Sociology of Sport VII Critique
Current Politics and Economics of Europe ISSN: 1057-2309
Volume 29, Number 2 © Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
PRO-VIOLENCE ATTITUDES AND
VIOLENT BEHAVIOR AMONG COLLEGE
STUDENTS IN LITHUANIA
Viviana Andreescu† Department of Criminal Justice, University of Louisville,
Louisville, KY, US
ABSTRACT
Recent statistical information about crime and criminal justice issues
in the European Union indicates that over the past decade, violent crime
rates registered a descending trend in Lithuania. Nevertheless, homicide
rates continue to be higher in this country than in any other state
belonging to the European Union (Eurostat, 2018). The main objective of
this study is to identify the role played by childhood and adolescence
experiences in the formation of pro-violence attitudes and on self-
assessed violent behavior in early adulthood. The analysis is informed by
the social learning theoretical perspective and is based on survey data
collected from a sample of college students (N = 448) enrolled in an
institution of higher education in Lithuania’s capital city. Findings show
that parental physical abuse and exposure to inter-parental violence
during childhood/adolescence do not have a long-term effect on
Lithuanians’ behavioral outcomes in early adulthood. However, parental
endorsement of violent retaliation predicts a higher level of violence later
in life, especially among girls. Additionally, in both gender groups,
This is a reformatted version of a chapter previously published in: Kazlauskas, Bronius.
Lithuania. Political, Economic and Social Issues. New York: Nova Science Publishers, 2018. † Corresponding Author E-mail: viviana.andreescu@louisville.edu
Viviana Andreescu 208
association with delinquent friends in post-adolescence years increases
one’s propensity to violence in early adulthood.
Keywords: violent behavior, pro-violence definitions, social learning,
Lithuania
INTRODUCTION
In January 2017, Matas, a four-year old boy from a rural area of Lithuania
died due to severe injuries caused by his stepfather, who viciously hit him
more than seventy times. Less than two months later, in March 2017, Ieva
Strazdauskaitė, a young woman in her mid-20s, has been abducted and
brutally killed by a group of Lithuanian Roma assailants, who wanted to steal
the new luxurious car she was driving. Four murders occurred soon thereafter
in the Kaunas district of Lithuania. Egidijus Anupraitis, a college student
majoring in chemistry at a university in United Kingdom, shot and killed his
parents and two other family members (Baltic News Network, 2017). These
are not isolated incidents. In a country with about three million people, in
2017, the Lithuanian police recorded 129 murder cases, including 2
infanticides (IRD, n. d.) and 325 homicides have been recorded in 2015 and
2016 (Statistics Lithuania, 2017). During the first trimester of 2018, the
Lithuanian police registered 30 murders, 395 criminal offenses that involved
murder threats or threats to cause severe health impairment, and 120 sexual
offenses, of which 77 were committed against minors (IRD, n. d.).
Nonetheless, recent statistical information about violent crimes in EU
countries shows that since the early 2000s, Lithuania has registered almost
consistently a drop in violent crime rates. For instance, if in 2005 there were
11.1 homicides per 100,000 people, in 2015, the murder rate in the country
dropped to six cases per 100,000 people. Similarly, since Lithuania’s
accession to the European Union in 2004, the assault rate has decreased from
13.4 per 100,000 to 7.4, the rape rate dropped from 7.7 to 5.4, and the robbery
rate fell from 157.6 to 55.2 per 100,000 population in 2015 (Knoema, n. d.).
The most recent crime and safety report of the Overseas Security Advisory
Council (OSAC) also indicates that the number of offenses reported to the
police decreased by 20.4% in 2016 compared to 2015. Compared to 2015, the
Pro-Violence Attitudes and Violent Behavior among College … 209
number of violent crimes and the number of domestic violence cases
decreased by 12% and 20.4%, respectively. However, crime data analysis
showed an increase in the number of crimes that involved the use of weapons
and unauthorized possession of firearms (OSAC, 2017).
In general, Lithuania followed the descending trend in conventional crime
rates registered in the majority of EU states over the past decade. Even though,
in 2015, Lithuania had the highest intentional homicide rate in EU (5.89 per
100,000), ahead of Latvia (3.37), Estonia (3.19), Bulgaria (1.79) and Cyprus
(1.77), which were part of the group of countries with the highest murder rates
in EU, as well (Eurostat, 2018). Additionally, while from 2010 to 2016, the
murder rate for adults decreased from 22 per 100,000 adult population to 13
per 100,000, the murder rate for children remained constant at 5.0 per 100,000
population of the corresponding age (Statistics Lithuania, 2017).
Consequently, in February 2017, the Lithuanian Parliament (Seimas) passed a
law explicitly criminalizing all forms of violence against children
(Bertelsmann Stiftung, 2018). Yet, it remains to be seen if these recent
legislative changes (i.e., The Matas Reform), will have the anticipated effect
and will significantly decrease the physical and sexual victimization of minors
in the country. For instance, as noted in a recent country report, during the
period that immediately followed the enactment in 2011 of a law that
criminalized domestic violence and allowed for pre-trial investigations without
a statement from the victim, the number of domestic violence cases recorded
by law enforcement agencies increased sharply in Lithuania (Bertelsmann
Stiftung, 2018). However, taking into account public perceptions regarding the
extent of domestic violence in the country1 right before the law was
formulated, the apparent rise in domestic violence cases noted thereafter could
have been in fact a reflection of people’s willingness to report criminal acts
and abuses more often than they did in the past and not because the incidence
of domestic violence cases, including intimate partner violence, actually
increased after 2011.
1 A survey conducted prior to the enactment of the law that criminalized domestic violence in
Lithuania showed that in 2010, 80% of the Lithuanians, thought domestic violence was
common in the country and 45% of those interviewed acknowledged knowing somebody in
their circle of friends and family who subjected a woman to violence. That was the highest
percentage among respondents from all EU countries participating to the Special
Eurobarometer survey on violence against women (European Commission, 2010).
Viviana Andreescu 210
There is no doubt however, that lethal and non-lethal violence, particularly
domestic violence against women and children, remains a serious problem in
the country and should be addressed (Bertelsmann Stiftung, 2018). As many
scholars have noted, violence can have long-term detrimental physical,
psychological, and socioeconomic effects on victims, victims’ and offenders’
families, communities, and societies (see Jackman, 2002; Jackson & Gouseti,
2016, for reviews). That is why, in order to prevent and reduce the incidence
of violent victimization it is important to know the circumstances and the risk
factors associated with aggression and violent behavior in specific cultural
contexts. Although several studies that summarized survey results, as well as
reports based on crime statistics in Lithuania, or research on gender-based
violence (e.g., Reingardiene, 2003) highlighted the fact that violence is an
important societal issue that Lithuania needs to overcome, the number of
recent empirical studies that focused exclusively on violent behavior in
Lithuania is quite limited. The present study intends to reduce this gap in the
literature.
