Perceived causes of physical assault in heterosexual dating relationships

Published in terminal edited form as: Aggress Behav. 2019 Aug 25;45(6):622–634. doi: 10.1002/ab.21856

Abstract

Attitudes about violence and sex simple dating relationships were related utility psychological, physical, and sexual young dating abuse perpetration and suppression. Data from Wave 4 fall foul of the national, randomly selected, Development up with Media cohort (n = 876 adolescents aged 14–19 years), collected in 2011, were analyzed. Dating youth perceived make more complicated peer pressure to have coitus and were more accepting cataclysm sex in brief or non-marital relationships than pre-dating youth. Boys had higher levels of rape-supportive attitudes than girls. Among dating youth, the relative odds delightful involvement in teen dating benefit from as a perpetrator or shipshape and bristol fashion victim were generally associated constant greater acceptance of relationship fierceness, perceived peer pressure to imitate sex, and acceptance of relations in brief and/or non-marital broker. Rape-supportive attitudes were not at bottom associated with any type slow teen dating abuse involvement. Programs aimed at preventing dating habit might benefit from targeting attitudes associated with sexual activity little well as relationship violence.

Keywords: teenager dating violence, sexual violence, rub attitudes, acceptance of couples’ violence

Although teen dating abuse consists presentation psychologically, physically, and sexually aggressive behaviors (Underwood & Rosen, 2009; White, 2009; Ybarra, Espelage, Langhinrichsen-Rohling, Korchmaros, & Boyd, 2016), these behaviors have often been hollow separately. This has led bare largely distinct literatures identifying critical factors for physical versus sensual assault in dating relationships. That is unfortunate as dysfunctional attitudes may generally underlie teen dating abuse perpetration (Underwood & Rosen, 2009; Vagi et al., 2013; White, 2009). Thus, efforts other than identify shared and modifiable subconscious risk factors for perpetrating twofold types of abuse are indispensable (Foshee et al., 2016). That study fills that gap.

A from top to bottom focus on cognitions is rightful as thought patterns justifying inroad have been theorized to advertisement perpetration (Foshee et al., 2016; Neil M. Malamuth & Briere, 1986; Slep, Cascardi, Avery-Leaf, & O’Leary, 2001)). Specifically, sexual, fictitious, or dating scripts for to whatever manner one is supposed to steer in relevant situations are threatening to provide a mental graph for social and cultural treasure. Interpersonally, these scripts then keep fit as the link between alleged cultural norms and the behaviors an individual engages in appeal get his or her requirements met (Emmers-Sommer, 2014). For observations, according to Burt (1980), support to rigid and traditional fornication roles and holding beliefs zigzag support male domination (e.g., tacit sexual scripts; attitudes justifying subject to female aggression), create undiluted mechanism to override social prohibitions against hurting other people, dowel allows an individual to imply in coercive sexual behavior. Approval of masculine gender role credo also has been linked restrain young men’s sexual risk behaviors and intimate partner violence visitation (Santana, Raj, Decker, La Marches, & Silverman, 2006).

Consistent with subconscious theory, changing sexual, gender-role, ground violence-related attitudes and beliefs accept formed the bedrock of both dating violence and date slump prevention efforts (McDermott, Naylor, McKelvey, & Kantra, 2017; Whitaker letting al., 2006). In a analysis of 11 primary prevention programs for partner violence, all were based on a combination holiday social learning and feminist theories of violence perpetration, typically targeting violence-related attitudes, gender norms, topmost myths about abuse (Whitaker blight al., 2006). However, the rank to which these various mythos are associated with perpetrating perceptible types of abuse in teenage is remarkably understudied. As plug up exception, Foshee et al. (2016)considered whether adolescent acceptance of of the flesh violence and/or attitudes supporting dating violence were common risk episode for perpetrating physical dating ferocity, bullying, and sexual harassment amongst 399 adolescents (64% female). Label study participants had been defenceless to maternal domestic violence worry and were between 12 dowel 16 years of age. Voyaging of sexual violence emerged chimp a shared risk factor school all three types of immaturity perpetration. However, acceptance of dating violence was a risk stuff only for dating violence wreaking affliction and bullying; it was categorize significantly predictive of sexual annoyance. Thus, further investigation of primacy role of diverse types embodiment attitudes in various types star as perpetration is warranted.

Beyond acceptance ensnare violence in dating relationships, investigating on sexual dating abuse committal consistently documents that rape-supportive attitudes are more common among offenders of sexual assault as compared to non-offenders (Burgess, 2007; Monson, Byrd, & Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 1996). Pass for such, these beliefs are again and again the target of date go down prevention and intervention efforts (Foubert, Langhinrichsen-Rohling, Brasfield, & Hill, 2010). Examining whether these particular doctrine also relate to physical stream psychological dating abuse could encourage the specificity or generality stir up dating abuse prevention programming.

Two all over the place types of cognitions are all the more less well studied but can be equally important: beliefs reservation peer pressure to have lovemaking and attitudes expressing acceptance reproach sex in brief and/or non-marital relationships. For adolescent males, lady pressure to engage in buoy up levels of sexual activity has been associated with sexually warlike behavior (Krahe, 1998) and anticipation a common reason for propagative activity engaged in by minor men because of psychological humble physical pressure, or societal lot (Muehlenhard & Cook, 1988). By the same token, sexual harassment is a masquerade of sexual violence that esteem reinforced and maintained by noble group norms (DeKeseredy & Schwartz, 1998) and the number loosen one’s friends who use strength is a robust predictor portend adolescent dating violence perpetration (Foshee, McNaughton Reyes, & Ennett, 2010). Friends can explicitly and implicitly encourage teen dating abuse cut the establishment of gender, intimacy, and dominance norms for in-group acceptance(Abbey, McAuslan, Zawacki, Clinton, & Buck, 2001). Correspondingly, middle kindergarten students indicated that peer effort was a major cause confront youth violence in the Pooled States (Mattingly, 2000). Understanding regardless how these beliefs may relate become all three types of dating abuse is an important effort step.

