Risk Factors in Specialists and Generalists of Child-to-Parent Violence: Gender Differences and Predictors of Reactive and Proactive Reasons

Recent research on child-to-parent violence (CPV) is advancing in the analysis of the specialist profile (aggressors who show only CPV) and the generalist profile (aggressors who show peer violence in addition to CPV). However, although differences have been found between girls and boys in the risk factors for CPV, there are no studies that analyze these differences according to the type of aggressor. Likewise, the importance of identifying the factors that differentially predict reactive and proactive CPV has been noted but has not been examined in different types of aggressors. The aims of this study were to examine gender differences in CPV patterns, emotional intelligence, parental victimization, and parental permissiveness and to analyze whether these variables predict reactive and proactive CPV, both according to aggressor type. A total of 1559 Spanish CPV aggressors (54.6% females) aged between 12 and 18 years from educational centers participated in the study (22.4% exercised only CPV (specialists) and 77.6% exercised peer violence in addition to CPV (generalists)). In general, no differences were found between girls and boys in the specialist profile, but differences were found in the generalist profile. Specifically, generalist girls exercised more psychological and control/domain violence toward mothers, while boys exercised more physical violence toward fathers and had more parental permissiveness. In specialists, parental victimization predicted reactive CPV, while parental permissiveness predicted proactive CPV. In contrast, in generalists, both parental victimization and parental permissiveness predicted both reactive and proactive CPV. Low emotional regulation was a significant predictor in both cases. This study identifies differences among girls and boys in CPV risk factors and among variables that predict reactive and proactive CPV and that these results differ between specialist and generalist aggressors. Implications for research and professional practice are discussed, highlighting the need to design and implement prevention and intervention programs specialized in the type of aggressor, paying special attention to gender differences and to the factors that motivate one or the other type of CPV