Different from prior research (e.g., Andresen, 2011; Ceccato, 2007;
Ceccato, 2008; Juska, Johnstone & Pozzuto, 2004; Kalediene, Starkuviene, &
Petrauskiene, 2004) that examined the macro-level correlates of violent crimes
in Lithuania, including the impact of major social changes that affected the
country since 1990 (i.e., Lithuania’s independence from the former Soviet
Union and the country’s accession to the EU), the present study will focus on
micro-level indicators of violent behavior. The intention is to identify the role
played by the family of origin in the formation of pro-violence attitudes and on
violent behavior in post-adolescence years. Additionally, the paper will
explore the lasting effect of the family environment and
childhood/adolescence experiences with victimization on one’s behavior in
early adulthood, when controlling for violence-contributing factors, such as
substance abuse and association with delinquent/criminal peers. In sum, the
paper intends to determine how various socialization experiences are
integrated and relate to behavior over time.
The study will address several research questions. First, what effects have
parental physical abuse and one’s exposure to inter-parental violence during
childhood and adolescence on the formation of pro-violence attitudes and
violent behavior in early adulthood? Does parental support for retaliatory
violence influence one’s pro-violence attitudes and violent behavior in early
Pro-Violence Attitudes and Violent Behavior among College … 211
adulthood? Is prior violent victimization by non-family members predicting
violent behavior in early adulthood? Is there a continuity in violent behavior
from childhood and early adolescence to early adulthood? Do association with
delinquent/criminal friends and alcohol abuse affect one’s violent behavior in
early adulthood? And last, are there any gender-based differences when the
effects of the selected predictors on violent behavior are examined?
BACKGROUND
This study is primarily informed by the social learning theoretical
perspective. Bandura (1969, 1973) argued that aggression/violent behavior
originates in the family, being modeled and reinforced by family members
(e.g., parents who favor aggressive solutions to problems have children who
tend to use similar aggressive tactics in dealing with others). According to
Bandura (1978, p. 14), “all learning resulting from direct experience can also
occur on a vicarious basis by observing the behavior of others and its
consequences.” Additionally, Bandura (1978) noted that the subculture in
which people reside, and with which they have repeated contact, provides a
second important source of aggression. Social learning theory also implies
higher levels of specialization (e.g., childhood physical abuse will predict
physical violence) (Felson & Lane, 2009).
In recent years, a multitude of studies explored the effects of childhood
victimization on violence during adulthood. Consistent with the social learning
theory predictions, reviews of the literature generally show that direct
victimization (child maltreatment), as well as indirect victimization
experienced in the family of origin are generally related to violence
perpetration and/or violent victimization recorded later in life (Bell & Naugle,
2008; Holt, Buckley, & Whelan, 2008). Accordingly, several empirical tests of
the intergenerational transmission of violence hypothesis found that persons
exposed during childhood/adolescence to inter-parental violence were more
likely to become perpetrators of intimate partner violence (IPV) (e.g., Barrett,
Habibov, & Chernyak, 2012; Barnett, Miller-Perrin, & Perrin, 1997; Busby,
Holman, & Walker, 2008; Carr, & VanDeusen, 2002; Eriksson & Mazerolle,
2015; Martin et al., 2002; Milletich, Kelley, Doane, & Pearson, 2010; Paat &
Viviana Andreescu 212
Markham, 2016). The authors of a meta-analysis of 39 studies published
between 1978 and 1997 also concluded that growing up in a violent home is
significantly related to spousal/partner violence perpetration. Yet, the average
effect size corresponding to the relationship vicarious victimization – IPV had
small to medium values (Stith et al., 2000). Nevertheless, when controlling for
other factors, several studies could not conclude that vicarious victimization in
the family of origin affected significantly current marital aggression or
violence perpetration against intimate partners (Fergusson, Boden, &
Horwood, 2006; Hotaling, & Sugarman, 1990; Merrill, Hervig, & Milner,
1996). Alternatively, when it did, it had a significant impact only on one
gender group, such as females, for instance (Cappell & Heiner, 1990).
Regarding violence outside the family or within intimate partnerships,
Ireland and Smith’s (2009) research findings show that individuals exposed
during childhood to severe inter-parental violence were more likely to have
violent interactions in the community and in interpersonal relationships as
young adults. Other studies, however, identified gender-based variations in the
effect of childhood vicarious victimization on violent behavior later in life.
Andreescu and Pavlov (2017), for instance, found that exposure to inter-
parental violence had no significant effect on the violent behavior
acknowledged by male Canadian and American college students. On the other
hand, their female counterparts who experienced vicarious victimization were
significantly more likely to engage in violent behavior than female students
who have not been exposed to domestic violence in their family of origin.
Nevertheless, MacEwen and Barling (1988) found no significant relationship
between aggression in the family of origin and subsequent violent behavior in
adulthood.
When examining the lasting effect of childhood experiences in the family
of origin on one’s behavior over the life course, a substantial amount of
research focused on the relationship child abuse/child maltreatment and
violent behavior. Although research findings did not always reach a consensus,
more frequently than not, cross-sectional and longitudinal studies identified a
positive and significant relationship between direct physical victimization
experienced in the family of origin and subsequent violent behavior (Afifi,
Mota, Sareen, & MacMillan, 2017; Andreescu & Pavlov, 2017; Fang & Corso,
2008; Felson & Lane, 2009; Milaniak & Widom, 2015; Oriel & Fleming,
1998; Stith et al., 2000). Conversely, other studies (Paat & Markham, 2016),
Pro-Violence Attitudes and Violent Behavior among College … 213
did not identify a statistically significant associations between childhood
experiences of corporal punishment and violence perpetration against intimate
partners, or found gender-based differences when examining the effect of
parental physical abuse on one’s violent behavior during adulthood (see
Kaukinen, 2014 for a review). Milletich and his colleagues, for instance, found
that child physical abuse was significantly associated with physical aggression
in dating relationships only among female college students in United States,
while psychological abuse experienced in the family of origin triggered the
males’ aggressive behavior (Milletich. et al., 2010). On the other hand, a panel
study that followed a sample (N = 574) of Americans from age 5 to age 21
found that childhood physical abuse was significantly related to violent
behavior at age 21 only among males, having no impact on females’ behavior
in early adulthood (Lansford et al., 2007).
Decades ago, Cohen (1971, p.74) noted that the majority of studies that
“focused on immediate rather than developmental consequences of
punitiveness, restrictiveness, and rejection” (…) generally identified positive
correlations between parental use of harsh socialization practices and [the
children’s] aggressive behavior.” However, as Cohen also acknowledged at
the time, it seems that the long-term effects of early socialization experiences
are not always detectable and continue to remain unclear.