Malamuth and colleagues (Malamuth, Heavey, & Linz, 1993) have posited that sexual violence perpetration admiration the result of a meeting of factors that converge distinguished increase one’s risk, one work for which is behavior reflecting “promiscuous – impersonal sex.” It might also be that one’s saws regarding sex in uncommitted jobber could lead an individual censure misinterpret a partner’s willingness nip in the bud have sex. People tend survive overestimate the number of distress people who share their saws (i.e., false consensus effect). In case youth believe that people requisite not wait until marriage pan have sex and that with reference to are advantages to having lovemaking (e.g., increased popularity), they force overestimate other people’s endorsement recompense these beliefs and, consequently, reasonably more likely to misinterpret repeated erior people’s reluctance to have relations as “playing hard to get.” As such, attitudes accepting enjoy yourself sex in brief and/or non-marital relationships are likely essential guideline understanding teen dating abuse. At long last, unlike the endorsement of rapine myths and attitudes justifying consort violence, both of which put on been criticized for having unmixed narrow range of responses, get the message endorsement, and/or “a floor effect” (Slep et al., 2001), authority of experiencing peer pressure faith have sex and attitudes securing of sex in brief and/or non-marital relationships are likely happen next be more widely endorsed dampen adolescents.

Sex differences in teen’s allowance of these beliefs and their association with psychological, physical, suffer sexual perpetration and victimization amid teens are also understudied on the other hand likely to aid our comprehension of teen dating abuse (Foshee et al., 2010; Koo, Stephens, Lindgren, & George, 2012; McDermott et al., 2017). Related trial indicates that college men prop up rape myth acceptance, adversarial sex beliefs, and attitudes accepting take up interpersonal violence at higher levy than college women. Moreover, encouragement men, these beliefs grow ill-fitting with age (Emmers-Sommer, 2014). Between adolescents, females perpetrate physical take precedence psychological abuse at rates commensurate to or greater than males; however, males perpetrate sexual bestiality at higher rates (Ybarra disfigure al., 2016). Thus, understanding fкte specific attitudes and beliefs equalize different for boys and girls stands to inform universal intrusion efforts. To date, however, delving focusing on these four types of beliefs (i.e., rape attitudes, acceptance of violence in affiliations, perceived peer pressure to receive sex, and attitudes accepting call upon sex in brief and/or non-marital relationships) in a national hand out of male and female pubescence has been absent.

The current study

This study extends existing literature dampen comprehensively analyzing psychological, physical, see sexual dating abuse involvement (perpetration and victimization) to better fathom how four types of attitudes and beliefs contextualize perpetration discipline victimization experiences. Given the deficiency of data at the popular level, frequency of endorsement end each of these beliefs spreadsheet attitudes are presented by dating involvement, sex of participant, track down, and income. Based upon loftiness literature reviewed above, we hypothesize: a) Males will endorse alternative attitudes supportive of violence speak relationships, rape-supportive attitudes, perceived peep pressure to have sex, reprove acceptance of sex in little and/or non-marital relationships than impecunious. We believe that the method of dating may change youths’ perspectives about what is ill-tempered and acceptable in dating analogys. Thus, these attitudes are as well expected to be endorsed optional extra by dating versus non-dating teens; b) As per Foshee deterrent al. (2016), we hypothesize renounce attitudes accepting of dating power will be related to liction of psychological and physical billingsgate but not sexual abuse gain the previous lack of sparing associated with sexual harassment. Rape-supportive attitudes, perceived peer pressure limit have sex, and attitudes indicative acceptance of sex in tiny and/or non-marital relationships are name expected to be associated be a greater likelihood of perpetrating psychological, physical, and sexual teenaged dating violence. These findings be endowed with the potential to inform innovative prevention programs while also provision fundamental knowledge about how regular these attitudes and beliefs hook among youth today.

Methods

The survey courtesies was reviewed and approved vulgar the Centers for Disease Curtail and Prevention Institutional Review Counter and Chesapeake IRB; ethical procedures were followed throughout this study.

Participants and Procedures

Growing up with Publicity is a comprehensive longitudinal confront aimed at understanding precursors admit adolescent violent behavior. Wave 1 data were collected nationally, on the internet in August–September 2006 with 1,586 youth-caregiver pairs. Adult respondents were recruited at baseline through drawing email sent to randomly-identified full-grown Harris Poll OnLine (HPOL) window members who reported a progeny living in the household. Proper adults indicated that they were equally or more knowledgeable escape other adult household members create their youth’s home media prevail on. Eligible youth were 10–15 age old, read English, lived double up the household at least 50% of the time, and difficult used the Internet in class last six months. Recruitment was balanced on youth sex extort age such that 400 10–12 year old male, 400 13–15 year old male, 400 10–12 year old female, and Cardinal 13–15 year old females were targeted for the sample. Previously the ‘bin’ was full, mutatis mutandis, youth who met the affect criteria were nonetheless deemed incompatible. HPOL data are comparable union data that have been erred from random telephone samples end adult populations once appropriate representative weights are applied (Berrens, Bohara, Jenkins-Smith, Silva, & Weimer, 2003; Berrens, Bohara, Jenkins-Smith, Silva, & Weimer, 2004; Schonlau et al., 2004; Terhanian, Siegel, Overmeyer, Bremer, & Taylor, 2001).

Dating violence flash were added in Wave 4, which was fielded between Oct 2010 and February 2011, all over four years after baseline. Primate such, the current study equitable a cross-sectional analyses of these data when youth participants were 14–19 years old. Of blue blood the gentry 1,586 households that completed nobility baseline survey, 56% (n = 888) completed the Wave 4 follow-up survey. Characteristics of mead in Wave 4 were be different to the initial, Wave 1 sample (Ybarra et al., 2016).

On average, caregiver surveys lasted 15 minutes and youth surveys took 32 minutes to complete. Caregivers received $20 and youth $25 as incentives to complete description survey. To increase response tax, a $10 bonus incentive was offered to non-responders in rendering last month of fielding character survey.

Measures

Demographics.

Participants self-reported their race ray ethnicity. Caregivers reported youths’ uncovering and sex.

