Research on family violence has been traditionally focused on both partner violence and parent-to-child abuse. However, another type of violence within the family has risen in the latest decade, with an increasing number of cases where violence is exerted by children and adolescents towards parents, which is known as child-to-parent violence (CPV). This subtype of family violence, defined by Cottrell (2001) as “any act of a child that is intended to cause physical, psychological, or financial damage to gain power and control over a parent” (p. 3), has become a matter of concern not only for society in general, but also among professionals and researchers from different countries (Calvete, Gámez-Guadix, & García-Salvador, 2014; Contreras & Cano, 2014a, 2014b; Ibabe, Arnoso, & Elgorriaga, 2014; Pagani et al., 2004, 2009; Routt & Anderson, 2011). However, similarly to other forms of family violence, victims tend to hide the abuse. To be precise, parents are unwilling to report their children's abuse in the Juvenile Court, which increases the probability of being an underestimated phenomenon in terms of the number of official reports. Nevertheless, an important source of information about the extent of CPV is provided by the studies, especially with community samples, in which children and adolescents (perpetrators) report the information about CPV incidents.

Data from the United States report that CPV occurs between 7 and 18% in two-parent families, increasing to 29% in single-parent homes, whereas prevalence rates in Canada and France are lower (see review by Kennair & Mellor, 2007). Recently, Margolin and Baucom (2014) conducted a study with a community sample of adolescents from the US, assessing the prevalence of CPV by using an ad hoc questionnaire. These authors found that 22% of adolescents had attacked physically one of their parents, and that 75% had attacked them verbally. In Spain, a recent study with a community sample of 1,698 adolescent students (CPV was measured by using the Child-to-Parent Agression Questionnaire; Calvete et al., 2013) revealed that 13.7% of participants had physically assaulted their parents at least once in the past year, and almost all adolescents had displayed some behavior regarded as psychological aggression against their parents (92% towards the mother and 86% towards the father) (Calvete, Gámez-Guadix, & Orue, 2014).

As Brezina (1999) pointed out, this type of family violence presents some peculiarities, especially concerning the victim and the perpetrator who are implied, which makes it a special issue, since adolescents abuse those who should represent authority and should be their carers (Ibabe & Bentler, 2016) Thus, it represents a different category of family violence characterized by an inversion of normal family power relationships among family members whereby teenagers believe they are “in charge” of the home (Tew & Nixon, 2010). In respect of the perpetrator gender, results vary according to the research methodology used. Studies with forensic samples reveal that the majority of offenders are males, whereas the victims are usually females (Condry & Miles, 2014; Contreras & Cano, 2014b; Kethineni, 2004; Ibabe et al., 2014; Routt & Anderson, 2011), being the peak age of offending between 14 and 17 years (Condry & Miles, 2014; Kethineni, 2004). However, research with community samples reports different results according to the perpetrator and the victim gender, along with the type and severity of violence. For example, Calvete et al. (2013) found that girls showed higher rates of aggression than boys in psychological and physical aggression against parents, with no significant differences in severe physical aggression. Regarding parents gender, the prevalence of psychological aggression against the mother was greater than against the father, although there were no differences in terms of severe psychological aggression. Otherwise, Ibabe, Jaureguizar, and Bentler (2013) reported that in general, adolescents were found to be more psychologically violent and emotionally violent towards mothers than towards fathers, with no differences for physical violence. Furthermore, sons directed more physical violence towards their parents than daughters, whereas there were no significant differences for psychological and emotional violence.