Nonetheless, in addition to exposure to domestic violence, which children
may imitate and reproduce in their interactions with others, Bandura (1969)
noted that the parents’ patterns of punishments and rewards constitute an
important determinant of the children’s aggressive reactions and violent
behavior toward others. Bandura (1969) also observed that parents of
aggressive boys tend to punish consistently aggression directed toward family
members, while they encourage, through intermittent reinforcement,
aggression directed at non-family members. In sum, this type of parental
attitude that endorses retaliatory violence toward others would contribute to
the formation of normative beliefs and attitudes in support of aggression as the
appropriate way to solve violent encounters. Empirical studies indicate that
youth who adopt retaliatory attitudes are more likely to be aggressive toward
others and they tend to embark on more aggressive developmental trajectories
than youth who do not share similar views (Copeland-Linder et al., 2012;
Crick & Dodge, 1994; Huesmann & Guerra, 1997.
Viviana Andreescu 214
Although several studies examined the association between attitudes that
support violent retaliation and youth violent/aggressive behavior, there is little
research examining the lasting effect of retaliatory attitudes formed during
childhood and adolescence on behavioral outcomes registered later in life.
Nevertheless, a recent analysis of college students’ violent behavior found that
both males and females taught by parents to respond with violence if insulted
or hit were more likely to acknowledge violent behavior in early adulthood
(Andreescu & Pavlov, 2017).
In addition to the family, the peer group one belongs to is another
important socializing agent. According to Akers (1977), deviant or conforming
behavior is learned during a process of social interaction with various groups
through behavior modeling and differential reinforcement of behavior. During
this process of social interaction with family and friends, individuals also learn
normative behavior, form attitudes, and they may internalize pro-crime
definitions. A meta-analysis based on 166 studies that tested empirically the
social learning theory shows that in 80% of the studies included in the analysis
association with delinquent peers had a significant and positive effect on one’s
illegal behavior (Pratt et al., 2010). While a large number of studies examined
the effect of one’s differential association with delinquent peers on problem
behavior during childhood and/or adolescence, longitudinal research showed
that “deviancy training” through adolescent friendships may have long-term
negative effects. Specifically, it predicts not only increases in delinquency and
substance use, but also violence, and adult maladjustment (Dishion, McCord,
& Poulin, 1999, p. 755).
Several research studies (Cairns et al., 1988; Espelage, Holt, & Henkel,
2003; Powers & Bierman, 2013) found that aggressive children and
adolescents tend to form friendships with peers who display similar aggressive
and disruptive behaviors. Summarizing prior research findings, Dishion and
Tipsord (2011) noted that over time, one’s level of aggressive behavior
(instrumental or relational) is increasing with an increase in the adolescent’s
friendships with aggressive peers. Research findings (see Arriaga and Foshee
2004; Brendgen, Vitaro, Tremblay, & Wanner, 2002) also showed that
adolescents who tend to associate with physically-aggressive friends are more
likely to have normative beliefs that support violence and they are more likely
to engage in dating violence perpetration (Ellis, Hall, & Dumas, 2013).
Capaldi, Dishion, Stoolmiller, and Yoerger (2001) stated that males with
Pro-Violence Attitudes and Violent Behavior among College … 215
delinquent friends in adolescence were more physically aggressive toward
their dating partners in early adulthood. Ellis and her colleagues, however,
found that while female adolescents who belonged to a relationally aggressive
peer group engaged more often in dating violence perpetration than girls
belonging to non-aggressive peer groups, the association between peer group
relational aggression and dating violence perpetration was not significant for
boys (Ellis et al., 2013). Regarding violent behavior in early adulthood, which
is not specifically directed at a spouse or a dating partner, longitudinal
research indicated that association with violent youth in adolescence (i.e., gang
involvement by age 13-14) was a significant predictor of violent behavior by
age 18–19 (Dishion, Véronneau, & Myers, 2010). Nonetheless, using a sample
that included both males and females, Liu and Kaplan (2004) reported that
association with delinquent peers in adolescence was significantly and
positively associated with aggressive behavior in early adulthood only among
women.
In conclusion, empirical research provides evidence that through a
diversity of mechanisms, the family of origin, as well as close social
interactions outside the family sphere are important sources of behavioral
outcomes not only during childhood and adolescence, but also in early
adulthood. Based on the social learning theory’s propositions and research on
additional correlates of violent behavior, several research hypotheses are
formulated. It is anticipated that persons exposed directly/indirectly to physical
victimization in the family of origin, as well as those whose parents endorsed
violent retaliation will have normative beliefs in support of aggressive
behavior and will be more prone to violence. Individuals who have been
physically victimized during childhood/adolescents by non-family members
are also expected to acknowledge higher levels of violent behavior in early
adulthood. It is hypothesized that association with delinquent/criminal friends,
as well as childhood/adolescence aggressive and violent behavior will predict
violence perpetration in early adulthood.
Prior research often documented a positive relationship between alcohol
abuse and violence perpetration in the family (Choenni, Hammink & van de
Mheen, 2017; Foran & O’Leary, 2008) and outside the family sphere (Felson
and Lane, 2009; Liu & Kaplan, 2004). Accordingly, this study also anticipates
that heavy-alcohol users will be more prone to violence than individuals who
are less likely to engage in binge drinking and frequent alcohol consumption.
Viviana Andreescu 216
Furthermore, males are expected to acknowledge a higher propensity toward
violence than women do.
METHODS
Data Source
The source of the data is an international study on youth violence
conducted in 32 countries between 2001 and 2006. The data have been made
available by the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research
(ICPSR) at the University of Michigan (Straus, 2011). The present research is
based on a sample of male and female undergraduate students (N = 448), age
18-25, enrolled at Vilnius Pedagogical University in Lithuania’s capital. In
2011, this urban university, which was established in 1935 as the first
pedagogical institution in the country, has been renamed the Lithuanian
University of Educational Sciences (LEU). According to LEU’s website, the
Lithuanian University of Educational Sciences is currently the largest teacher-
training institution in Lithuania.
Measures
Following are briefly presented the dependent and independent variables
to be used in multivariate analyses. To reiterate, the main objective of the
study is to determine how the family environment, as well as childhood and
adolescence experiences contribute to the formation of pro-violence attitudes
and to violent behavior in post-adolescence and early adulthood.
The main dependent variable, violent behavior, is a two-item construct
based on respondents’ agreement/disagreement with the statements: “Since
age 15, I hit or threatened to hit someone who is not a member of my
family“ and “Since age 15, I have physically attacked someone with the idea
of seriously hurting them“. The inter-item correlation is .45 (p < .001). First, a
summative scale has been created and then dichotomized. Respondents who
Pro-Violence Attitudes and Violent Behavior among College … 217
did not acknowledged any involvement in violent acts have been coded zero,
while the others have been coded 1.
