Introduction
Many studies explain that children who are exposed to family violence are more susceptible to being violent when they grow up. But what about the portion of children who are exposed to family violence but do not grow up to be violent? What distinguishes these two groups of children apart? This is the same concept as children who has divorced parents. It is statistically proven that children who has divorced parents are more likely to get divorced themselves. But of course, human beings cannot always be explained with numbers because of the nature of human beings. There are too many variables. Children who are exposed to family violence do not always grow up to be violent. But there are studies which prove that children will be …show more content…
Adams’ research, he summarizes the recent literature regarding the effects on children who witness family violence. Children can be greatly negatively impacted just by witnessing family violence. This ranges from neurobiological and physiological effects, health problems, emotional consequences, behavioral problems, cognitive development, and social adjustment (Adams, 2006). This means that children can have eating problems, sleeping problems, higher levels of shame, feelings of fear, sadness, anger, and powerlessness, poorer verbal skills and abilities, difficulty concentrating in class, and difficulty in social development with peers, caregivers, and/or romantic partners. Many other studies prove the same. “Wolf and Foshee (2003) found that the association between witnessing family violence and perpetration of dating violence among adolescents was mediated by a destructive direct anger expression style for females only” (Adams, 2006, p. 337). Females behave aggressively toward the object of their anger. For instance, if they witnessed their father abuse their mother, then their aggression would be towards the father figure. This can be their romantic partners. There was no association between witnessing family violence and dating violence for males though. This shows that witnessing family violence alone is not a strong factor in putting individuals at a higher risk of being violent in future relationships (Adams, 2006). Adams (2006) concluded that …show more content…
Not all children result in being violent even though they have been exposed to family violence. These children are the ones who demonstrate resiliency, meaning they have overcome and surpassed their experience with family violence. There are many factors that can guide these victims away from becoming violent, such as having a role model adult, a safe place to get away from the violence, and characteristics of resiliency. Based on Hirschi’s and Akers’ theory, the people who a child respects and follows have the power to influence the child’s future. These people can help prevent a child from going down the wrong path. Children can suffer from long term consequences if they witness family violence and have no one to help them cope with the
Many studies explain that children who are exposed to family violence are more susceptible to being violent when they grow up. But what about the portion of children who are exposed to family violence but do not grow up to be violent? What distinguishes these two groups of children apart? This is the same concept as children who has divorced parents. It is statistically proven that children who has divorced parents are more likely to get divorced themselves. But of course, human beings cannot always be explained with numbers because of the nature of human beings. There are too many variables. Children who are exposed to family violence do not always grow up to be violent. But there are studies which prove that children will be …show more content…
Adams’ research, he summarizes the recent literature regarding the effects on children who witness family violence. Children can be greatly negatively impacted just by witnessing family violence. This ranges from neurobiological and physiological effects, health problems, emotional consequences, behavioral problems, cognitive development, and social adjustment (Adams, 2006). This means that children can have eating problems, sleeping problems, higher levels of shame, feelings of fear, sadness, anger, and powerlessness, poorer verbal skills and abilities, difficulty concentrating in class, and difficulty in social development with peers, caregivers, and/or romantic partners. Many other studies prove the same. “Wolf and Foshee (2003) found that the association between witnessing family violence and perpetration of dating violence among adolescents was mediated by a destructive direct anger expression style for females only” (Adams, 2006, p. 337). Females behave aggressively toward the object of their anger. For instance, if they witnessed their father abuse their mother, then their aggression would be towards the father figure. This can be their romantic partners. There was no association between witnessing family violence and dating violence for males though. This shows that witnessing family violence alone is not a strong factor in putting individuals at a higher risk of being violent in future relationships (Adams, 2006). Adams (2006) concluded that …show more content…
Not all children result in being violent even though they have been exposed to family violence. These children are the ones who demonstrate resiliency, meaning they have overcome and surpassed their experience with family violence. There are many factors that can guide these victims away from becoming violent, such as having a role model adult, a safe place to get away from the violence, and characteristics of resiliency. Based on Hirschi’s and Akers’ theory, the people who a child respects and follows have the power to influence the child’s future. These people can help prevent a child from going down the wrong path. Children can suffer from long term consequences if they witness family violence and have no one to help them cope with the