Dating violence among college students: the risk and protective factors.

Article

Dating Violence Among College Students: The Risk and Protective Factors

TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE 2014, Vol. 15(4) 283-296 ª The Author(s) 2014 Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1524838014521321 tva.sagepub.com

Catherine Kaukinen1

Abstract The research review synthesizes the knowledge base on risk and protective factors for dating violence while highlighting its relevance to violence against college women. In particular, the review highlights the personal, family, relationship, and behavioral factors that heighten the risk of dating violence victimization and perpetration while also noting the methodological limitations of the current body of empirical research and identifying directions for future academic work. Researchers have identified the correlation between risky health and behavioral factors and dating violence, most often modeling these as part of the etiology of dating violence among college students. Less often have scholars explored these as co-occurring risk factors. This approach to dating violence may be used to develop meaningful and impactful interventions to reduce the incidence and prevalence of college dating violence while also addressing the other health risk behaviors that impact academic success and place students’ well-being at risk. Keywords dating violence, risk and protective factors, health and behavioral risks

intimate relationships, the nature of college intimate relationships is associated with dating violence. Academic Engagement: There is a clear paucity in the literature on the association between college dating violence and academic engagement. Students’ experiences as victims likely increase the risk of academic disengagement, dropping classes, academic failure, and school withdrawal. Perpetrators may engage in a host of behaviors that prevent victims from fully engaging in college leading to negative academic outcomes. Protective Factors: Perceptions of the availability of social support may serve to buffer the relationship between victimization and psychological outcomes. Social support, as measured by parental attachments, the receipt of support from family, and spirituality reduces the risk of dating violence victimization.

Major Findings on College Dating Violence Risk and Protective Factors Gender: There are important gender differences in the risk for, nature, and dynamic of dating violence victimization and perpetration. Violence in the Family of Origin: Childhood exposure to violence is a risk factor for dating violence. This may be particularly impactful for women and their experiences with victimization. Emotional States and Mental Health: Negative emotional states and mental health, particularly, anger, anxiety, and depression, are associated with dating violence. There are also a number of consequential mental health outcomes associated with dating violence victimization and offending. Substance Use and Abuse: Drug and alcohol reduce the ability to resist unwanted physical or sexual advances and/ or may prevent a victim from being able to interpret warning cues of a potential assault. Alternatively, alcohol and drug use may be viewed as maladaptive coping mechanisms for those dealing with the aftermath of violence. Sexual Risk Taking: Sexual risk taking is associated with women’s power, decision making, and autonomy, shaping the risk for dating violence. The nature of sexual intimacy, including casual sexual relationships, is associated with dating violence victimization. Nature of Intimate Relationships: Given differences in the level of commitment, intimacy, and fidelity across

Key Points of the Research Review Highlights the dating violence research including empirical work on the personal, family, and relationship characteristics 1

School of Public Affairs, University of Colorado Colorado Springs, Colorado Springs, CO, USA

Corresponding Author: Catherine Kaukinen, School of Public Affairs, University of Colorado Colorado Springs, 1420 Austin Bluffs Parkway, Colorado Springs, CO 80918, USA. Email: [email protected]

Downloaded from tva.sagepub.com at University of Manchester Library on January 3, 2015

284

TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE 15(4)

that heighten the risk for violence, the protective factors that buffer risk, and more recently co-occurring health risks. Although scholars have examined the risk and protective factors for college dating violence, less often have researchers placed dating violence within the larger continuum of health risk behaviors. These include but are not limited to sexual risk taking, substance abuse, depression, and academic engagement. These behavioral and health risks are both interrelated and preventable. Scholarly research needs to inform university and college health and mental health providers so they may best identify the treatment needs of victims and offenders with diverse cooccurring problems.