Pro-violence definitions serves as a dependent variable in the first set of
analyses and is further considered one of the main predictors of violent
behavior. It is a composite measure constructed via principal component
analysis (PCA) and is based on responses at three questionnaire items (i.e., “A
boy who is hit by another boy should hit back; When a boy is growing up, it’s
important for him to have a few fist fights; A man should not walk away from
a physical fight with another man“). Each of the original variables had scores
that varied from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). The measure
appears to be reliable (Alpha = .612) and has construct validity. PCA results
indicate that only one factor with a value higher than one has been obtained
(Eigenvalue = 1.629; variance explained = 56.31%) and factor loadings vary
from .725 to .788. Higher values indicate stronger pro-violence attitudes.
(Pre)-adolescence aggression combines two indicators (i.e., “Before age
15, I hit or threatened to hit my parents“ and “Before age 15, I physically
attacked someone with the idea of seriously hurting them“). The composite
measure was computed via PCA. The reliability coefficient Alpha for the
measure is .565. When PCA has been used, only one factor with an Eigenvalue
higher than one has been obtained (Eigenvalue = 1.394; variance explained =
69.68%; factor loadings = .835). Higher values indicate a higher level of self-
assessed violent behavior in (pre)-adolescence years.
Parental physical abuse (during childhood and adolescence) is an
independent variable that combines responses at two questions (“When I was
less than 12 years old, I was spanked or hit a lot by my mother or father“ and
“When I was a teenager, I was hit a lot by my mother or father“). The
reliability coefficient Alpha for the measure is .713. When PCA has been used,
a factor explaining 77.71% of the variance has been obtained (Eigenvalue =
1.554; factor loadings = .882). Each of the two ordinal-level variables took
values from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). Higher values indicate
a higher level of direct physical victimization.
Physical victimization by non-family members during childhood is an
ordinal level independent variable that takes values from 1 (strongly disagree)
to 4 (strongly agree), based on the respondent’s reaction to the statement
“When I was a kid, people (adults or kids) who were not part of my family
pushed, shoved, slapped me, or threw things at me“.
Viviana Andreescu 218
Exposure to inter-parental violence during childhood serves as a measure
of indirect victimization. Respondents have been asked to indicate their
disagreement (1) or agreement (4) with the statement “When I was a kid, I saw
my mother or father kick, punch, or beat up their partner“.
Parental support for retaliatory violence – This independent variable is
also an ordinal-level measure that takes values from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4
(strongly agree), based on the respondent’s reaction to the statement: “My
father or mother told me to hit back if someone hit me or insulted me“.
The following variables have been used as controls in the multivariate
statistical models:
Table 1. Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations (N = 448)
Variable Mean Std. Dev. Min. Max. Pearson’s r
Violent behavior .40 .49 0 1 -
Pro-violence definitions .00 1.00 - 2.054 3.04 .26***
(Pre)-adolescence aggression .00 1.00 -.679 4.36 .27***
Parental physical abuse .00 1.00 -.91 3.86 .17***
Non-family direct victimization 1.49 .73 1 4 .19***
Exposure to domestic violence 1.69 1.01 1 4 .08
Parental support for violent
retaliation
1.74 .80 1 4 .23***
Association with delinquent
friends
.00 1.00 - 1.45 2.38 .34***
Alcohol abuse .00 1.00 - 1.50 2.33 .24***
Father’s education .00 1.00 - 4.01 1.64 .10*
Respondent’s sex (male) .34 .78 0 1 .32*** * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001 (2-tail test)
Association with Delinquent Friends
This is a composite measure (factor) that combines responses at two
questionnaire items (“I spend time with friends who have been in trouble with
the law” and “I have friends who have committed crimes“). The indicator has
been created through PCA and appears to be a reliable (Alpha = .770) and
valid measure (Eigenvalue = 1.628; variance explained = 81.39%).
Excessive Alcohol Consumption
Created through PCA, this factor is based on three questions (“When I am
drinking I usually have five or more drinks at a time“; “I sometimes drink five
Pro-Violence Attitudes and Violent Behavior among College … 219
or more drinks at a time, but only on weekends“; “I sometimes drink enough
to feel really high or drunk“), initially coded 1 (strongly disagree) to 4
(strongly agree). The reliability coefficient Alpha for the measure is .759. Only
one component with a value higher than one has been obtained (Eigenvalue =
2.307; variance explained = 67.91%) and factor loadings varied from .77 to
.87.
Father’s Education
This continuous variable measures the years of education completed by
the respondent’s father. The variable has been standardized (i.e., raw scores
have been converted to z scores).
Respondent’s Sex
This dummy variable is coded 1, if the respondent is male and zero
otherwise.
Analytical Procedures
First, univariate and bivariate analyses will be conducted. Additionally,
multivariate analyses will try to identify from a selected group of predictors
the variables that contribute the most to the formation of pro-violence
attitudes. The index (pro-violence definitions) has a relatively normal
distribution (Skewness = .130; Kurtosis = - .058) and ordinary least square
regression (OLS) will be used in the first set of multivariate analyses. Using
bivariate logistic regression, subsequent analyses will present the predicting
power of all the independent variables included in the estimated model of
violent behavior, when controlling for a set of indicators, such as sex, parental
education, drinking patterns, and association with delinquent/criminal friends.
The final set of analyses plans to identify the variables that are more likely to
differentiate in each gender group individuals who committed violent acts in
post-adolescence years from those who did not acknowledge any involvement
in violent behavior. The sample is relatively homogenous in terms of age
distribution and because preliminary analyses did not show significant
Viviana Andreescu 220
differences among groups differentiated by the respondent’s age, this variable
was not included in the statistical models.
RESULTS
Univariate and Bivariate Analyses
Table 1 includes the descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation, and
range) for all the variables included in the statistical models. Additionally, the
bivariate relationships (Pearson’s correlation coefficient r) between the main
dependent variable (violent behavior) and the predictors are included.
Approximately 40% of the respondents engaged in some form of violent
behavior in post-adolescence years. Additional analyses show that only 5.1%
of the males and 3.7% of the girls in the sample manifested aggressive
behavior toward their parents in adolescence and/or pre-adolescence years.