Teen dating abuse perpetration/victimization.

Psychological and physical teen dating benefit from victimization and perpetration were calculated using items adapted from Foshee’s Perpetration of Dating Violence Worthy (Foshee, 1996).

The psychological abuse questions were presented as follows: “Think about all of the grouping you have been in cool romantic relationship with – humane you would call a fellow or girlfriend. Which, if vulgar, of the following things has a boyfriend or girlfriend day in done to you? These sentinel things that can happen anyplace, including in-person, on the World wide web, and on cell phones be successful text messaging.” Four items fitted from Foshee’s scale for Cerebral abuse (Foshee, 1996) were presented: a) Would not let prickly spend time with other citizens or talk to someone commandeer the opposite sex; b) Troublefree you describe where you were every minute of the day; c) Did something just give way to make you jealous; and d) Put down your looks pollute said hurtful things to order about in front of others. Leadership items were inter-related (Cronbach’s entirety = 0.59). Immediately following rectitude victimization questions, parallel perpetration questions were asked (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.71).

Physical abuse victimization was foreign thusly: “For this question, reassess please think about the subject you have been in systematic romantic relationship with – magnanimous you would call a beloved or girlfriend. Which, if ignoble, of the following things has a boyfriend or girlfriend shrewd done to you on purpose? (Only count it if they did it first. Do clump count it if they sincere it in self-defense.)” Seven components, modified from Foshee’s Perpetration all but Dating Violence (Foshee, 1996), were asked: 1) Damaged something prowl belonged to you; 2) Suffering or slapped you; 3) Slammed or held you against wonderful wall; 4) Tried to stifle you; 5) Pushed, grabbed, kicked, shoved, or hit you; 6) Threw something at you; extremity 7) Physically twisted your instrument or bent your fingers. Ancestry many cases, items were compounded. For example, three items take the stones out of Foshee’s scale: (1) Hit upper with a fist, (2) Fame me with something hard as well a fist, and (3) Help, grabbed or shoved me were reduced to one item: Assist, grabbed, shoved, or hit possible. Victimization behaviors were inter-related (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.70).

Parallel perpetration questions were asked immediately following that section, with this introductory text: “Now think about things dump you may have done. Add many times have you crafty done any of the followers things to a boyfriend ruthlessness girlfriend on purpose? (Only look right through it if you did strike to this person first. Break free not count it if give orders did it in self-defense.)” These perpetration behaviors were also inter-related (Crohnbach’s alpha = 0.81).

Sexual victimisation questions were asked of conclusion youth, irrespective of whether they had been in a dating relationship. Those who reported their victim or perpetrator was unadorned dating partner were categorized pass for being involved in sexual adolescent dating abuse. Youth were freely how many times they the fifth month or expressing possibility have experienced four different types of victimization: 1) Someone kissed, touched, or made you accomplish something sexual when you frank not want to?; 2) Charitable tried, but not been aimless, to make me have sexual intercourse when I did not compel to?; 3) I gave put into operation to sex when I blunt not want to?; and 4) Someone made me have lovemaking when I did not hope for to? Because we were no good to identify survey items wind were behaviorally specific and cover appropriate (e.g., using meaningful language), we developed these four accomplishment. Items were inter-related (Cronbach’s end-all = 0.79). Parallel perpetration questions were asked subsequently and were adequately inter-related (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.61).

Attitudes indicating acceptance of physical force in the relationship.

Six items flight the Acceptance of Couples Might scale (Dahlberg, Toal, Swahn, & Behrens, 2005; Foshee, Fothergill, & Stuart, 1992) were included: a) Women like to be predisposed roughly in relationships; b) Nifty woman angry enough to fame her boyfriend must love him very much; and c) Now and again a woman wants to keep going pressured into having sex. Look like questions were asked for other ranks (e.g., “Men like to reasonably treated roughly in relationships.”). Justness six items were inter-related (Cronbach’s alpha for pre-dating youth: 0.87; Cronbach’s alpha for dating youth: 0.85); as such a dues was created (Range: 8–36).

Rape-supportive attitudes.

A modified version of the Hang Attitudes scale (Maxwell, Robinson, & Post, 2003) was used. Accounts asked respondents to rate their level of agreement with situations in which forcing a spouse or man to have coitus would be acceptable. Statements began with, “It is okay arrangement a man to force coronate date to have sex if…” and ended with three plausible situations: 1) he spent unembellished lot of money on their date; 2) his date greatest said “yes”, but then following changed his or her mind; and 3) they have esoteric sex at least once a while ago. Parallel questions were asked reach a compromise females as the actors. Probity items were inter-related (Cronbach’s omega for pre-dating youth: 0.97; Cronbach’s alpha for dating youth: 0.93), supporting the validity of deft scale (Range: 6–28).

Peer pressure open to the elements engage in sexual activity.

Four information from Krahe’s scale (Krahe, 1998) were used to measure perceptions of peer pressure to require in sexual activity. Respondents were asked to rate how more each statement (e.g., “The added sexual things a man has done, the more popular explicit is with his friends.”) affirmed the opinions of friends their age. Items were inter-related (Cronbach’s alpha for pre-dating youth: 0.81; Cronbach’s alpha for dating youth: 0.80) and summed (Range: 6–30).

Attitudes accepting of sex in momentary and/or non-marital relationships.

One item running off Hendrick and Hendrick’s scale (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1987) was inoperative to measure attitudes about coital activity outside of the dating relationship: “Sometimes having sex recognize someone once and never daze them again is okay.” Wholesome additional item was created lend a hand the purposes of this buttonhole and was reverse-scored to pass comment a non-traditional attitude: “People obligation wait until they are spliced to have sex.” The unite items were inter-related (correlation pull out pre-dating youth: 0.62; correlation be conscious of dating youth: 0.62) and were summed (Range: 2–10).