Introduction The goal of this research review is to synthesize the literature on the risk and protective factors for college dating violence, highlight the limitations of the knowledge reviewed, and explore the health and behavioral risk factors that co-occur among college students experiencing dating violence. The research on dating violence has shed much light on the understanding of the nature, context, and dynamic of college dating violence. Estimates of dating violence among college students range from 10% to 50% (Amar & Gennaro, 2005; Barrick, Krebs, & Lindquist, 2013; Kaukinen, Gover, & Hartman, 2012; Nabors, Dietz, & Jasinski, 2006). Scholars have clearly shown that experiencing violence and unhealthy relationships have negative consequences on health and well-being, including physical injury, depression, low self-esteem, and anxiety disorders (Carlson, McNutt, & Choi, 2003; Kaura & Lohman, 2007; Kendra, Bell, & Guimond, 2013; Straight, Harper, & Arias, 2003). The college dating violence literature includes empirical work on the personal, family, and relationship characteristics that heighten the risk of violence, the protective factors that buffer risk, and more recently co-occurring health and behavioral risk factors. College students are particularly vulnerable to dating violence because many are involved in their first serious romantic relationship during these formable years. Given that many college students are new to dating relationships, they are likely limited in their repertoire of communication and relationship skills (Fredlanda et al., 2005). At the same time, autonomy from parental authority, sexual intimacy, and other health risk behaviors likely shape the continuum of violence within and across intimate relationships. College dating violence researchers have clearly identified the correlation between risky health and behavioral factors (i.e., drinking, drug use, mental health, sexual risk taking, violence, and academic disengagement) and dating violence among college students (Gidycz, Warkentin, & Orchowski, 2007; Gover, Kaukinen, & Fox, 2008; Temple, Shorey, Fite, Stuart, & Le, 2013). Yet, cross-sectional studies most often assume that risk taking is part of the etiology of dating violence among college students and less often conceptualized these as co-occurring risk factors. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC; 2009) has identified the health behaviors

that contribute substantially to death and disability among young people. These include, but are not limited to, sexual risk taking, substance abuse, depression, academic disengagement, and violence. As the CDC notes, these behaviors are most often set during childhood and persist into young adulthood. These lifestyle decisions are contributors to a host of health, educational, and social problems among young people. As Foshee, Linder, MacDougall, and Bangdiwala (2001) and Champion et al. (2004) note, dating violence is an important social problem requiring a public health approach to prevention. This points to the need to synthesize the literature on risk and protective factors for dating violence and explore how these factors also shape the severity and progression of violence. These in turn may be used to develop meaningful interventions to reduce the incidence, prevalence, and impact of dating violence.

Review Strategy The scholarly literature included in this research review was identified using a variety of library and online databases. These included Sociological Abstracts, PsycInfo, ProQuest Criminal Justice, Social Science Index, and Google Scholar. The search words included, but were not limited to, combinations of ‘‘dating violence,’’ ‘‘intimate partner violence,’’ ‘‘college students,’’ ‘‘risk and protective factors,’’ ‘‘causes,’’ ‘‘health risk behaviors,’’ ‘‘co-occurring risk factors,’’ ‘‘risky behaviors,’’ ‘‘sexual risk taking,’’ ‘‘substance use,’’ ‘‘drinking,’’ ‘‘drug use,’’ and ‘‘academic engagement and failure.’’ Articles were reviewed and in numerous cases the bibliographies and references listed in key articles that had been identified were used. The research review synthesizes the knowledge base on risk and protective factors for college dating violence while highlighting its relevance to gender-based violence against women.

The Literature on Risk and Protective Factors Research within the college dating violence literature has examined individual, family, situational, relationship, and behavioral health variables that likely shape the progression and trajectories of dating violence. Much of the previous research has focused on the factors that increase one’s involvement in violent intimate relationships and the identification of the characteristics and actions that buffer victimization risk utilizing convenience samples and cross-sectional research designs (Gover et al., 2008; Hammock & O’Hearn, 2002). Less often have scholars used longitudinal research to fully investigate the context and dynamics in which violence and other health risk behaviors occur in college-age relationships and the progression of dating violence within and across relationships. Research on the severity and trajectories of dating violence behaviors is limited to a small number of studies that have primarily focused on perpetration behaviors among high school students (see Follingstad, Bradley, Helff, & Laughlin, 2002). For example, Foshee et al. (2008) have explored the role of gender, race, and neighborhood disadvantage in distinguishing


