Not all child‐to‐parent violence is the same: A person‐based analysis using the function of aggression

Abstract

ABSTRACTObjectiveTo explore a typology of dyads experiencing child‐to‐parent violence (CPV) using the function of CPV (i.e., its motivation).BackgroundCPV may be motivated by reactive (i.e., retaliatory), proactive (i.e., instrumental), or affective (i.e., primarily emotional) functions, which may co‐occur intraindividually; however, their co‐occurrence pattern is not fully understood.MethodThis study included 252 participants aged 27 to 78 years (M = 45.92, SD = 8.33; 96% female) who were caregivers of a young person aged 5 to 24 years (M = 13.18, SD = 4.86) and completed an online survey measuring the form and function of CPV and a range of child, parent, and dyadic factors. The majority of dyads were mother–child.ResultsLatent profile analysis revealed two distinct types of dyads: High‐proactive dyads reported severe, highly reactive and proactive CPV compared with low‐proactive dyads in which proactive CPV was rare and reactive CPV was uncommon. Rates of affective CPV were similar across types. Analysis of variance demonstrated that high‐ and low‐proactive dyads significantly differed across intervention‐relevant parent, child, and dyadic factors.ConclusionHigh‐proactive dyads exhibited role reversal and spousification (i.e., parental conflict spill‐over) in which caregivers were helpless, frightened, and frightening, and the young person possessed domineering traits. Low‐proactive dyads were characterized by a comparatively in‐control caregiver who exhibited intrusiveness and higher supervision and a young person who was comparatively less domineering.ImplicationsDifferent types of dyads experiencing CPV may have unique intervention needs.