 1527–1528. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1240937

13.

El-Serag

Thurston

R. C.

(2020). Matters of the heart and mind: Interpersonal violence and cardiovascular disease in women. Journal of the American Heart Association, 9(4), Article e015479. https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.120.015479

14.

Engfer

(1988). The interrelatedness of marriage and the mother-child relationship. In Stevenson-Hinde

Hinde

R. A.

(Eds.), Relationships within families: Mutual influences (pp. 104–118). Oxford University Press.

15.

Finnbogadóttir

Baird

Thies-Lagergren

(2020). Birth outcomes in a Swedish population of women reporting a history of violence including domestic violence during pregnancy: A longitudinal cohort study. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 20(183), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-020-02864-5

16.

Fisher

H. L.

Schreier

Zammit

Maughan

Munafò

M. R.

Lewis

Wolke

(2013). Pathways between childhood victimization and psychosis-like symptoms in the ALSPAC birth cohort. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 39(5), 1045–1055. https://doi.org/10.1093/schbul/sbs088

17.

Garner

J. B.

Self-Brown

Emery

Wootten

Tiwari

(2024). COVID-19 and caregiver risk factors for child maltreatment: The pandemic in review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 25(1), 613–629. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380231158609

18.

Gil

(1970). Violence against children: Physical child abuse in the United States. Harvard University Press.

19.

Giles-Sims

Finkelhor

(1984). Child abuse in stepfamilies. Family Relations, 33(3), 407–413.

20.

Hall

Hill

Moreland

Hales

G. K.

Boduszek

Debowska

(2023). Profiles of intimate partner violence victimization: A systematic review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 24(5), 3280–3296. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380221126183

21.

Heise

L. L.

(1998). Violence against women: An integrated, ecological framework. Violence Against Women, 4(3), 262–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801298004003002

22.

Holland

J. F.

Khandaker

G. M.

Dauvermann

M. R.

Morris

Zammit

Donohoe

(2020). Effects of early life adversity on immune function and cognitive performance: Results from the ALSPAC cohort. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 55, 723–733. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-019-01813-8

23.

Iverson

K. M.

Dardis

C. M.

Pogoda

T. K.

(2017). Traumatic brain injury and PTSD symptoms as a consequence of intimate partner violence. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 74, 80–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comppsych.2017.01.007

24.

Iverson

K. M.

King

M. W.

Gerber

M. R.

Resick

P. A.

Kimerling

Street

A. E.

Vogt

(2015). Accuracy of an intimate partner violence screening tool for female VHA patients: A replication and extension. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 28(1), 79–82. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.21985

25.

Julio

Reopta

K. G.

Jandoc

K. R.

(2023). Nuances in the effect of types of intimate partner violence on aspects of child development: evidence from the Philippines. Child Abuse & Neglect, 138, 106074. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2023.106074

26.

Kelleher

K. J.

Hazen

A. L.

Coben

J. H.

Wang

McGeehan

Kohl

P. L.

Gardner

W. P.

(2008). Self-reported disciplinary practices among women in the child welfare system: Association with domestic violence victimization. Child Abuse & Neglect, 32(8), 811–818. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2007.12.004

27.

Kieselbach

B. S.

(2022). Childhood exposure to intimate partner violence—A global health burden [Doctoral thesis, University of Geneve]. Archive ouverte UNIGE. https://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:167405

28.

Krishnakumar

Buehler

(2000). Interparental conflict and parenting behaviors: A meta-analytic review. Family Relations, 49(1), 25–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2000.00025.x

29.

Kroenke

Spitzer

R. L.

Williams

J. B.

Löwe

(2009). An ultra-brief screening scale for anxiety and depression: The PHQ–4. Psychosomatics, 50(6), 613–621. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0033-3182(09)70864-3

30.

Lagdon

Armour

Stringer

(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. https://doi.org/10.3402/ejpt.v5.24794

31.

Zhao

(2019). Childhood maltreatment and intimate partner violence victimization: A meta-analysis. Child Abuse & Neglect, 88, 212–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2018.11.012

32.

Loxton

Dolja-Gore

Anderson

A. E.

Townsend

(2017). Intimate partner violence adversely impacts health over 16 years and across generations: A longitudinal cohort study. PLoS One, 12(6), e0178138. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178138

33.

Łukasik

Karakuła-Juchnowicz

Morylowska-Topolska

Flis

Krukow

(2015). Long-term somatic consequences of intimate partner violence in primary care female patients. Polski Merkuriusz Lekarski: Organ Polskiego Towarzystwa Lekarskiego, 39(234), 372–376.

34.

Martin

M. J.

Walters

(1982). Familial correlates of selected types of child abuse and neglect. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 44(2), 267–276.

35.

McCloskey

L. A.

Lichter

Ganz

M. L.

Williams

C. M.

Gerber

M. R.

Sege

Stair

Herbert

(2005). Intimate partner violence and patient screening across medical specialties. Academic Emergency Medicine, 12(8), 712–722. https://doi.org/10.1197/j.aem.2005.03.529

36.