Kaukinen

285

between the factors associated with moderate and severe dating violence perpetration patterns. Their work also examined how the impact of destructive communication skills, acceptance of dating abuse, gender stereotyping, and exposure to family violence significantly mediate those associations. Although different perpetration patterns and pathways has contributed substantially to the literature less often have researchers examined the progression, stability, and trajectories of victimization or violent relationships and how health risk behaviors are likely involved in a reciprocal relationship among college students. For the current research review, the factors examined include those that have been shown to have a consistent association with dating violence and that are also part of a wider set of health risk behaviors identified by the CDC (2009). The review also considers those factors that are most amenable to the development of college-based dating violence education, prevention, and interventions aimed at reducing the incidence and impact of violence. Gender and the nature and context of dating violence. Scholarship on gender includes research on the extent and nature of dating violence by and against male and female students and the risk and protective factors for young men and women. Gender differences in victimization and perpetration offer an indication of the context and meaning of violence among college students. Although early studies conducted during the 1980s reported higher rates of victimization for young women and perpetration for young men (Makepeace, 1981), others studies reported similar rates of perpetration among men and women (Follette & Alexander, 1992), and more recent work notes higher perpetration rates among women and victimization rates higher among men (Cercone, Beach, & Arias, 2005; Foshee & Matthew, 2007; Kaukinen et al., 2012). This points to the need to explore the meaning of violence and the context in which young people engage in dating violence. Kaukinen, Gover, and Hartman (2012) along with other researchers (Cercone et al., 2005; Foshee, Bauman, Linder, Rice, & Wilcher, 2007) have shown that the nature of college dating violence is such that both young men and women are the victims and perpetrators of dating violence and that this violence often occurs within the context of a mutually violent relationship. Herrera, Wierserma, and Cleveland (2008) propose that women’s use of violence is influenced by their experience as victims. They suggest that women with a higher propensity for violence and aggression are significantly more likely to act on those tendencies when they are in a relationship with a violent male partner. Interestingly, they found that women who had violent tendencies but were with nonviolent partners did not act on these tendencies. They conclude that young women’s use of violence is conditioned on being with a violent partner. Research by Harned (2001) has also identified differences in both the types and outcomes of violence experienced by young men and women. She found that women are more often the victims of sexual violence. In contrast, she found that men more often experience psychological victimization. With respect to physical violence, her work points to similarities in the risk

of victimization for men and women. She also found that women were no more likely than men to use physical violence in self-defense. She concludes that while both men and women experience similar acts of violence and aggression by their partner, the violence perpetrated against women by men is likely to be much more severe and potentially injurious. In further explorations of gender differences, and drawing on a sample of 17- and 18-year-olds from the Safe Dates Project, Foshee, Bauman, Linder, Rice, and Wilcher (2007) have identified the use of offensive and self-defensive dating violence by examining the contextual nature of violence perpetration. In their research, they identified the types of perpetration used by young men and women and argue that these are distinguished by motives, precipitating events, and the abuse history of the partners. They note that two types of female perpetration occur in the context of young women’s reporting using violence against a boyfriend who had first used violence and abuse. They conclude that these female victims were using violence primarily in self-defense. In contrast, they also found two types of female perpetration in which young women use violence as the primary aggressor out of anger or frustration. For men, they found that the pattern was much less discernable, with many men noting using violence in attempts to prevent the escalation of their female partner’s violence and the remainder noting their violence was out of anger and frustration. In exploring college women’s use of violence, Leisring (2013) found that anger, retaliation for emotional hurt, to get her intimate partner’s attention, jealousy, and stress were all common reasons given for perpetrating dating violence. Importantly, this research identified few women who indicated that their violent behavior was motivated by self-defense. Shorey et al. (2012) have also found that for some perpetrators, psychological abuse may serve as a form of emotion regulation. Scholarly work on the progression, trajectories, and pathways of dating violence is limited to a small number of studies that have primarily focused on the factors associated with moderate and severe dating violence perpetration patterns among primarily adolescents. Less often have researchers explored the psychological etiology of victimization careers or patterns of reciprocal relationship violence among college students. For example, Monson and Langhinrichsen-Rohling (2002) examined violent perpetrator typologies to determine whether there are differences in the context and motivations for violence perpetration for men and women. They identified three types of perpetrators, relationship-only, generally violent/antisocial, and histrionic/preoccupied types. With respect to gender, young men and women were equally likely to be classified as relationship-only perpetrators. In contrast, more women were identified within the histrionic/preoccupied perpetrator group, whereas men were identified more often within the generally violent/antisocial perpetrator group. Women are also likely to experience continuity in their victimization experiences of dating violence. Research by Smith, White, and Holland (2003) found that young women who had experienced physical violence during adolescence were at greater risk during their freshmen year for subsequent


