Introduction

Child-to-parent violence (hereinafter CPV) is defined as a pattern of abusive behavior (verbal, financial, physical or emotional) perpetrated against a parent by a child who is legally recognized as a minor and who generally lives in the family home, for the purpose of exercising power and control over his/her parents (Del Moral, 2013; Holt, 2016).

Data from previous research regarding the incidence of CPV show percentages between 45% and 95% in the case of verbal violence and between 4.6% and 22% for physical aggression perpetrated at least once a year (Contreras, Rodríguez-Díaz, & Cano-Lozano, 2020a). Regarding economic violence, rates are estimated between 29% and 60% for property damage and around 16% in the case of theft (Arias-Rivera & Hidalgo, 2020; Calvete et al., 2020; Condry & Miles, 2014; Suárez-Relinque et al., 2020). In Spain, according to the Attorney General’s Office (AGO), the number of complaints relating to CPV has doubled in the last years, turning from just fewer than 2300 in 2007 to over 5.,000 in 2019 (AGO, 2020).

CPV is an increasingly serious and prevalent problem which has aroused in the last years the interest among researchers and professionals who work in the field of violence in adolescence (Calvete et al., 2015). In this sense, studies carried out in different countries regarding this form of violent beahavior in adolescents can be found in scientific literature (e.g. Arias-Rivera, 2021; Calvete & Veytia, 2018; Moulds et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2019), as well as reports of intervention programs (e.g. Coogan & Lauster, 2015; Ibabe et al., 2019; Kuay & Towl, 2021; Pereira, 2019; Pereira et al., 2006).

On the other hand, previous research in CPV has focused mainly on the characteristics of aggressors and victims and on possible explanatory causes from the individual and family level (e.g. Beckmann, 2020; Beckmann et al., 2021; Contreras, Rodríguez-Díaz, & Cano-Lozano, 2020a; Holt, 2016; Loinaz & de Sousa, 2020; Martí et al., 2020; Martínez-Ferrer et al., 2018; Martínez-Ferrer et al., 2020; Suárez-Relinque et al., 2020). More recently, the focus has shifted to sociocognitive aspects such as difficulties in processing social information (Calvete et al., 2015; Contreras, León, & Cano-Lozano, 2020b; Orue et al., 2021; Simmons et al., 2020).

As for family variables, parental socialization styles (Suárez-Relinque et al., 2015; Suárez-Relinque et al., 2019; Tew & Nixon, 2010) and exposure to different types of domestic violence (gender violence, violence between parents and between parents and children) (Beckmann, 2020; Contreras & del Carmen Cano, 2016; Fernández-González et al., 2021; Junco-Guerrero et al., 2021) have perhaps been the variables that have aroused the most interest.

However, one area that has seemed to receive less attention by researchers is school variables (Cuervo et al., 2017; Holt, 2016). In the last years, only few studies have provided information on this issue (e.g., Aroca-Montolío et al., 2014; Ibabe, 2019; Del Moral et al., 2019; Martínez et al., 2015). These studies have identified certain school variables as significant predictors of CPV: disruptive behavior in class, school absenteeism, expulsion from the school and harassment towards teachers (Ibabe, 2016; Paulson et al., 1990).

Co-Occurrence and Evolution from Classical to Cyber Violence

Offline bullying and dating violence have adapted to the times. They have evolved and generated new forms of aggression according to the new meanings of being an adolescent. Today’s society is immersed in a continuous technological revolution of which the Internet is its main milestone. In this environment, the bully has adapted to the times also, thus giving rise to a new phenomenon called cyberbullying. This type of cyber violence is increasing its prevalence among middle school students (Lozano-Blasco et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2020). Something very similar can be observed with dating violence. There is an increase in violent behaviour in teen dating relationships associated to new technology (Cava et al., 2020; Donoso et al., 2017; Matassoli & Ferreira, 2017). Also, adolescents who have been the victims of dating violence offline, bullying offline and/or cyberbullying are also more likely to suffer from cyber dating violence (Durán & Martínez-Pecino, 2015; Marganski & Melander, 2015).

The co-occurrence between offline and online forms of the same type of violence (bullying or dating violence) seems a proven fact. But is it the same with CPV? Are there indicators that suggest possible child-to-parent cyber violence (hereinafter CPCV)? Unfortunately, there is not enough evidence in scientific literature that allow us to conclude about this issue. However, previous research has confirmed a positive correlation between offline bullying, CPV and dating violence in adolescence (e.g., Carrascosa et al., 2018; Castañeda et al., 2017; Cuesta, 2017; Suárez-Relinque et al., 2020). Also, in the study carried out by Cuesta (2017) it was observed that adolescents who assault their parents are more likely to commit cyber bullying and cyber violence dating.

Considering the above, the possibility that CPV could be exerted by adolescents in the social virtual environment through technological tools could be raised and therefore should be explored. In this sense, the objective of this brief report is to define the existence of CPCV indicators according to the opinion of Spanish experts in CPV.

