Back

75 Views

Parenting / Families

Intergenerational Transmission of Parent–Child Aggression: A Social-Ecological Model

(PS10-B31) Intergenerational Transmission of Parent–child Aggression: A Social-ecological Model

Saturday, November 19, 2022

3:00 PM – 4:00 PM EST

Location: Westside Ballroom, 5th Floor

Author(s)

Jenna Russo, B.S.

Graduate Student
Mississippi State University
Starkville, Mississippi

Co-Author(s)

AO

Arazais D. Oliveros, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor
Mississippi State University
Mississippi State, Mississippi

Social learning theory posits that children of parents who use aggression to problem-solve tend to exhibit aggressive behaviors acquired through observational learning (Bandura, 1978). This theory is supported by research identifying harsh parenting as a familial risk factor for child aggression (e.g., Baydar & Akcinar, 2018). Specifically, harsh parenting may provide key socializing moments that shape children’s moral reasoning (Campaert et al., 2018) and convey the message that aggression is an acceptable way to achieve outcomes (de Vries et al., 2018). Transmission risk may be further exasperated by socio-economic disadvantages (e.g., low education, single parenthood) shown to increase the likelihood of parent-child aggression (Zvara et al., 2015). This study aimed to test social learning theory within a social-ecological framework to examine the influence of parental trait anger and discipline tactics on child aggression. Results are based on the responses of parents (54 mothers, 12 fathers) with children in Head Start and parents (51 mothers, 4 fathers) with children in Private School settings. These groups differed significantly on socio-economic status (SES) variables (e.g., parent education, family income) and as such, compared using multigroup analysis. Path analyses indicate no significant direct association between parental trait anger and child aggressive behavior for either group, although transmission can be indirectly explained by both physical punishment (B = .20, 95% BCa [.07, .44], p = .01) and psychological aggression (B = -.15, 95% BCa [-.39, -.03], p = .04) in the Head Start group. In this lower SES group, parental trait anger was positively associated with parents’ use of psychological aggression and parents’ use of physical punishment was positively associated with child aggressive behavior. No significant mediating effects were detected in the Private School group, although parental trait anger was positively associated with psychological aggression. The finding that parent-child aggression transmission may be partially explained by physical punishment and psychological aggression in the Head Start group may reflect the disproportionate exposure to environmental hazards and violence that low-SES families often experience (Bradley & Corwyn, 2002). As such, physical punishment may be perceived as a more adaptive or even necessary discipline tactic. Psychological aggression may be perceived as less intrusive and thus more acceptable than physical punishment (Wang & Liu, 2017), although the negative indirect effect of psychological aggression should be noted. It is possible that such a tactic may result in more child internalizing behavior (Stone et al., 2013). Further, parental influences on child aggression may apply not only to overt aggression, but also to more subtle forms, such as rejection, retaliation, and manipulation (Kuppens et al., 2013). This suggests that our current conceptualization of child aggression should be expanded. Additionally, it emphasizes the role of psychological aggression, which warrants further research, particularly given that the discipline tactic posed implications for both groups. Results will be further discussed in the context of socio-economic factors.