286


victimization. More importantly, this heightened risk continued throughout their college careers as compared to those young women who had not been victimized during high school. They also conclude that victimizations in adolescents are more significantly associated with college victimization than that of childhood victimization. This points to the importance of proximal risk factors for dating violence and further examinations of the continuity of victimization. There is similar work on the continuity of young men’s experience with dating violence. Research by Gidycz, Warkentin, and Orchowski (2007) is one of a handful of prospective, longitudinal studies among college students. They found that previous perpetration of verbal, physical, or sexual aggression was predictive of subsequent dating violence. Most notably, they found that men with a history of dating violence perpetration were over 13 times more likely to engage in dating violence during the follow-up than men without a history of dating violence perpetration. They conclude that this demonstrates the unusually high likelihood for this type of violent behavior to reoccur over time with continuing and new intimate partners. More importantly, past perpetration was the only predictor of subsequent dating violence perpetration. Within the dating violence literature, researchers (Chase, Treboux, & O’Leary, 2002; Gover et al., 2008; Malik, Sorenson, & Aneshensel, 1997) have also pointed to gendered differences in the correlates of dating violence. Throughout the following research review, gender differences in the association between the risk and protective factors for dating violence are identified and explored. Violence in the family of origin and dating violence. Childhood exposure to violence is a frequently studied risk factor for dating violence (Gover et al., 2008; Jennings, Park, Tomsich, Gover, & Akers, 2011; Leisring, 2013; Milletich, Kelley, Doane, & Pearson, 2010). Both witnessing interparental violence and experiencing child abuse and maltreatment increase the likelihood of both victimization and offending within intimate college relationships (Langhinrichsen-Rohling, Hankla, & Stormberg, 2004). Consistent with some of the first research on intergenerational transmission of violence (Marshall & Rose, 1988), Smith et al. (2003) conclude that experiencing or witnessing violence during childhood can trigger a ‘‘cycle of violence’’ that may last across the life course, creating a continuity of intimate partner violence across continuing and new intimate partners. Some research on the impact of child abuse on intimate partner violence suggests that it may not operate the same for young men and women. For example, Doumas, Margolin, and John (1994) and Stith, Rosen, Middleton, Busch, Lundeberg, and Carlton (2000) point to a stronger association between child abuse and dating violence for men. This may be particularly true with respect to dating violence perpetration (Alexander, Moore, & Alexander, 1991; Marshall & Rose, 1988). Research on college students by Milletich, Kelley, Doane, and Pearson (2010) and Gover, Kaukinen, and Fox (2008) found that for young women, experiences of child abuse