Preliminary Indicators of CPCV: A Qualitative Approach

In this study, a qualitative approach to identify indicators of CPCV was followed. This qualitative approach is considered a preferred method to explore new realities (Patton, 2002). We have chosen an expert-based strategy to generate data: the Delphi method. It is a technique for obtaining information based on consulting experts in an area, trying to obtain the most reliable consensus opinion of the group consulted (Reguant Álvarez & Torrado Fonseca, 2016).

Participants

In qualitative studies, sampling should aim to select the units and sizes that best guarantee the quantity (saturation) and quality (richness) of the information. In this case, we used a purposive and theoretical sampling (Singleton & Straits, 2004) to select the participants. The criterion of sample selection aimed at achieving homogeneity was work experience in CPV (at least 5 years), and to achieve heterogeneity were sex (male, female), type of organization (public or private) and training (psychologist, educator or social worker). 12 Spanish experts in the field of CPV were invited to participated in the study (50% females; 50% public organization; 33.3% psychologists, 33.3% educators, 33.3% social workers; work experience in CPV: M = 7.32, SD = 4.21; age: M = 44.32, SD = 8.57) and 100% accepted to participate in the study.

Procedure

No pilot study was carried out for this research, however, three CPV experts were contacted in a previous phase of the investigation to jointly reflect on the evolution of CPV from offline to online and design the research strategy. To select the experts who participated in the study, different actions were carried out at the national level: (a) visits to the websites of the main Spanish entities, institutions and organizations, related to the CPV, (b) telephone contact and via mail with the organizations. Finally, informed consent was requested to participate in the investigation.

Regarding the duration of the study, the contact with the Spanish experts took place in September 2019. The 3 rounds of the Delphi method began in October 2019 and ended in January 2020. The possible Acquiescence bias was taken into account (understood as the tendency for respondents to agree and affirm what others decide or agree to without the action being a true reflection of their own position or the question itself). Regarding this issue, the Delphi method makes it easier for each expert to make their decisions individually, thus reducing the possibility of supporting positions taken by other people. Tiredness or a large number of tasks to be completed in a short time also seem to be related to Acquiescence bias, so it was decided to provide the experts a wide period of time to face each round (4 weeks per-round).

Materials

An initial questionnaire was provided via email to all the experts who participated in the study. It consisted of a single question: “In your professional practice, have you observed any indicator of abusive behavior perpetrated by a child or adolescent against their parents using digital media, with the aim of exercising power and control over them? If yes, indicate those indicators that you remember. Describe the indicators and give some examples (if you find it necessary)”.

Data Analysis

After completion of the initial questionnaire, the information was analyzed by the research team, categorizing and ordering the answers according to their frequency. A total of 20 indicators were obtained. Next, the following round of feedback and consultation was developed, requesting in this case the experts to indicate the degree of agreement with the list of indicators obtained in the first round. The degree of agreement was measured from 0 (totally disagree) to 5 (totally agree). In addition, the experts were able to make any comment they found necessary to justify their agreement/ disagreement with each item. Again, the information was sent via mail. In this second phase, only those indicators that obtained a score of 4 points or higher in the scale and also got an agreement among experts above 80% were considered for the next round. Only 11 indicators went to the third round. In this last round, the process was repeated selecting the indicators that scored 4 points or higher in the scale and obtained an agreement among experts above 95%. A total of 8 indicators met these conditions and were considered as indicators of CPCV (Table 1).

Table 1 Delphi method process: Indicators, frequency and agreement percentages obtained
Full size table

Preliminary Results

The CPCV indicators observed by professionals who intervene in CPV offline in Spain are the following:

  1. 1)

    Harassment through messaging and the right to get an immediate response from parents. Using the Whatsapp application as an example, if a parent is “online” or a message appears with the “read” double check, adolescent aggressor demands an immediate response. If this doesn’t happen, they may send dozens of messages with a growing threatening tone and insults until they get the parental response.

  2. 2)

    Harassment via smartphone. Making calls to parents in order to insult, threaten, or disrupt/prevent activities. They might choose a time when the parents are working in order to harm them at work or, in the case of separated parents, to systematically insult one of the parents.

  3. 3)

    Making negative comments on parents’ social network sites. This includes writing negative opinions, assessments and comments about content that parents publish on their own social network sites.

  4. 4)

    Access to parental email accounts. Parental email account control to monitor who they contact and what comments they make about the son or daughter.

  5. 5)

    Impersonation to discredit the parents’ image. Use of parental messaging accounts or social network sites to send inappropriate and hurtful comments to important and meaningful parental contacts.

  6. 6)

    Dissemination of inappropriate parental images or false information on adolescent’s social network sites. Use by the adolescent of their own social network sites to spread inappropriate images of parents, rumours or defamatory information about parents with the aim of destroying their image or threatening them for profit.

  7. 7)

    On-line economic violence. Use of credit card details, bank details, PayPal, etc. to make purchases and charge them to parents with the consequent economic damage.