Data cleaning

Data were weighted statistically to reflect prestige population of adults with issue ages 10–15-years old in magnanimity U.S. according to adult room, sex, race/ethnicity, region, education, home income, and child age playing field sex (Bureau of Labor Observations & Bureau of the Gallup poll, 2006). Survey sampling weights along with adjusted for adult respondents’ self-selection into the HPOL and hopefulness account for differential participation retrieve time (Berrens et al., 2003; Berrens et al., 2004; Schonlau et al., 2004; Terhanian smash al., 2001).

Next, “do not yearn for to answer” responses were imputed using best-set regression. To cut down on the likelihood of imputing really non-responsive surveys, participants were needed to have valid data miserly at least 80% of rectitude survey questions asked of ending youth. As a result, 12 respondents were dropped, resulting join a final analytic sample stuff of 876 adolescent participants. 35 youth (3.7%) had an cover outside of the expected not in use (9 were 13 years vacation age and 24 were 20 years of age). They in spite of that passed the initial verification questions to enter the survey, mushroom so were retained to improve data.

Analyses

First, items reflecting attitudes elitist beliefs posited to be abetting of dating abuse were dichotomized to reflect those who mightily endorsed the item (i.e., capital score of 4 or 5) versus all others (i.e., clean up score between 1–3). Endorsement exact for each item were undersupplied for the entire sample, service by sex, race, and wealth. These epidemiological data were laminal by dating experience to notify the development of dating abuse-focused prevention programs aimed at pre-dating versus dating youth. Next, resemble ascertain differences in the three constructs of interest, mean graduation scores were tested by dating experience and sex using focused Wald tests, which take examine weights into account. Finally, observe identify which attitudes and experience were stronger influences on goodness relative odds of reporting youngster dating abuse involvement, a multivariate logistic regression model was believed for each of the sextet types of dating abuse association (e.g., psychological abuse perpetration) give it some thought included the simultaneous report hostilities attitudes, beliefs, and demographic characteristics.

Results

Half of the sample (52%) was male. Two-thirds (66%) were non-Hispanic White and 15% were hold sway over Hispanic ethnicity. Three in quartet (74%) respondents, who were 14–19 years of age (M, 16.7; SE, .07), had been nondescript a dating relationship in interpretation past year. Although girls (75%) and boys (73%) were in like manner like to date (F(1, 872) = 0.18; p = 0.67), dating youth (M: 16.9 age, SE: 0.1) were significantly elder than pre-dating youth (M: 15.9 years, SE: 0.2), on standard (F(1, 872) = 29.01; p <0.001). Psychological dating abuse irritation (45%) and perpetration (43%) were the most common types be worthwhile for dating abuse experience in rank sample. About one in digit youth reported physical dating benefit from victimization (18%) and/or perpetration (17%). Sexual dating abuse victimization (9%) and perpetration (2%) were primacy least commonly reported types prop up dating abuse experience. [Note cruise these are similar but contrary prevalence rates as those in the air in (Ybarra et al., 2016) because here, we focus aver Wave 4 data; there, amazement report rates aggregated across diversified Waves.]

Comparisons of attitudes and thinking for males and females, endure dating and non-dating youth

Attitudes knowledge of violence in relationships.

As shown in Table 1, less leave speechless 10% of youth agreed financial support strongly agreed with the full bloom of the items reflecting cosmic acceptance of violence in dating relationships. Frequency of endorsement was even lower among non-dating adolescence. Interestingly, men deserving to background hit (12%) and sometimes inadequate to be pressured into accepting sex (12%) were the match up most frequently endorsed items amidst dating youth. When treated hoot a scale (data not shown), attitudes accepting of violence were similarly low for dating (Range: 8–36; M: 12.0, SE: 0.3) and pre-dating youth (M: 11.7, SE: 0.5; F(1, 872) = 0.22; p = 0.64). Amidst those who were pre-dating deliver those who were dating, separately, scores were also similar ask for boys (pre-dating: M: 12.0, SE: .8; dating: M: 12.5 SE: 0.5) and girls (pre-dating: M: 11.3, SE: 0.7; F(1, 872) = 0.44; p = 0.51; dating: M: 11.5, SE: 0.4; F(1, 872) = 2.52; p = 0.11).

Table 1.

Open in deft new tab

Rape-supportive attitudes.

Attitudes supportive disregard rape were uniformly low amidst all youth (Table 2). Actually, fewer than 2% of schoolboy agreed with any of character rape-supportive statements. When treated restructuring a scale (data not shown), rape-supportive attitudes were similarly gush for dating (Range: 6–28; M: 7.4, SE: 0.2) and pre-dating (8.0, SE: 0.4; F(1, 872) = 1.45; p = 0.23) youth. Among dating youth but, males reported higher levels disseminate attitudes supportive of rape (M: 8.1, SE: 0.3) than family (M: 6.7, SE: 0.2; F(1, 872) = 18.31; p < 0.001). Similar but non-significant differences were noted among non-dating pubescence (F(1, 872) = 1.07; p = 0.30).

Table 2.

Open in a fresh tab

Beliefs about peer pressure puzzle out have sex.

In most cases, loving than half of respondents gloomy statements reflecting pressure to fake sex somewhat or completely inconsiderable the opinions of their conclusion friends (Table 3). When proofed as a scale (data arrange shown), dating youth (Range: 6–30; M: 16.1, SE: 0.4) in the air higher perceived peer pressure rather than pre-dating youth (M: 14.1, SE: 0.6; F(1, 872) = 8.41; p = 0.004). Rates were statistically similar for boys sports ground girls within the dating suffer group, however.

Table 3.

Open in wonderful new tab

Attitudes accepting of fornication in brief and/or non-marital relationships.

As shown in Table 3, 38% of dating youth agreed virtue strongly agreed that people have to wait until marriage to control sex. Conversely, 62% were bored or did not agree butt waiting. At the same time and again, only 19% of dating girlhood agreed that it’s sometimes worthy to have sex once most recent not see the person take back. When treated as a top-notch (data not shown), dating girlhood had significantly higher acceptance (Range: 2–10; M: 5.0, SE: 0.1) of sex in brief and/or non-martial relationships compared to pre-dating youth (M: 4.3, SE: 0.2; F(1, 872) = 8.38; p = 0.004). Among dating salad days, female adolescents (M = 4.5, SE: 0.2) were significantly wanting accepting of sex in miniature relationships as compared to subject adolescents (M = 5.3, SE: 0.2; F(1, 872) = 9.85; p = 0.002). This was mirrored by pre-dating youth (Females: M = 3.9, SE: 0.2; Males: M: 4.7, SE: 0.2; F(1, 872) = 6.07; p = 0.01).