increase the risk of both dating violence victimization and offending and in particular mutual violence. Work by Smith et al. (2003) using longitudinal data across all 4 years of college found that, among women, those most likely to be physically or sexually victimized or covictimized were those with a history of both childhood victimization and physical victimization in adolescence. Their work provides support for the cycle of violence. Work by Leisring (2013) has further explored the way in which child abuse impacts young women and translates into their experiences with dating violence perpetration. Her work finds that women’s experiences with child abuse are directly associated with their perpetration of physical and psychological dating violence. She also finds that the relationship is indirect through experiences with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and anger arousal. With respect to witnessing violence in the family of origin, academic work (Franklin & Kercher, 2012; Milletich et al., 2010) points to a connection to later experiences of dating violence. Black, Sussman, and Unger (2010) suggest that within the intergenerational transmission of violence thesis, specific modeling occurs when individuals reproduce the particular types of family violence and abuse to which they were exposed. They found support for this type of modeling of parental behavior finding that witnessing parents use of interparental physical violence was associated with the use of physical violence against their own dating and intimate partners. Black et al. (2010) conclude that given the family is a key socializing institution in the lives of adolescents and young adults, witnessing interparental violence has a significant role to play in dating violence victimization and perpetrations in emerging adult intimate relationships. Franklin and Kercher (2012) also suggest that for those children who witness violence between parents they likely model this behavior in their own intimate relationships because they have learned that it is an acceptable means for conflict resolution. Milletich et al. (2010) found that for female students exposed to (and who witnessed) mother to father violence, this increased their risk of dating violence perpetration. Similarly, Marshall and Rose (1988) found support for the intergenerational transmission of violence hypothesis among men, finding that witnessing father to mother violence and experiencing childhood psychological abuse were associated with the extent of dating aggression. Substance use and dating violence. The use and abuse of alcohol and drugs are sometimes viewed as part of a larger group of behavioral and health risk behaviors that are associated with multiple forms of violence, including dating violence (Howard & Wang, 2003; Lormand et al.; 2013; Swahn, Bossarte, Palmiera, Yaoa, & Van Dulmend, 2013; Swahn et al., 2008; Temple et al., 2013). While these scholars note that although there is a lack of conclusive evidence pointing to whether health risk behaviors represent a single behavioral syndrome or a multidimensional structure, there is at the same time growing evidence pointing to the co-occurrence of multiple problem behaviors including dating violence. Within the dating violence literature, alcohol and drug use are often examined within the


Kaukinen

287

etiology of dating violence among adolescents and college students (Chase et al., 2002; Cleveland, Herrera, & Stuewig, 2003; Coker et al., 2000; Silverman, Raj, Mucci, & Hathaway, 2001). Some researchers suggest that (Gidycz et al., 2007) using drugs and alcohol increases the likelihood of dating violence because the use of such substances may impact a victim’s ability to resist unwanted physical or sexual advances and/or prevents a victim from being able to interpret warning cues of a potential assault. The lack of longitudinal data within research on college dating violence has made it difficult to assert this causal relationship. Contemporary research on younger cohorts of students, including longitudinal data sets, may help to establish a causal mechanism. Drawing on longitudinal data on 9th and 10th graders, Temple, Shorey, Fite, Stuart, and Le (2013) examined whether alcohol use and exposure to parental violence predicted of physical dating violence perpetration. Using structural equation modeling they found that controlling for baseline dating violence, alcohol use was significantly associated with subsequent dating violence perpetration. It is also important to note that their findings indicated a continuity of both substance use and dating violence over time. The authors suggest that their findings point to the importance of implementing and continuing substance abuse prevention programs with younger adolescents and continuing these programs into colleges and universities. At the same time, the continuity of dating violence demonstrates the difficulties college-based education will have in reversing a pattern of unhealthy behaviors including dating violence and substance abuse. Research by Gidycz et al. (2007) finds that prior alcohol use is not significantly associated with dating violence perpetration, rather, they suggest that more proximal indices of drinking such as drinking behavior prior to the aggressive acts is likely to have a greater statistical association. They also point out that the wider body of evidence supporting a causal link between alcohol use and abuse and dating violence has been mixed at best. As with the continuity of violence over time, they found a strong association between drinking across data collection waves. This further points to the need to explore the way in which drinking and dating violence co-occur over time and how they both present unique and combined health risks to college students. With respect to how substance use operates within an understanding of the etiology of dating violence, substance use, and abuse may be thought of as situational inducements (Gidycz et al., 2007) within intimate relationships, dating conflict, and other potentially violent situations. They may serve to alter an individual’s response to conflict. Research by Koss and Cleveland (1997) conceptualize alcohol as part of the etiology of dating violence perpetration. They suggest that alcohol provides perpetrators with a justification or excuse to engage in violent behavior, thereby diverting responsibility. Similarly, Abbey (2011, 2002) notes that the existence of negative stereotypes about women who both drink alcohol, as promiscuous and suitable targets, and the negative stigma regarding sexually active women are used by sexually violent men to justify both their own violent behaviors and their target selection. Research on alcohol and drugs within the etiology of dating violence also