There are different frameworks to explain the variables underlying the development of CPV, which are briefly described below. The ecological theories, as for example The Nested Ecological Theory (Cottrell & Monk, 2004) and The Social Ecology Theory (Hong, Kral, Espelage, & Allen-Meares, 2012), propose that there are multiple levels of influence concerning CPV, emphasizing the reciprocal interactions of these levels. Thus, there are diverse variables, from the immediate setting of the individual to a broader cultural and social context: family variables, individual features, a history of previous violence within the family, cultural values, socialization of the male power, and so on. On the other hand, some strain and social learning theorists posed that CPV represents a functional response to family adversity (or strain) (Brezina, 1999). Related to this perspective, the influence of violence exposure within the family setting is one of the approaches gaining momentum in the literature on this issue that could partially explain the development of CPV. Exposure to family violence can be direct (when children are victimized, that is, parent-to-child abuse) and indirect (when children witness violence, as inter-parental violence). Thus, on the basis of results from the intergenerational transmission of violence approach (e.g., Kwong, Bartholomew, Henderson, & Trinke, 2003; McCloskey & Lichter, 2003; Stith et al., 2000), it is hypothesized that, through observational learning and imitation of an adult model (Bandura, 1977), children from violent homes could become aggressors themselves, as they internalize that using aggression is an appropriate way to deal with interpersonal conflicts.

A number of studies in the field of CPV have obtained results in line with this hypothesis. Concretely, previous research suggests that witnessing inter-parental violence seems to be related to abusive behaviors from children toward their parents (e.g., McCloskey & Lichter, 2003). As for parent-to-child violence as precursor of CPV, Pagani et al. (2004, 2009) conducted a longitudinal study with a community sample and found an association between parents’ use of physical and verbal punishment to their children and adolescents’ physical and verbal aggression to their parents. In this line, Margolin and Baucom (2014) carried out a prospective longitudinal study with adolescents and their parents, demonstrating that the risk for CPV was related to prior parental aggression and, specifically, that mother-to-child physical aggression was the strongest indicator of physical CPV. In addition, other studies with community samples reveal that adolescents in families where both inter-parental and parent-to-child violence were present are more likely to engage in CPV when comparing to those adolescents who did not suffered violence at home (Calvete, Orue, & Sampedro, 2011; Gámez-Guadix & Calvete, 2012; Ibabe et al., 2013; Routt & Anderson, 2011). Research with clinical and forensic samples has reported similar results (Boxer, Lakin, & Mahoney, 2009; Ibabe, Jaureguizar, & Díaz, 2009). In fact, there is evidence supporting that inter-parental violence and parent-to-child violence are likely to coexist within the same family (Cui, Durtschi, Donnellan, Lorenz, & Conger, 2010; Holt, Buckley, & Whelan, 2008; Slep & O’Leary, 2005). Although some authors have not found differences by sex (e.g., Gámez-Guadix & Calvete, 2012), other studies reported that the bi-directionality of family violence is higher in sons than in daughters (Ibabe & Jaureguizar, 2011; Ibabe et al., 2013). In this regards, an explanation of this finding could be the interaction between different socialization practices and the modelling of same-gender parent behavior, that is, sons’ abusive behavior could be influenced by the role modelling of masculine stereotypes that promote the use of power and control in relationships (Cottrell & Monk, 2004), so they are reinforced more often for being aggressive. By contrast, girls are reinforced for being more passive. In addition, males may learn the role of perpetrators if their fathers abuse them or in the case of fathers beating their mothers, whereas girls may learn the victim role from watching their mothers in that role (Stith et al., 2000).

It seems clear that prior exposure to violence within the family is linked to the development of violent behavior and, furthermore, some authors have specified even more their results by showing differential effects of violence exposure. For example, Margolin, Vickerman, Oliver, and Gordis (2010), in their prospective longitudinal study, examined differential contributions of violence domains (parent-to-youth aggression, inter-parental physical aggression, and community violence) to specific outcomes, reporting that delinquent behaviors were significantly linked to parent-to-youth aggression and physical inter-parental aggression, and furthermore, that parent-to-youth aggression distinctly appeared as related to aggressive behaviors. Regarding CPV, some authors have found that children who had been victimized by their parents exhibited more physical, emotional, and psychological abuse towards their parents when comparing to those adolescents who did not suffered such a violence at home (e.g., Ibabe & Jaureguizar, 2011). Similarly, a recent study with a community sample of adolescents indicated that victimization at home was related to severe physical and psychological violence towards mothers (Calvete, Gámez-Guadix, & Orue, 2014).