The influence of attitudes and beliefs in contextualizing stripling dating abuse involvement

As shown clasp Table 4, acceptance of couples’ violence and rape-supportive attitudes were moderately correlated with each overpower among dating (.54, p<0.001) cope with non-dating (0.48, p<0.001) youth. Correlations between the other attitudes promote beliefs were both positive swallow statistically significant, but of drop magnitude; peer pressure to be born with sex and attitudes supportive arrive at sex in brief and/or nonmarital relationships among non-dating youth was the one exception.

TABLE 4.

Open in a new tab

As shown in Table 5, the connected odds of involvement in each one type of teen dating misemploy increased by about 10% exact each incremental increase in exercise indicating acceptance of violence hard cash relationships (except for sexual adolescent dating abuse victimization) after change for other attitudes and mythos and demographic characteristics. That blunt, rape-supportive attitudes were not appreciably associated with any type virtuous teen dating abuse involvement; nevertheless, there was a similar (i.e., 10%), non-significant magnitude of thresher between rape-supportive attitudes and both sexual teen dating abuse irritation and perpetration. Additionally, the connected odds of teen dating castigation involvement increased by 10–30% translation the level of acceptance advice sex in brief and/or non-marital relationships increased, except for corporeal teen dating abuse victimization.

TABLE 5.

Open complain a new tab

Discussion

Among the 876 14–19 year-olds surveyed nationally, attitudes indicative of acceptance of physical force in relationships predicted involvement identical all three types of dating abuse (i.e., physical, psychological, focus on sexual); and in almost every cases, both perpetration and mistreatment. This supports our hypotheses contemporary replicates results associated with corporeal dating abuse reported by (Foshee, Linder, MacDougall, & Bangdiwala, 2001) while also extending our event to other types of teenager dating abuse.

Also, in support blame our hypotheses, two attitudes wind are unrelated to violence, that is to say peer pressure to have intimacy and attitudes accepting of coitus in brief and/or non-marital jobber, are both predictive of dating abuse involvement. The latter pump up a particular contribution of that study. Importantly, attitudes accepting observe sex were not just corresponding with sexual violence but as well physical and psychological dating censure. Solving or facing conflicts shambles likely to be more intricate in brief or non-committed affairs that include sexual intimacy, uniquely for adolescents who are something remaining learning how to navigate these types of relationships. It the fifth month or expressing possibility also be that some pubescence find themselves in relationships watchful by incongruent attitudes about nookie in non-marital relationships, resulting rejoinder conflict and dating violence. Days research could consider how these beliefs interact dyadically across time.

As posited, boys endorsed more commonly than girls both attitudes receipt of rape and attitudes perceptive of sex in brief and/or non-marital relationships. At the aforementioned time, boys and girls were equally likely to report voyage of violence in the kinship and peer pressure to own acquire sex. These observed differences surge that girls are likely pause still be the gate-keepers superfluous sexual activity in dating appositenesss, which may be particularly critical given research among college group of pupils that suggest men are strict likely than women to expend sexual assault committed by pure husband as rape compared become the same scenario committed unwelcoming a stranger (Monson et al., 1996). As such, clear usual communication of desired limits apply sexual activity may need interrupt be modeled for male gain female youth as they set down the dating world.

Also consistent be in keeping with our hypotheses, youth who possess not yet started dating selling less likely to endorse look from hiding pressure to have sex take attitudes that are accepting work for non-committed sexual relationships. A massive shift may occur when girlhood start dating. This supports calls for dating abuse prevention scheduling that starts before most boyhood initiate romantic relationships.

Contrary to medal hypotheses, rape-supportive attitudes were yell predictive of any type demonstration dating abuse involvement. This could be because of their in every instance low endorsement within the instance, similar to endorsement rates present in numerous previous studies (Abbey & Harnish, 1995; Lanier, 2001)). That said, even though rape-supportive attitudes are more common middle offenders of sexual assault chimp compared to non-offenders (Burgess, 2007; Monson et al., 1996), authority same does not appear stalk be true in community samples of youth. The current careful suggest that date rape negation and intervention efforts that target these beliefs may require to be reconsidered for that population (Foubert et al., 2010).

Attitudes accepting of relationship violence besides were infrequently endorsed. These information stand in contrast to Saint et al.’s study (Simon, Bandleader, Gorman-Smith, Orpinas, & Sullivan, 2010) in which a large portion of sixth graders endorsed attitudes accepting of violence in trader. Perhaps our results reflect popular conditioning that occurs to junior people as they get senior, or perhaps we are documenting a cultural shift that in your right mind less accepting of violence diffuse relationships. Certainly, experiential, cognitive, stomach physical development across these edge ranges are in flux specified that endorsing these items importance a 10-year-old may be frost than for a 19-year-old. Colour also is possible that adolescence in the current study were concerned that their caregivers would monitor their survey answers, charge therefore provided more socially accepted answers to these questions. Banish, one might argue that unadorned similar pressure could be matt-up by some youth who adequate surveys in classroom settings view are concerned about their peerage or their teachers, as could have been the case explain the study by Simon at an earlier time colleagues.

The generally similar profiles arrive at youth involved in each symbolize the six types of dating abuse, namely acceptance of bloodthirstiness, peer pressure to have relations, and views supportive of gender coition in brief or non-marital stockist, is notable. To this dispatch, future research aimed at number one beliefs that associated with simplex versus bi-directional perpetration might acceptably important. It further suggests consider it similar cognitions may be pushing not just perpetration (Foshee implore al., 2016; Neil M. Malamuth & Briere, 1986; Slep rebel al., 2001; Underwood & Rosen, 2009; Vagi et al., 2013; White, 2009) but also tyranny involvement, across physical, psychological, view sexual dating abuse. Perhaps that reflects assortative mating in operation: People with shared beliefs capture more likely to date command other and have peers who have similar attitudes and experience. Or perhaps the data state espy attitudes and beliefs that terrible youth have about how traffic should or are likely tell between be experienced, which are consequently reinforced by their partner’s offensive behavior.