suggests that they likely reduce an individual’s ability to interpret warning cues of a potential assault (Marx, VanWie, & Gross, 1996). Research by Roudsari, Leahy, and Walters (2009) using a college sample of high-risk heavy drinkers considers alcohol use as an important risk factor for violent behaviors among both victims and offenders. They found that peak blood alcohol concentration was associated with a higher level of victims’ and offenders’ verbal–emotional abuse scores and threatening abuse scores. Alternatively, there is an established literature that alcohol and drug use are maladaptive coping mechanisms for those dealing with the aftermath and mental health consequences of violence (Flannery, Singer, Williams, & Castro, 1998; Saunders, Kilpatrick, Hanson, Resnick, & Walker, 1999). Victims of violence may use and abuse alcohol and drugs as a form of self-medication, in an attempt to cope with the trauma of violence, and alleviate the symptoms associated with victimization, thereby increasing feelings of mastery and control (Saunders et al., 1999). Lormand et al.’s (2013) work has found that experiencing various forms of dating violence victimization is associated with an increased likelihood of risk behaviors, including sexual risk taking and substance abuse. They suggest that drug and alcohol use may be part of a coping mechanism for those in a violent relationship but that substance abuse may also increase the likelihood that a more potentially dangerous, violent outcome may occur. They also conclude that dating violence and these health risk behaviors clearly cluster together placing young women at risk. Selfmedication may actually impede the acquisition of healthy coping skills and interfere with personal relationships, along with social and academic functioning. Given the reliance on cross-sectional samples, establishing a causal versus consequential relationship will continue to be difficult. This also points to the importance of viewing substance abuse as part of a wider set of health risk behaviors, particularly for colleges and universities that are working to develop interventions to help at-risk students who present in a variety of academic and therapeutic settings. There may also be important gender differences in the connection between substance use and dating violence. Howard and Wang’s (2003) empirical work broadened the profile of at-risk females and examined dating violence, emotional health, sexual behavior, and substance use within a cluster of risk factors. Their findings suggest that females who use and abuse drugs place themselves at greater risk of violence in their dating relationships. Alternatively, they also suggest that while there is a pattern of risky practices among female victims of dating violence, this may indicate something more than a clustering of risk behaviors. They suggest that for some young women, health risk behaviors and relationship decision making may be reflective of decisions made in the context of sadness and hopelessness. Emotional states, negative mental health, and dating violence. Two differing perspectives shape the interpretation of the association between dating violence and negative emotional states and


288


symptomatic mental health among college men and women. First, some scholars (Follingstad, Bradley, Laughlin, & Burke, 1999; Follingstad et al., 2002; Kendra et al., 2013) suggest that symptomatic mental health may be a precursor to dating violence victimization and offending. Negative mental health, as measured by anger, self-esteem, anxiety, and depression, has been included as part of the etiology of both dating violence victimization and perpetration. In contrast, a second literature (Coker, Smith, McKeown, & King, 2000; Kaura & Lohman, 2007; Rutter, Weatherill, Taft, & Orazem, 2012; Straight et al., 2003) suggests that there are a number of consequential mental health outcomes associated with dating violence victimization and offending. Swahn, Bossarte, Palmiera, Yaoa, and Van Dulmend (2013) have explored the relationship between a wide range of risk factors and a variety of experiences with violence. They found that multiple forms of violence, including dating violence, were highly associated with negative impacts on mental health and substance use risk behaviors, including, sadness, early alcohol use, binge drinking, drug use, and suicide attempts. Work on negative emotional states and symptomatic mental health as risk factors for dating violence includes research by Follingstad, Bradley, Laughlin, and Burke (1999) who specifically looked at the predictive role of emotional states on the risk of dating violence. They found that perpetrators of dating violence were more likely to express anger, be more irrational and impulsive in their behaviors and beliefs, and have more difficulty controlling their anger. They suggest that these irrational behaviors are important for distinguishing among violent and nonviolent students. They note that the need to control an intimate partner and expressing anger are prominent among those who not only use physical force but also do so on a more frequent basis. They conclude that the need for perpetrators to achieve their partner’s compliance and conformity is by far the most important variable for distinguishing not only between perpetrators and nonperpetrators but also between those using higher versus lower levels of physical force severity. Other research has focused on emotional regulation and impulse control. In research using couple-level data, Follingstad, Bradley, Helff, and Laughlin (2002) examined the psychological etiology of dating violence, specifically the relationship between anxious relationship attachment, angry temperament, controlling behaviors, and dating violence severity. They hypothesized and found that anxious attachment and angry temperament influence the need for attempts to control one’s partner, which, in turn, lead to the actual use of force. Their findings suggest that this psychological pathway largely mediates the frequency and severity of dating violence. In similar work, Kendra, Bell, and Guimond (2013) suggest that child abuse is indirectly associated with female-perpetrated intimate partner violence via PTSD symptoms and anger. Using a sample of female college undergraduate students they found that child abuse was directly associated with female-perpetrated physical and psychological dating violence and indirectly associated with female-perpetrated physical and psychological dating violence via PTSD symptoms and anger arousal.