McNeil

Hicks

Yalcinoz-Ucan

Browne

D. T.

(2023). Prevalence & correlates of intimate partner violence during COVID-19: A rapid review. Journal of Family Violence, 38(2), 241–261. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-022-00386-6

37.

Moreira

D. N.

Da Costa

M. P.

(2020). The impact of the Covid-19 pandemic in the precipitation of intimate partner violence. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 71, Article 101606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2020.101606

38.

Mulder

T. M.

Kuiper

K. C.

van der Put

C. E.

Stams

G. J. J.

Assink

(2018). Risk factors for child neglect: A meta-analytic review. Child Abuse & Neglect, 77, 198– 210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2018.01.006

39.

Peitzmeier

S. M.

Fedina

Ashwell

Herrenkohl

T. I.

Tolman

(2022). Increases in intimate partner violence during COVID-19: Prevalence and correlates. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(21–22), NP20482–NP2051. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605211052586

40.

Plichta

S. B.

(2004). Intimate partner violence and physical health consequences: Policy and practice implications. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19(11), 1296–1323. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260504269685

41.

Randolph

J. J.

Falbe

Manuel

A. K.

Balloun

J. L.

(2014). A step-by-step guide to propensity score matching in R. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 19(1), Article 18. https://doi.org/10.7275/n3pv-tx27

42.

Reichel

(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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517698951

43.

Roberts

Rogers

Mason

Siriwardena

A. N.

Hogue

Whitley

G. A.

Law

G. R.

(2021). Alcohol and other substance use during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 229, 109150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2021.109150

44.

Robins

R. W.

Hendin

H. M.

Trzesniewski

K. H.

(2001). Measuring global self-esteem: Construct validation of a single-item measure and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(2), 151–161. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167201272002

45.

Rosenbaum

P. R.

Rubin

D. B.

(1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70(1), 41–55. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/70.1.41

46.

Rosenbaum

P. R.

Rubin

D. B.

(1985). Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. The American Statistician, 39(1), 33–38.

47.

Rousson

A. N.

Tajima

E. A.

Herrenkohl

T. I.

Casey

E. A.

(2023). Patterns of intimate partner violence and the harsh parenting of children. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 38(1–2), 955–980. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605221087242

48.

Rudner

L. M.

Johnette

(2006). Consider propensity scores to compare treatments. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 11(1), Article 9. https://doi.org/10.7275/kqk5-wa12

49.

Sardinha

Maheu-Giroux

Stöckl

Meyer

S. R.

García-Moreno

(2022). Global, regional, and national prevalence estimates of physical or sexual, or both, intimate partner violence against women in 2018. The Lancet, 399(10327), 803–813. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02664-7

50.

Sherin

K. M.

Sinacore

J. M.

X. Q.

Zitter

R. E.

Shakil

(1998). HITS: A short domestic violence screening tool for use in a family practice setting. Family Medicine, 30(7), 508–512.

51.

Simmons

S. B.

Knight

K. E.

Menard

(2018). Long-term consequences of intimate partner abuse on physical health and emotional well-being and problem behaviors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 33(4) 539–570. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515609582

52.

Skafida

Morrison

Devaney

(2022). Intimate partner violence and child maltreatment in Scotland—Insights from nationally representative longitudinal survey data. Child Abuse & Neglect, 132, 105784. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2022.105784

53.

Spencer

C. M.

Stith

S. M.

Cafferky

(2022). What puts individuals at risk for physical intimate partner violence perpetration? A meta-analysis examining risk markers for men and women. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 23(1), 36–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838020925776

54.

Stith

S. M.

Liu

Davies

L. C.

Boykin

E. L.

Alder

M. C.

Harris

J. M.

Som

McPherson

Dees

J. E. M. E. G

. (2009). Risk factors in child maltreatment: A meta-analytic review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 14(1), 13–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2006.03.006

55.

Twenge

J. M.

Joiner

T. E.

(2020). Mental distress among U.S. adults during the COVID- 19 pandemic. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 76(12), 2170–2182. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.23064

56.

Van Gelder

Peterman

Potts

O’Donnell

Thompson

Shah

Oertelt-Prigione

. (2020). COVID-19: Reducing the risk of infection might increase the risk of intimate partner violence. EClinicalMedicine, 21, 100348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100348

57.

Van Ijzendoorn

M. H.

Bakermans-Kranenburg

M. J.

Coughlan

Reijman

. (2020). Annual research review: Umbrella synthesis of meta-analyses on child maltreatment antecedents and interventions: Differential susceptibility perspective on risk and resilience. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 61(3), 272–290. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.13147

58.

Waylen

Stallard

Stewart-Brown

(2008). Parenting and health in mid- childhood: A longitudinal study. European Journal of Public Health, 18(3), 300–305. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckm131

59.

Witteveen

(2020). Sociodemographic inequality in exposure to COVID-19-induced economic hardship in the United Kingdom. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 69, 100551. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rssm.2020.100551

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.01 MB