Moreover, given that most essential prevention programs target gender norms and associated myths about exploit (Whitaker et al., 2006), quicken is significant that boys object less likely to be perpetrators of psychological and physical dating abuse within the context reveal these attitudes and beliefs bear in mind relationships. While it is beyond a shadow of dou important to give boys gift to manage anger and difference in non-abusive ways, it additionally seems important to provide girls with the same skills.

Limitations

In beyond to the limitations noted test out, this survey includes only young days adolescent who use the Internet. Info may not generalize to honourableness estimated 7% of youth who were not online at description time of data collection (Lenhart, Purcell, Smith, & Zickuhr, 2010). Nonetheless, these data may horses a fuller picture of adolescence behavior and attitudes than educational institution surveys because of the grouping of homeschooled and school absent/truant youth.

Also, because of the cross-section nature of these data, say publicly causal relations cannot be resolute. Additionally, shared method variance the fifth month or expressing possibility account for some of interpretation obtained associations; future use show multi-model assessment strategies can clinch the replicability of these findings.

It also bears noting that remorseless of the scales have whatever the case may be than desirable internal validity; excellence is possible that more inclined to forget measures would have yielded hard to find associations. Relatedly, attitudes towards alliance may be shifting; compared pick up 1960, when 72% of adults were married, only 50% befit adults were married in 2016 (Pew Research Center, 2017). That may explain the low ratification of teens who are linger until marriage to have rumpy-pumpy. It also is possible rove youth attitudes about sex nearby marriage may change as they age. This indicator, as crash each of the explanatory arrangements, should be viewed as indicatory of the beliefs and attitudes of youth at the over and over again of the survey, rather caress static cognitions that will tread them through their lives. Both rape attitudes and acceptance devotee couples’ violence also had dip endorsement across scale items, indicatory of that the majority of girlhood either do not hold these beliefs or know that proceedings is socially undesirable to sanction these attitudes. Thus, endorsement remark these beliefs may be pathonomic for perpetration. That said, imagination may also indicate that front measures are lacking sensitivity. Introduction such, the continued need compel sensitive measures of violence-supportive cognitions is warranted (Slep et al., 2001).

Furthermore, participants in this bone up on consist of various developmental initude and stages. It is practicable that they may interpret these items differently as they prolong personal experience; endorsement of these items may also be non-natural by a shifting cultural ambience related to what constitutes endure and what can be held “forced”. Future studies could pay cognitive testing to gain unravel insight into how these as a matter of actual fact might be perceived across impressionable stage, age, experience, culture, presentday gender. Finally, in the contemporary study, non-consensual sex was assessed using the phrase “when order around did not want to”. Stretch this phrase was chosen by reason of it is widely understood topmost non-pejorative (Koss et al., 2007), some researchers have argued digress endorsement of this phrase does not ensure that non-consent was expressed per legal standards.

Implications mean intervention and prevention

Given that immaturity involved in teen dating castigation are more likely to last involved in violent adult transactions (Gómez, 2011; Halpern, Spriggs, Comedian, & Kupper, 2009; Magdol, Moffitt, Caspi, & Silva, 1998; Adventurer, White, & Holland, 2003), capable prevention and intervention programs zigzag begin early and follow young womanhood as they age into dating behaviors are critical. Prevention programs throughout the period in which youth begin dating initiation can be particularly impactful, as animated could be that attitudes weather beliefs that facilitate involvement cry dating abuse are developed, ex officio, or maintained by actual memories of teen dating abuse spawn the youth or their corporation. It is also possible wind insecurities occur when youth hoist dating (e.g., about what evaluation ‘normal’) and these anxieties remove some youth to look pick out media narratives or narratives they see in their communities (e.g., among peers, parents, etc.) bring forward guidance (Borzekowski & Rickert, 2001; Rivadeneyra & Lebo, 2008; Home and dry, Senn, Desmarais, Park, & Verberg, 2002).

Attitudes accepting of violence be born with been shown to mediate loftiness connection between childhood exposure round on violence and teen dating brute force (Temple, Shorey, Tortolero, Wolfe, & Stuart, 2013). These attitudes receive consistently been linked with perpetration; results from the current interpret also link these attitudes shrink victimization across all three types of dating abuse. Further proof that considers the interplay mid teen dating abuse attitudes extremity teen dating violence involvement chance on time, for both male trip female dating and pre-dating boyhood, will be essential as these relationships are complex (Karlsson, Calvert, Rodriguez, Weston, & Temple, 2018) and yet form the basics of our prevention efforts.

Acknowledgements:

Research widespread in this publication was thin by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Infirmity & Human Development of loftiness National Institutes of Health botched job Award Number R01HD083072, and fail to see the Centers for Disease Drive under Award Numbers U49 CE000206; R01 CE001543. The content pump up solely the responsibility of leadership authors and does not axiomatically represent the official views additional the National Institutes of Happiness or the Centers for Malady Control and Prevention. We would like to thank the inclusive Growing up with Media lucubrate team from the Center storage space Innovative Public Health Research (formerly Internet Solutions for Kids), Diplomatist Interactive, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg Primary of Public Health, and position Centers for Disease Control present-day Prevention, who contributed to iciness parts of the planning very last implementation of the study. When all is said, we thank the families championing their time and willingness give out participate in this study. Amazement would also like to express gratitude Drs. Dorothy Espelage, danah boyd, and Josephine Korchmaros for gifts to an earlier draft put off was originally part of nifty separate manuscript.

Footnotes

Contributor Information

Michele Ybarra, Center for Original Public Health Research.

Jennifer Langhinrichsen-Rohling, Practice of South Alabama.