  8. 8)

    Offline violence linked to obtaining resources for smartphone use. Threats, destruction of household items, physical violence against parents, etc. related to obtaining money to buy a smartphone or to recharge it or pay bills.

Discussing Future Challenges

The objective of this brief report is to define the existence of CPCV indicators according to the opinion of Spanish experts. There is unanimous agreement on the existence of some behaviors that can be defined as CPCV. Specifically, 8 indicators have been observed. Two of them are related to harassment through messages or calls and are closely related to the control of communication and the need to obtain reinforcers immediately: 1) Harassment through messaging and the right to get an immediate response from parents; 2) Harassment via smartphone. Regarding these indicators, it should be pointed out that the intention to control and dominate the parents is a main aspect of CPV. According to the recent study carried out by Contreras, Rodríguez-Díaz, and Cano-Lozano (2020a), around 60% of adolescents have exercised control / dominance behaviors at least once in the last year and around 30% have done so 2–3 times. There are currently no studies in the previous literature that have analyzed this dimension in the CCPV field, so it would be interesting to carry out research in this regard to prove if these percentages vary when violence is exercised through technological devices.

Four other indicators are related to the defamation and loss of prestige of the image of fathers and mothers in the parental social network sites: 3) Making negative comments on parents’ social network sites. 4) Access to parental email accounts. 5) Impersonation to discredit the parents’ image. 6) Dissemination of inappropriate parental images or false information on the adolescent’s social network sites.

This second group of indicators refer to strategies consisting in making public some sort of situations that actually occur, but which parents keep in their private sphere to protect their self-image. This type of violence could also involve defamation through impersonation or access to parental email account to spread a negative image of parents. These indicators are especially relevant if we consider that the emotional abuse could be provoked in two ways: directly and indirectly. In other words, the adolescent can cause a direct damage to their parents by posting content that affect their social reputation, but also indirectly by exposing a significant inner family problem, the CPV situation. It is important to remind that one aspect that defines CPV is that families try keep the problem in the private area, to preserve the social image of being a “happy family” (Del Moral et al., 2020).

Finally, two indicators are linked to economic violence: 7) On-line economic violence; 8) Offline violence linked to obtaining resources for smartphone use. In this latter case, the objective of the violence exerted by adolescents is to obtain the economic resources to buy things online and maintain their regular activity on the internet, with the consequent economic damage for their parents. The violent behavior occurs offline, but the experts consulted in the study believe that both the economic damage and the reason that justify the aggressions should be considered as part of the CCPV context. In other terms, even when from a theoretical perspective this indicator could not be considered as belonging to the cyber violence context, it is understood by the experts as related to CCPV. Regarding this, one of the interesting things of using qualitative analysis strategies is that they reflect in their results the implicit theories that participants handle.

Reflecting on the results obtained in the present study, firstly, it should be mentioned that aggressor’s behavior is mainly framed in the emotional abuse context. In this sense, the damage of their parents’ social reputation would play an important role on this abuse. This aspect may be interpreted as an important difference between CPV and CCPV, since in the latter case the violent behavior would be more focused on the parents’ social environment (work, family and friends).

Second, it should be pointed that the indicators found could indicate some similarities between CCPV and other forms of cyber violence. For example, in terms of the aggressor’s behavior, CCPV, dating cyberviolence and cyber-bullying would share aspects like harassment and control (constant sending of malicious, abusive, or threatening messages to an individual or group online), outing or doxing (openly revealing personal information about someone without their permission with the purpose of embarrassing or humiliating them), fraping (breaking into someone’s social network account or even creating a fake profile with their name to post inappropriate content under their name) and dissing (spreading rumors or posting humiliating photos, videos or screenshots of someone to either ruin their reputation or relationships with other people) (Fernet et al., 2019; Kumar & Sachdeva, 2019; Stonard et al., 2017; Xu & Trzaskawka, 2021). Also, it should be taken into account the fast speed and wide scope that characterizes violence through digital media, a main aspect shared by all these types of cyber violence.

On the other hand, the results obtained in the present study are interesting and relevant, but some research questions are still opened in this field that should be addressed in future investigation: is there a pure CPCV or is it always accompanied by an offline type? Is there an specific profile of adolescents and parents in this type of cyber violence? Does it co-occur with other types of violence both offline and online in other contexts (dating, school)? Can be observed in other cultural contexts? Although the offline CPV does not bring non-conformist social reputation among peers to be a type of violence that usually causes embarrassment, would it be the same in the case of the online type? These and other questions could help researchers interested in cyber violence to delve into this emerging field.

The present study provides relevant and useful information to advance in the research of CPV by proposing some preliminary indicators that could help to identify CCPV and obtain a more precise definition of this problem, and also showing some similarities with other forms of cyber violence. Despite this contribution, this research has certain limitations that need to be highlighted. The qualitative design applied is appropriate for the objective of the study and allows to explore a new field throughout the implicit theories built by experts in CPCV. However, the representativeness of the sample is only theoretical, not statistical, and the results should be interpreted with caution.