In this point, a crucial question emerges: what are the processes through which previous experiences of exposure to violence has its effects? In this line, it has been suggested that the relationship between violence exposure and the development of aggressive behaviors could be mediated by variables concerning the social-cognitive processing. Actually, the influence of social-cognitive variables in the development of aggressive behaviors has been previously analyzed, highlighting the role of hostile perception in social relationships, as well as some deficits in social problem-solving skills (Card & Little, 2006; Dodge & Pettit, 2003). In line with this approach, the social-cognitive theory (Bandura, 2001; Bandura, Caprara, Barbaranelli, Pastoreli, & Regalia, 2001) proposed that there are some self-regulation processes in which some variables such as hostile ideation, among others, are crucial to the development of transgressive behavior. Various studies in the field of CPV have provided promising results related to this perspective. Concretely, Calvete, Gámez-Guadix, and García-Salvador (2014), in their study with adolescent students, highlight the role of hostile attributions in the development of CPV, among other cognitive variables. Other studies also with community samples revealed that the perception of less affection and support from parents increased the probability of CPV (Calvete, Gámez-Guadix, & Orue, 2014; Gámez-Guadix, Jaureguizar, Almendros, & Carrobles, 2012). In this line, in a recent research with a forensic sample it was also found that CPV offenders reported a more hostile perception of their parents and their home when comparing to other types of young offenders and non-offender adolescents (Contreras & Cano, 2014b, 2015). In addition, CPV offenders were prone to be impulsive, showing unpredictable reactions, and presented, in comparison with other young offenders and non-offender adolescents, a lower ability in some cognitive strategies to solve interpersonal problems, such as the ability to anticipate and understand the consequences of social behaviors and to select appropriate means to achieve the goal of a social behavior (Contreras & Cano, 2015). Similarly, Calvete, Gámez-Guadix, and García-Salvador (2014) found that the anticipation of positive consequences of the use of aggression was highly related to selection of aggressive responses toward parents during conflict situations.

Therefore, in spite of the abundant literature on the role of social-cognitive processing in the development of aggressive behaviors, only a few studies have examined some of these variables in the research of CPV and, furthermore, its relationship with previous violence exposure is yet to be clarified. Thus, the first objective of the present study is to examine whether there are differences regarding the levels of violence exposure in different settings (school, street, home, and TV) in a group of juveniles who have been reported by their parents for being violent toward them, with respect to a group of other young offenders and a group of non-offender adolescents. It will be also explored which type of violence exposure is the best predictor of CVP. Second, this study is intended to analyze the link between violence exposure at home and other variables related to social-cognitive processing that have been found to be particularly relevant in CPV cases, as for example impulsivity, the ability to anticipate and understand the consequences of social behaviors and to select the appropriate means to achieve the goals of social behaviors (e.g., Contreras & Cano, 2015). The hypotheses proposed were as follows: 1) on the basis of previous literature, it is hypothesized that there will be higher scores in violence exposure at home in the group of CPV offenders when compared to the other groups (Boxer et al., 2009; Calvete et al., 2011; Gámez-Guadix & Calvete, 2012; Ibabe et al., 2013; Ibabe et al., 2009; Routt & Anderson, 2011) and, consequently, exposure to violence at home will be the best predictor of CPV (Hypothesis 1); 2) experiences of abuse and neglect have been found to be related to the development of a particular cognitive style, concretely a hostile attribution style (Crick & Dodge, 1994; Zelli, Dodge, Lochman, Laird, & Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group, 1999), and also to deficits in some components of social problem-solving skills (Fantuzzo, Weiss, Atkins, Meyers, & Noone, 1998; Tyler, Allison, & Winsler, 2006). Accordingly, it is expected that exposure to violence at home will be correlated both to variables of a hostile social perception and to variables of social problem-solving skills (Hypothesis 2).