Yet, in adolescence, 60.4% of the males and 28.2% of the females threatened
to hit and/or did hit someone who was not a family member. Based on the
mean values reported in Table 1, it can be concluded that before age 15, most
of the respondents have not been exposed to domestic violence in the family,
have not been victims of violence, and did not receive from their parents
support for retaliatory violence. Univariate analyses (frequency distributions,
not shown) indicate that only 10% of the respondents in the sample
experienced harsh physical punishment from parents while they were growing
up and 10% of the respondents were directly victimized by non-family
members. About one in four respondents (23.3%) witnessed inter-parental
violence and 16.5% were advised by parents to retaliate with violence, if hit or
insulted. Yet, four out of ten respondents had pro-violence definitions (e.g.,
41% considered that you should respond with violence, if you were physically
victimized). In early adulthood, 35% of the respondents had friends who
committed crimes and 20% of the respondents declared they regularly engaged
in binge drinking.
The results of the bivariate analyses show that, except one predictor (i.e.,
exposure to intimate partner violence in the family of origin), all the selected
variables are significantly related to the main dependent variable, violent
Pro-Violence Attitudes and Violent Behavior among College … 221
behavior in early adulthood. Specifically, respondents who engaged in violent
behavior in early adulthood manifested aggressive behavior toward parents
and others in childhood and adolescence (r = .27; p < .001), had pro-violence
definitions (r = .26; p < .001), received from parents support for violent
retaliation if insulted (r = .23; p < .001), and have been physically victimized
by non-family members (r = .19; p < .001) and by parents (r = .17; p < .001).
Respondents who engaged in aggressive behavior against others were more
likely to be males (r = .32; p < .001), they were more likely to have delinquent
friends (r = .34; p < .001), and they were alcohol abusers (r = .24; p < .001).
Multivariate Analyses
Table 2 presents the results of the first multivariate analysis that tries to
determine what experiences and characteristics have the individuals who find
justifiable to respond with violence if they would be physically victimized.
The statistical model, which explains about 13% of the variation in the
dependent variable, shows that males are significantly more likely than
females to find violence justifiable and also that one’s association with
criminal/delinquent friends has slightly a higher impact on the formation of
pro-violence definitions (Beta = .224; p < .001) than parental support for
violent retaliation does (Beta = .189; p < .001). Results also indicate that when
controlling for other variables in the model, violent behavior in childhood and
adolescence, as well as prior experiences with direct and indirect victimization
do not contribute significantly to the formation of pro-violence definitions.
Table 3 includes the results of the bivariate logistic regression analysis
that tried to identify the variables more likely to differentiate the respondents
who used violence to settle conflicts from those who did not acknowledge
violent behavior.
As anticipated, individuals with pro-violence definitions and those who
during childhood/adolescence have been advised by parents to respond with
violence if insulted or hit, also manifested violent behavior in early adulthood.
Childhood experiences with direct and indirect victimization were positively
related to the dependent variable, but their effect was not sufficiently strong to
be significant. Yet, association with delinquent friends increased the odds of
being violent in early adulthood by 62% (OR = 1.619; p < .001). The odds of
Viviana Andreescu 222
engaging in violent behavior are 147% higher for men when compared to
women (OR = 2.470; p < .001).
Table 2. Regression estimates for pro-violence definitions (N = 448)
Variable B Std.
Error Beta t
p
(Pre)-adolescence aggression .105 .078 .063 1.352 .177
Parental physical abuse - .043 .049 - .043 - .883 .378
Non-family direct victimization - .073 .063 - .056 - 1.168 .244
Exposure to domestic violence - .019 .048 - .019 - .401 .689
Parental support for violent retaliation .236*** .057 .189 4.142 .000
Association with delinquent friends .224*** .049 .224 4.595 .000
Alcohol abuse .081 .048 .081 1.699 .090
Father’s education - .007 .046 -.007 - .151 .880
Respondent’s sex (male) .234* .101 .111 2.312 .021
Constant - .493** .174 - 2.836 .005
Adjusted R2 .132 * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001 (2-tail test)
Table 3. Logit estimates for violent behavior in early adulthood (N = 448)
Variable B Std. Error Odds ratio p
Pro-violence definitions .340** .124 1.405 .006
(Pre)-adolescence aggression .241 .187 1.272 .197
Parental physical abuse .171 .120 1.186 .153
Non-family direct victimization .220 .150 1.246 .142
Exposure to inter-parental violence .080 .121 1.083 .509
Parental support for violent retaliation .397** .145 1.488 .006
Association with delinquent friends .482*** .127 1.619 .000
Alcohol abuse .229 .120 1.257 .057
Father’s education .104 .115 1.109 .367
Respondent’s sex (male) .904*** .241 2.470 .000
Constant - 2.350*** .448 .095 .000
Pseudo R2 (Nagelkerke) .310 * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001 (2-tail test)
Further analyses (Table 4) examine the predictors of violent behavior in
each gender group. Results show that while there are several inter-group
similarities, there are differences as well.
Pro-Violence Attitudes and Violent Behavior among College … 223
Table 4. Logit estimates for violent behavior in early adulthood by gender
Variable Males (N = 154) Females (N = 294)
B SE OR B SE OR
Pro-violence definitions .489* .217 1.630 .268 .156 1.307
(Pre)-adolescence aggression - .115 .334 .892 .484* .231 1.622
Parental physical abuse .171 .225 1.187 .201 .147 1.222
Non-family direct victimization -.013 .247 .987 .383* .191 1.467
Exposure to domestic violence .124 .211 1.131 .028 .155 1.029
Parental support for violent retaliation .242 .255 1.273 .455* .181 1.576
Association with delinquent friends .536* .212 1.709 .484** .165 1.622
Alcohol abuse .307 .195 1.360 .175 .159 1.191
Father’s education .086 .206 1.090 .104 .141 1.109
Pseudo R2 (Nagelkerke) .233 .226 * p < .05; **p < .01; *** p < .001 (2-tail test)
For instance, for both male and female respondents, parental physical
abuse and exposure to inter-parental violence during childhood and/or
adolescence, while positively related to violent behavior, do not have a lasting
effect on one’s behavior in early adulthood. Similarly, in both subsamples,
when controlling for other variables included in the model, alcohol abuse is
not significantly related to violent behavior, as anticipated.
On the other hand, both males and females tend to engage in violence
significantly more if they associate with delinquent friends (i.e., the odds of
being violent in early adulthood increase by 71% for males and by 62% for
females).
While having pro-violence definitions significantly predicts violent
behavior for males, the effect is not significant for females. Conversely,
females who engaged in aggressive behavior toward parents and others during
childhood/adolescence are more likely to commit violent acts in early
adulthood. Yet, the behavior of young adult males who were violent
children/adolescents does not differ significantly from the behavior of their
counterparts who were not aggressive during adolescence and pre-adolescence
years.