Although limited, there is a small but growing literature on dating violence victimization stemming from mental health sequelae. For example, work by Taylor, Wamser, Welch, and Nanney (2012) has looked at the role of protective factors and in particular participation in athletics and self-esteem. Drawing on data from a sample of African American students, they examined self-esteem, including the elments of social acceptance, competence, and self-confidence within the etiology of victimization. They found that self-esteem, specifically, the competence component, serves to mediate the relationship between young women’s participation in athletics and victimization. This points to the importance of both protective factors, such as participation in sports, and self-esteem in protecting young women from the risk of victimization. In a systematic review by Bundock et al. (2013), they found evidence for a connection between eating disorders and a high prevalence and lifetime risk of intimate partner violence victimization. Their findings also suggest the importance of experiences with child abuse in examining the association between eating disorders and subsequent dating violence. More often negative emotional states are viewed as health consequences of dating violence (Coker, Smith, McKeown, & King, 2000; Kaura & Lohman, 2007; Straight et al., 2003; Rutter et al., 2012). The wider research on intimate partner violence has clearly demonstrated a number of psychological outcomes including depression and low self-esteem (Coker, Smith, McKeown, & King, 2000). Specific to dating violence, victims are at higher risk of a variety of mental health outcomes, including depression, PTSD, anxiety, negative self-perceptions, and other internalizing problems (Campbell, Sullivan, & Davidson, 1995; Kaura & Lohman, 2007). With respect to anger, work by Rutter, Weatherill, Taft, and Orazem (2012) has conceptualized mental health as an outcome of dating violence victimization. They found that men’s experiences with physical and psychological victimization were more strongly associated with different forms of anger as compared to the anger outcomes for women. Sexual risk taking and dating violence. Sexual risk taking is a health risk factor that is now taking a prominent role within the literature on dating violence. Some scholars suggest that recent sexual activity with respect to the number of sexual partners increases the risk of involvement in a violent dating relationship (Cleveland et al., 2003). When measured as the age of sexual onset and the total number of sexual partners, Bergman (1992) found a significant association with dating violence victimization among college students. Research has also found that the number of sexual partners one has had during the prior 3 months increased one’s risk of involvement in a violent dating relationship (Gover, 2004). Similarly, a higher number of sexual partners is significantly associated with dating violence perpetration among males (Cleveland et al., 2003). A second and alterative way to view sexual risk taking relates to women’s sexual power, decision making, and autonomy within intimate relationships. This may include a variety of elements including day-to-day decision making, relationship


