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: [email protected]

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.