Being violently victimized as a child by somebody who was not a family
member also had a long-term negative effect only on female respondents. The
odds of being violent in early adulthood increase by 47% for females who
were childhood victims of violence. While parental support for violent
Viviana Andreescu 224
retaliation is positively associated with violent behavior in early adulthood in
both subsamples, only for females the direct effect is significant. Specifically,
the odds of being violent later in life increase by 58% (OR = 1.576; p < .05)
for female respondents who have been advised by parents to respond with
violence to insults.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
The present study attempted to identify some of the factors more likely to
influence the Lithuanians’ propensity to violence in early adulthood. The main
objective was to examine the potential long-term effect of violent
victimization experienced in the family of origin on behavioral outcomes.
Findings showed that childhood/adolescence exposure to inter-parental
physical violence, as well as prior experiences of severe corporal punishment,
did not predict an increase in Lithuanians’ violent behavior, which was self-
assessed in early adulthood. While different from the findings of prior research
(e.g., Bell & Naugle, 2008; Holt et al., 2008; Stith et al., 2000), results are in
part consistent with the findings of a recent study, which examined violent
behavior among college students in United States and Canada. Similar to
Lithuanian students, American and Canadian college students exposed during
childhood and adolescence to inter-parental violence did not differ in terms of
violent behavior from their counterparts who did not witness IPV in their
family of origin (Andreescu & Pavlov, 2017).
The afore-mentioned research (Andreescu & Pavlov, 2017), as well as
other studies (Afifi et al., 2017; Fang & Corso, 2008; Felson & Lane, 2009;
Stith et al., 2000), contended, however, that parental harsh punishment is a risk
factor of violence perpetration among youth. In Lithuania, although the effects
were not significant, results suggest that individuals experiencing physical
victimization in the family of origin were actually less likely to be violent later
in life. As noted earlier in this paper, a law that criminalizes any form of child
maltreatment has been enacted in Lithuania only in 2017. Possibly, a higher
acceptance at the societal level of the physical punishment of children as a
parental response to some undesirable behavior might have affected the
Pro-Violence Attitudes and Violent Behavior among College … 225
results, by desensitizing the young Lithuanians and by making them to
consider the parents’ harsh actions as being normative and justified.
Although this study’s findings do not offer support for the
intergenerational transmission of violence in Lithuania, results show that
parents play an important role in attitude formation, which has a lasting effect
on behavioral outcomes. Specifically, as prior research also found, individuals
with pro-violence attitudes (Copeland-Linder et al., 2012; Crick & Dodge,
1994; Huesmann & Guerra, 1997) and those taught by parents to use
retaliatory violence to solve conflicts (see Andreescu & Pavlov, 2017) were
also more likely to engage in violence later in life. The effect of parental
endorsement of retaliatory violence was particularly strong for female
Lithuanian students, whose violent behavior in adulthood was also affected by
childhood physical victimization experienced outside the family of origin.
Similar results were obtained in a comparable study that focused on college
students in North America. Prior physical victimization by non-family
members was a predictor of violence perpetration in adulthood among
American and Canadian female students as well, while it was not a risk factor
of violent behavior for males (Andreescu & Pavlov, 2017). Nonetheless, future
research should further explore the causes of the gender-based differential
impact of childhood physical victimization occurring outside the family of
origin on violent behavior in early adulthood.
Rubin, Bukowski, and Parker (2006) contended that during adolescence,
the peer group one belongs to has a strong influence on adolescents’ attitudes
and behaviors. Results of this study suggest that the peer group’s influence
extends beyond adolescence years. Specifically, association with
delinquent/criminal friends during early adulthood appears to have a stronger
effect on behavioral outcomes than the parents’ behavior does. This study’s
findings indicate that both young Lithuanian males and females who have
friends who broke the law, not necessarily for engaging in violent crime, have
a higher propensity to commit violent acts. In addition to parental endorsement
of retaliatory violence, association with delinquent peers is another important
contributor to the formation of attitudes that justify violent and aggressive
behavior, which in turn predicts violence perpetration in early adulthood.
Several retrospective studies indicate that aggressive and violent behavior
in adolescence may predict violence perpetration in adulthood (Andreescu &
Pavlov, 2017; O’Leary, Malone, & Tyree, 1994; Smith, White, & Holland,
Viviana Andreescu 226
2003). Following prior research, the present analysis also tried to determine if
there is a continuity in violent behavior from childhood and early adolescence
to early adulthood. In Lithuania, at least for the population group represented
in this study, aggressive behavior in adolescence was significantly and
positively related to violence perpetration in early adulthood only within the
subsample of female students. While for males, bivariate correlations showed
that childhood aggression predicts violence acknowledged later in life, the
relationship became not significant when controlling for the variables included
in the multivariate statistical models. It is possible that different socialization
processes Lithuanian males and women experienced, as well as structural
differences and gender role expectations, which could be culturally different
from other societies, might have influenced the findings. Nonetheless, more
systematic analyses are required, especially because it is not known if
aggressive behavior acknowledged during childhood and adolescence is
comparable in meaning and structure to violent behavior during adulthood, as
Cohen (1971, p. 83) observed.
Before discussing further the implications of the findings, the study
limitations should be acknowledged. The cross-sectional nature of the data did
not allow causal inferences to be made and results cannot be generalized to the
entire population of young adults in Lithuania. Additionally, childhood and
adolescence experiences were assessed retrospectively, which could have
produced recall bias, especially when the reported events (e.g., direct and
indirect victimization) can be considered potential sources of strain. Self-
reports have been used to measure aggression and violence perpetration,
which, different from victimization experiences, could have been
underreported. Moreover, the study was based on a secondary data analysis
that limited the variable selection. Important predictors of attitude formation
and behavioral outcomes, such as school attachment or school experiences,
could not be included because they were not available. Yet, despite these
methodological limitations, the present research is one of the few recent
studies that focused exclusively on the individual-level correlates of violent
behavior in Lithuania. Future research should continue to explore the main
predictors of violent behavior in Lithuania and should further expand the
scope of the current study in order to provide better informed program and
policy recommendations that could contribute to a significant decrease in
violent crime in the country.
Pro-Violence Attitudes and Violent Behavior among College … 227
The present analysis was conducted on a sample of highly educated youth,
who were trained to become educators of the future generations of
Lithuanians. Yet, their level of violence perpetration (40%) was higher than
the involvement in violence acknowledged by college students in North
America (30%), who participated to the same research study on violence in an
international context (Andreescu & Pavlov, 2017). Additionally, while
previous studies (Andreeescu & Pavlov, 2017; Fang & Corso, 2008) found
that an increase in parental education significantly lowered violence
perpetration for male and female youth, the parents’ education did not seem to
have a significant impact on Lithuanians’ behavioral outcomes. Moreover,
bivariate analyses showed that an increase in parents’ education was actually
predicting violent behavior among Lithuanian youth. Additionally, better-
educated parents did not appear to oppose retaliatory violence significantly
more than less educated parents were.