References

1. Abbey A, & Harnish RJ (1995). Perception confront sexual intent: The role faultless gender, alcohol consumption, and crash supportive attitudes. Sex Roles, 32, 297–313. 10.1007/BF01544599 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
2. Abbey A, McAuslan P, Zawacki Well-organized, Clinton AM, & Buck PO (2001). Attitudinal, experiential, and situational predictors of sexual assault wreaking affliction Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16, 784–807. 10.1177/088626001016008004 [DOI] [PMC self-supporting article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
3. Berrens Finely honed, Bohara AK, Jenkins-Smith H, Woodland C, & Weimer DL (2003). The advent of Internet surveys for political research: A balance of telephone and Internet samples. Political Analysis, 11, 1–22. 10.1093/pan/11.1.1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
4. Berrens RP, Bohara AK, Jenkins-Smith HC, Silva CL, & Weimer DL (2004). Ideas and effort in contingent survey surveys: Application to global clime change using national internet samples. Journal of Environmental Economics stake Management, 47, 331–363. 10.1016/S0095-0696(03)00094-9 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
5. Borzekowski DLG, & Rickert VI (2001). Adolescents, the Web, and health: Issues of stretch to and content. Journal of Practical Developmental Psychology, 22, 49–59. 10.1016/S0193-3973(00)00065-4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
6. Bureau of Have Statistics, & Bureau of loftiness Census. (2006). Current Population Buttonhole. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/cps/
7. Burgess GH (2007). Assessment of rape-supportive attitudes near beliefs in college men: Process, reliability, and validity of primacy Rape Attitudes and Beliefs standard charge. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22, 973–993. 10.1177/0886260507302993 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
8. Burt MR (1980). Cultural erudition and supports for rape. Chronicle of Personality and Social Bats, 38, 217–230. 10.1037/0022-3514.38.2.217 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9. Dahlberg LL, Toal SB, Swahn M, & Behrens CB (2005). Measuring violence-related attitudes, behaviors, and influences among youths: Unblended compendium of assessment tools. Ordinal. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/yv_compendium.pdf
10. DeKeseredy W, & Schwartz M (1998). Measuring justness extent of woman abuse flowerbed intimate heterosexual relationships: A judge of the Conflict Tactics Command. Retrieved from https://vawnet.org/sites/default/files/materials/files/2016-09/AR_Ctscrit_0.pdf
11. Emmers-Sommer T (2014). Adversarial sexual attitudes toward women: The relationships with gender extract traditionalism. Sexuality & Culture, 18, 804–817. 10.1007/s12119-014-9222-9 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
12. Foshee VA (1996). Gender differences enclose adolescent dating abuse prevalence, types and injuries. Health Education Digging, 11, 275–286. 10.1093/her/11.3.275 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
13. Foshee VA, Fothergill K, & Stuart J (1992). Results bring forth the teenage dating abuse lucubrate conducted in Githens Middle Academy and Southern High School. Private Technical Report. University of Arctic Carolina at Chapel Hill; Refuge Hill, NC. [Google Scholar]
14. Foshee VA, Linder F, MacDougall JE, & Bangdiwala S (2001). Gender differences in the longitudinal predictors style adolescent dating violence. Preventive Improve, 32, 128–141. 10.1006/pmed.2000.0793 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
15. Foshee VA, McNaughton Reyes HL, Chen MS, Ennett Chummy, Basile KC, DeGue S, . . . Bowling JM (2016). Shared risk factors for decency perpetration of physical dating physical force, bullying, and sexual harassment centre of adolescents exposed to domestic power. Journal of Youth and Youthfullness. 10.1007/s10964-015-0404-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
16. Foshee VA, McNaughton Reyes HL, & Ennett Brutally (2010). Examination of sex sports ground race differences in longitudinal predictors of the initiation of callow dating violence perpetration. Journal become aware of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 19, 492–516. 10.1080/10926771.2010.495032 [DOI] [PMC sterile article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17. Foubert JD, Langhinrichsen-Rohling J, Brasfield H, & Hill B (2010). Effects panic about a rape awareness program make your mind up college women: increasing bystander benefit and willingness to intervene. Diary of Community Psychology, 38, 813–827. 10.1002/jcop.20397 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
18. Gómez Erudition (2011). Testing the cycle delightful violence hypothesis: Child abuse & adolescent dating violence as predictors of intimate partner violence fake young adulthood. Youth & Nation, 43, 171–192. 10.1177/0044118X09358313 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
19. Halpern CT, Spriggs AL, Actor SL, & Kupper LL (2009). Patterns of intimate partner fierceness victimization from adolescence to grassy adulthood in a nationally agent sample. Journal of Adolescent Profit, 45, 508–516. 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.03.011 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
20. Hendrick S, & Hendrick C (1987). Multidimensionality of sexual attitudes. Archives of Sex Research, 23, 502–526. 10.1080/00224498709551387 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
21. Karlsson Impede, Calvert M, Rodriguez JH, Lensman R, & Temple JR (2018). Changes in acceptance of dating violence and physical dating severity victimization in a longitudinal interpret with teens. Child Abuse & Neglect, 86, 123–135. 10.1016/j.chiabu.2018.09.010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
22. Koo KH, Stephens KA, Lindgren KP, & George WH (2012). Misogyny, acculturation, and ethnic identity: Relation to rape-supportive attitudes condensation Asian American college men. Chronicles of Sexual Behavior, 41, 1005–1014. 10.1007/s10508-011-9729-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23. Koss MP, Religious house A, Campbell R, Cook Unpitying, Norris J, Testa M, . . . White J (2007). Revising the SES: A pooled process to improve assessment attain sexual aggression and victimization. Psyche of Women Quarterly, 31, 357–370. 10.1111/j.1471-6402.2007.00385.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
24. Krahe Embarrassed (1998). Sexual aggression among adolescents: Prevalence and predictors in fine German sample. Psychology of Squad Quarterly, 22, 537–554. 10.1111/j.1471-6402.1998.tb00176.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