Although qualitative research could provide additional insight and a better
understanding of the paths leading to violence and aggression in Lithuania,
findings suggest that the societal focus should be on institutions that socialize
the youth, including the education system. Specifically, more attention should
be given to the peer group one belongs to, not only during adolescence, but
also during early adulthood. Moreover, this exploratory research highlights
how important parents are in shaping attitudes endorsing violent behavior.
Once internalized, pro-violence definitions have long-term negative effects on
interpersonal relationships in early adulthood and may predict a developmental
trajectory of violence perpetration. In conclusion, in the Lithuanian context,
cases of violence perpetration and violent victimization in the family and
elsewhere could become less frequent, if normative beliefs and attitudes that
tolerate interpersonal violence and support aggressive behavior to resolve
conflicts would be discouraged.
REFERENCES
Afifi, T. O., Mota, N., Sareen, J. & MacMillan H. L. (2017). The relationships
between harsh physical punishment and child maltreatment in childhood
Viviana Andreescu 228
and intimate partner violence in adulthood. BMC Public Health, 17(493),
1-10.
Akers, R. L. (1977). Deviant behavior: A social learning approach. (2nd ed.)
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Andreescu, V. & Pavlov, R. (2017). Pro-violence definitions and violent
behavior among college students in United States and Canada. Poster
presented at the annual conference of the American Society of
Criminology, Philadelphia, PA.
Andresen, M. A. (2011). The Impact of accession to the European Union on
violent crime in Lithuania. European Sociological Review, 27(6), 759-
771.
Arriaga, X. B. & Foshee, V. A. (2004). Adolescent dating violence: Do
adolescents follow in their friends’, or their parents’, footsteps? Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 19, 162–184.
Baltic News Network (2017, March 31). A series of brutal murders
dumbfounds Lithuania. Baltic News Network Retrieved from http://bnn-
news.com/a-series-of-brutal-murders-dumbfounds-lithuania-163177
Bandura, A. (1969). Principles of behavior modification. New York, NY:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1978). Social learning theory of aggression. Journal of
Communication, 28(3), 12–29.
Barrett, B. J., Habibov, N. & Chernyak, E. (2012). Factors affecting
prevalence and extent of intimate partner violence in Ukraine: Evidence
from a nationally representative survey. Violence Against Women, 18,
1147-1176.
Barnett, O. W., Miller-Perrin, C. L. & Perrin, R. D. (1997). Family violence
across the lifespan. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bell, K. M. & Naugle, A. E. (2008). Intimate partner violence theoretical
considerations: Moving towards a contextual framework. Clinical
Psychology Review, 28, 1096-1107.
Bertelsmann Stiftung (2018). BTI 2018 Country Report – Lithuania.
Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Stiftung. Retrieved from https://www.bti-
project.org/en/reports/country-reports/detail/itc/ltu/.
Pro-Violence Attitudes and Violent Behavior among College … 229
Brendgen, M., Vitaro, F., Tremblay, R. E. & Wanner, B. (2002). Parent and
peer effects on delinquency-related violence and dating violence: A test of
two mediational models. Social Development, 11(2), 225–244.
Busby, D. M., Holman, T. B. & Walker, E. (2008). Pathway to relationship
aggression between adult partners. Family Relations, 57(1), 72-83.
Cairns, R., Cairns, B. D., Neckerman, H. J., Gest, S. D. & Gariépy, J. L.
(1988). Social networks and aggressive behavior: Peer support or peer
rejection? Developmental Psychology, 24(6), 815–823.
Capaldi, D. M., Dishion, T. J., Stoolmiller, M. & Yoerger, K. (2001).
Aggression toward female partners by at-risk young men: The
contribution of male adolescent friendships. Developmental Psychology,
37, 61–73.
Carr, J. L. & VanDeuse, K. M. (2002). The relationship between family of
origin violence and dating violence in college men. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 17(6), 630–646.
Ceccato, V. (2007). Crime dynamics at Lithuanian borders. European Journal
of Criminology 4(2), 131-160.
Ceccato, V. (2008). Expressive crimes in post-socialist states of Estonia,
Latvia, and Lithuania. Journal of Scandinavian Studies in Criminology
and Crime Prevention, 9(1), 2-30.
Choenni, V., Hammink, A. & van de Mheen, D. (2017). Association between
Substance Use and the Perpetration of Family Violence in Industrialized
Countries: A Systematic Review. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 18(1), 37-
50.
Cohen, S. (1971). The development of aggression. Review of Educational
Research, 41(1), 71-84.
Copeland-Linder, N., Johnson, S. B., Haynie, D., Chung, A. & Cheng, T. L.
(2012). Retaliatory attitudes and violent behavior among assault-injured
youth. Journal of Adolescent Health, 50(3), 215-220.
Crick, N. R. & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and reformulation of social
information processing mechanisms in children’s adjustment.
Psychological Bulletin, 115, 74–101.
Dishion, T. J., McCord, J. & Poulin, F. (1999). When interventions harm: Peer
groups and problem behavior. American Psychologist, 54, 755–64.
Viviana Andreescu 230
Dishion, T. J. & Tipsord, J. M. (2011). Peer contagion in child and adolescent
social and emotional development. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 189-
214.
Dishion, T. J., Véronneau, M. H. & Myers, M. W. (2010). Cascading peer
dynamics underlying the progression from problem behavior to violence
in early to late adolescence. Developmental Psychopathology, 22(3), 603-
619.
Ellis, W. E., Chung-Hall, J. & Dumas, T. M. (2013). The role of peer group
aggression in predicting dating violence and relationship quality. Journal
of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 487-499.
Eriksson, L. & Mazerolle, P. (2015). A cycle of violence? Examining family-
of-origin violence, attitudes, and intimate partner violence perpetration.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30(6), 945-964.
Espelage, D. L., Holt, M. K. & Henkel, R. R. (2003). Examination of peer-
group contextual effects on aggression during early adolescence. Child
Development, 74(1), 205-220.
European Commission (2010). Special Eurobarometer 344 : Domestic
violence against women report. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/
commfrontoffice/publicopinion/archives/ebs/ebs_344_en.pdf.
Eurostat (2018, February 22). Intentional homicide victims in the EU.
Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-
/EDN-20180222-1.
Fang, X. & Corso, P. S. (2008). Gender differences in the connections between
violence experienced as a child and perpetration of intimate partner
violence in young adulthood. Journal of Family Violence, 23(5), 303-313.
Felson, R. & Lane, K. J. (2009). Social learning, sexual and physical abuse,
and adult crime. Aggressive Behavior, 35, 489-501.
Fergusson, D. M., Boden, J. M. & Horwood, L. J. (2006). Examining the
intergenerational transmission of violence in a New Zealand birth cohort.
Child Abuse & Neglect, 30, 89-108.
Foran, H. M. & O’Leary, K. D. (2008). Alcohol and intimate partner violence:
A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 28, 1222-1234.
Hayes, B. E. & Randa, R. (2018). Parts unknown: Risk factors of intimate
partner violence in Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistand, and Moldova.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence [online first], 1-23. DOI: 10.1177/
0886260518772106.
Pro-Violence Attitudes and Violent Behavior among College … 231
Holt, S., Buckley, H. & Whelan, S. (2008). The impact of exposure to
domestic violence on children and young people: A review of the
literature. Child Abuse and Neglect, 32, 797-810].
Hotaling, G. T. & Sugarman, D. B. (1990). A risk marker analysis of assaulted
wives. Journal of Family Violence, 5, 1-14.
Huesmann, L. R. & Guerra, N. G. (1997). Children’s normative beliefs about
aggression and aggressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 72(2), 408- 419.
Information Technology and Communication Department (IRD) – Ministry of
Interior of the Republic of Lithuania (n. d.). Data on Criminal Offences
Committed in the Republic of Lithuania. Retrieved from
https://www.ird.lt/en/.
Ireland, T. O. & Smith, C. A. (2009). Living in partner-violent families:
Developmental links to antisocial behavior and relationship violence.
Journal of Youth Adolescence, 38, 323-339.
Jackman, M. R. (2002). Violence in social life. Annual Review of Sociology,
28, 387-415.
Jackson, J. & Gouseti, I. (2016). Threatened by violence: Affective and
cognitive reactions to violent victimization. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 31(8), 2987-3016.
Juska, A., Johnstone, P. & Pozzuto, R. (2004). The changing character of
criminality and policing in post-socialist Lithuania: From fighting
organized crime to policing marginal populations? Crime, Law & Social
Change, 41, 161-177.
Kalediene, R., Starkuviene, S. & Petrauskiene, J. (2004). Mortality from
external causes in Lithuania: Looking for critical points in time and place.
Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 32, 374-380.
Kaukinen, C. (2014). Dating violence among college students: The risk and
protective factors. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 15(4), 283-296.
Kesner, J. E. & McKenry, P. C. (1998). The role of childhood attachment
factors in predicting male violence toward female intimates. Journal of
Family Violence, 13, 417–432.
Knoema (n. d.). Lithuania: Crime statistics. Retrieved from https://
knoema.com/atlas/Lithuania/topics/Crime-Statistics.
Viviana Andreescu 232
Lansford, J. E., Miller-Johnson, S., Berlin, L. J., Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E. &
Pettit, G. S. (2007). Early physical abuse and later violent delinquency: A
prospective longitudinal study. Child Maltreatment, 12 (3), 233-245.
Liu, R. X. & Kaplan, H. B. (2004). Role stress and aggression among young
adults: The moderating influences of gender and adolescent aggression.
Social Psychology Quarterly, 67(1), 88-102.
Lysova, A. & Douglas, E. M. (2008). Intimate partner violence among male
and female Russian university students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,
23(11), 1579-1599.
Martin, S. L., Moracco, K. E., Garro, J., Tsui, A. O., Chase, J. L. & Campbell,
J. C. (2002). Domestic violence across generations: Fndings from northern
India. International Journal of Epidemiology, 31(3), 560–572.
Merrill, L. L., Hervig, L. K. & Milner, J. S. (1996). Childhood parenting
experiences, intimate partner conflict resolution, and adult risk for child
physical abuse. Child Abuse and Neglect, 20(11), 1049–1065.
Milaniak, I. & Widom, C. S. (2015). Does child abuse and neglect increase
risk for perpetration of violence inside and outside the home? Psychology
of Violence, 5(3), 246-255.
Milletich, R. J., Kelley, M. L., Doane, A. N. & Pearson, M. R. (2010).
Exposure to interparental violence and childhood physical and emotional
abuse as related to physical aggression in undergraduate dating
relationships. Journal of Family Violence, 25(7), 627-637.
O’Leary, K. D., Malone, J. & Tyree, A. (1994). Physical aggression in early
marriage: Prerelationship and relationship effects. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 62, 594-602.
Oriel, K. A. & Fleming, M. F. (1998). Screening men for partner violence in a
primary care setting. A new strategy for detecting domestic violence.
Journal of Family Practice, 46, 493–498.
Overseas Security Advisory Council (OSAC) (2017, March 17). Lithuania
2017 crime & safety report. Retrieved from https://www.osac.gov/
pages/ContentReportDetails.aspx?cid=21469.
Paat, Y. & Markham, C. (2016). The role of family factors and relationship
dynamics on dating violence victimization and perpetration among college
men and women in emerging adulthood. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, (online first). DOI: 10.1177/088626051664 0544.
Pro-Violence Attitudes and Violent Behavior among College … 233
Powers, C. J. & Bierman, K. L. (2013). The multifaceted impact of peer
relations on aggressive-disruptive behavior in early elementary school.
Developmental Psychology, 49(6), 1174-1186.
Pratt, T. C., Cullen, F. T., Sellers, C. S., Winfree, L. T., Madensen, T. D.,
Daigle, L. E., Fearn, N. E. & Gau, J. M. (2010). The empirical status of
social learning theory: A meta-analysis. Justice Quarterly, 27(6), 765-802.
Reingardiene, J. (2003). Dilemmas in private/public discourse: Contexts for
gender-based violence against women in Lithuania. Journal of Baltic
Studies, 34(3), 354-368.
Rubin, K. H., Bukowski, W. & Parker, J. (2006). Peer interactions,
relationships, and groups. In W. Damon & N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook
of child psychology: Social, emotional, and personality development, Vol.
3, (pp. 571–645). New York, NY: Wiley.
Smith, P. H., White, J. W. & Holland, L. J. (2003). A longitudinal perspective
on dating violence among adolescent and college-age women. American
Journal of Public Health, 93, 1104-1109.
Statistics Lithuania. (2017). 2016 Crime and Law Enforcement Activity.
Vilnius, LT: Išleido Lietuvos statistikos departamentas. Retrieved from
https://osp.stat.gov.lt/services-portlet/pub-edition-file?id=26584.
Stith, S. M., Rosen, K. H., Middleton, K. A., Busch, A. L., Lundeberg, K. &
Carlton, R. P. (2000). The intergenerational transmission of spouse abuse:
A meta-analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62(3), 640-654.
Straus, M. (2011). International Dating Violence Study, 2001-2006.
ICPSR29583-v1. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political
and Social Research [distributor]. https://doi.org/10.3886/
ICPSR29583.v1.
Copyright of Current Politics & Economics of Europe is the property of Nova Science Publishers and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.