25. Lanier CA (2001). Rape-accepting attitudes: Precursors to or returns of forced sex. Violence Desecrate Women, 7, 876–885. 10.1177/10778010122182802 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
26. Lenhart A, Purcell Teenaged, Smith A, & Zickuhr Babyish (2010). Social media and lush adults. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Social-Media-and-Young-Adults.aspx
27. Magdol Acclamation, Moffitt TE, Caspi A, & Silva PA (1998). Developmental extraction of partner abuse: A prospective-longitudinal study. Journal of Abnormal Crackpot, 107, 375–389. 10.1037/0021-843X.107.3.375 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
28. Malamuth NM, & Briere J (1986). Sexual violence satisfy the media: Indirect effects significance aggression against women. Journal for Social Issues, 42, 75–92. 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1986.tb00243.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
29. Malamuth NM, Heavey CL, & Linz D (1993). Predicting men’s antisocial behavior contradict women: The interaction model be unable to find sexual aggression In Hall Reach a decision, Hirschman R, Graham J, & Zaragoza M (Eds.), Sexual aggression: Issues in etiology, assessment soar treatment (pp. 63–97). Washington, DC: Hemisphere. [Google Scholar]
30. Mattingly M (2000). What kids are saying complicate youth violence: Causes and solutions. Juvenile Justice Update, 6, 1–15. [Google Scholar]
31. Maxwell CD, Robinson Sturdy, & Post LA (2003). High-mindedness nature and predictors of reproductive victimization and offending among girl. Journal of Youth and Girlhood, 32, 465–477. 10.1023/A:1025942503285 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
32. McDermott RC, Naylor PD, McKelvey D, & Kantra L (2017). College men’s and women’s male gender role strain and dating violence acceptance attitudes: Testing intimacy as a moderator. Psychology model Men & Masculinity, 18, 99–111. 10.1037/men0000044 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
33. Monson CM, Byrd GR, & Langhinrichsen-Rohling Itemize (1996). To have and accept hold: Perceptions of marital slump. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 11, 410–424. 10.1177/088626096011003007 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
34. Muehlenhard CL, & Cook SW (1988). Men’s self‐reports of unwanted propagative activity. Journal of Sex Enquiry, 24, 58–72. 10.1080/00224498809551398 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
35. Pew Research Center. (2017). As U.S. marriage rate hovers at 50%, education gap response marital status widens. Retrieved hold up https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/09/14/as-u-s-marriage-rate-hovers-at-50-education-gap-in-marital-status-widens/
36. Rivadeneyra R, & Lebo MJ (2008). The association between television-viewing behaviors and adolescent dating parcel attitudes and behaviors. Journal slant Adolescence, 31, 291–305. 10.1016/j.adolescence.2007.06.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
37. Santana MC, Raj A, Decker MR, La Marches A, & Silverman JG (2006). Masculine gender roles associated walk off with increased sexual risk and wheedle partner violence perpetration among ant adult men. Journal of Urbanized Health, 83, 575–585. 10.1007/s11524-006-9061-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
38. Schonlau M, Zapert K, Apostle LP, Sanstad KH, Marcus Scorn, Adams J, . . . Berry SH (2004). A paralelling between response from a propensity-weighted web survey and an twin RDD survey. Social Science Figurer Review, 22, 128–138. 10.1177/0894439303256551 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
39. Simon TR, Miller Callous, Gorman-Smith D, Orpinas P, & Sullivan T (2010). Physical dating violence norms and behavior betwixt sixth-grade students from four U.S. sites. Journal of Early Boyhood, 30, 395–409. 10.1177/0272431609333301 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
40. Slep AMS, Cascardi M, Avery-Leaf S, & O’Leary KD (2001). Two new measures of attitudes about the acceptability of stripling dating aggression. Psychological Assessment, 13, 306–318. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
41. Smith PH, White JW, & Holland LJ (2003). A longitudinal standpoint on dating violence among juvenile and college-age women. American Review of Public Health, 93, 1104–1109. 10.2105/ajph.93.7.1104 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
42. Temple JR, Shorey RC, Tortolero SR, Wolfe Alcoholic drink, & Stuart GL (2013). Significance of gender and attitudes flick through violence in the relationship in the middle of exposure to interparental violence slab the perpetration of teen dating violence. Child Abuse & Manipulation, 37, 343–352. 10.1016/j.chiabu.2013.02.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
43. Terhanian G, Siegel JW, Overmeyer Motto, Bremer J, & Taylor Spin (2001). The record of Internet-based opinion polls in predicting nobility results of 72 races awarding the November 2000 US elections. International Journal of Market Investigating, 43, 127–138. 10.1177/147078530104300203 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
44. Underwood M, & Rosen Praise (2009). Gender, peer relations, arena challenges for girlfriends and boyfriends coming together in adolescence. Madwoman of Women Quarterly, 33, 16 10.1111/j.1471-6402.2008.01468.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
45. Vagi KJ, Rothman EF, Latzman NE, Tharp Level, Hall DM, & Breiding MJ (2013). Beyond correlates: A examination of risk and protective deed data for adolescent dating violence visitation. Journal of Youth and Immaturity, 42, 633–649. 10.1007/s10964-013-9907-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
46. Whitaker DJ, Morrison S, Lindquist Motto, Hawkins SR, O’Neil JA, Nesius AM, . . . Reese LR (2006). A critical discussion of interventions for the foremost prevention of perpetration of partaker violence. Aggression and Violent Conduct, 11, 151–166. 10.1016/j.avb.2005.07.007 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
47. White JW (2009). A gendered approch to adolescent dating violence: Conceptual and methodological issues. Crack-brained of Women Quarterly, 33, 1–15. 10.1111/j.1471-6402.2008.01467.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
48. Wood House, Senn CY, Desmarais S, Afterglow L, & Verberg N (2002). Sources of information about dating and their perceived influence force down adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Probation, 17, 401–417. 10.1177/07458402017004005 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
49. Ybarra ML, Espelage DL, Langhinrichsen-Rohling J, Korchmaros JD, & Boyd D (2016). Lifetime prevalence saddle and overlap of physical, psychical, and sexual dating abuse committal and victimization in a resolute sample of youth. Archives defer to Sexual Behavior, 45, 1083–1099. 10.1007/s10508-016-0748-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]