Kaukinen

289

control, and contraceptive autonomy and control. Purdie, Abbey, and Jacques-Tiura (2010) point to the need to integrate other measures of sexual risk into examinations of dating violence dynamics. They point out that violent and abusive relationships are associated with decreased contraceptive use and physically and sexually abusive men are less likely to engage in monogamy. Both of these factors place women at risk. Purdie et al. (2010) therefore conclude that the power dynamics around contraception are important elements of sexual risk taking and related to dating violence risk. In their own empirical work, they found significant differences in the acceptance of verbal pressure, positive attitudes about casual sex, frequency of sexual intercourse, and the resulting physical injuries of dating violence. Buelna, Ulloa, Emilio, and Ulibarri’s research (2009) uses the Sexual Relationship Power Scale (Pulerwitz, Gortmaker, & DeJong, 2000) to tap relationship control and decision-making dominance within intimate relationships. They found that higher levels of sexual relationship power were negatively correlated with experiences of dating violence. In their research, they also found that young women who had lower sexual relationship power were more likely to have been treated for a sexually transmitted infection. Their findings point to the need for the inclusion of women’s empowerment and contraceptive autonomy within dating violence prevention and education. They also point to the need for prevention interventions that target men to begin changing sexist attitudes and negative beliefs about women’s roles in relationships. A third way to conceptualize sexual risk taking relates to the nature of sexual intimacy and its associated risk. Dating violence researchers are just beginning to explore the implications of casual sexual relationships (i.e., ‘‘romantic friendships,’’ ‘‘hooking up,’’ ‘‘friends with benefits,’’ ‘‘sex buddies,’’ ‘‘booty calls,’’ ‘‘one night stands,’’ etc.) on the incidence, nature, and continuum of dating violence (for a discussion of the meaning youth attach to these relationship terms see Fredlanda et al., 2005). These relationships, and their associated health risks, have implications for the risk of violence, given these types of relationships are more often ambiguous (Bogle, 2008) and are likely to have heightened levels of sexual infidelity and jealousy (Garcia & Reiber, 2008). Research suggests that more than half of all sexually active adolescents have had sexual partners outside a dating relationship (Garcia & Reiber, 2008; Manning, Giordano, & Longmore, 2006). More importantly, Manning, Giordano, and Longmore (2006) found that approximately one third of those engaged in these nondating sexual relationships hold hopes or expectations that the relationship will transition into a more conventional dating relationship. These expectations, combined with the ambiguity in these relationships, are likely associated with a high level of sexual jealousy and frustration, placing youth at risk of violence. Nature of intimate relationships and dating violence. Past research on dating violence has differentiated between exclusive and casual daters. This work notes that given the differences in the level of commitment, intimacy, and fidelity across intimate relationships, it is likely that the nature of college intimate

relationships is associated with dating violence (Bethke & DeJoy, 1993; Kaukinen et al., 2012). For example, some academic work suggests that dating violence risk varies according to a couple’s relationship status, with the most severe forms of violence occurring more frequently in exclusive relationships (Bethke & DeJoy, 1993). Some work indicates that the frequency and acceptance of violence are likely to occur after commitments have been established and are used to maintain the relationship and control the other partner (Bethke & DeJoy, 1993). Alternatively, the presence of violence early in a relationship may persist in those relationships that continue. That is, individuals use violence and control to create and maintain a committed relationship. Additionally, committed relationships may have higher levels of dating violence because those who choose to remain in these violent relationships are likely to experience increasing levels of violence and control over time. Sexual orientation and dating violence. Academic work on lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered, intersex, and questioning (LGBTIQ) college students is limited and a relatively new area of study, yet scholars have begun to explore the presence of violence in LGBTIQ relationships (primarily among noncollege samples). Work by Halpern, Young, Waller, Martin, and Kupper (2004) was one of the first national prevalence estimates of psychological and physical violence in same-sex relationships among adolescents. They found that almost one quarter of adolescents with same-sex dating partners reported some type violent victimization and approximately 10% reported physical victimization. More recent work finds significantly higher rates of dating violence victimization among lesbian, gay, bisexual (LGB) youth (Barter, 2009; Dank, Lachman, Zweig, & Yahner, 2013), and some scholarship (Dank et al., 2013) also points to higher rates of dating violence perpetration than non-LGB youth. Research using a sample of college students (Porter & McQuiller Williams, 2013) found that LGB students were at greater risk of all types of dating violence. In particular, they found they were six times more likely to experience sexual violence, four times more likely to be the victim of physical violence, and three times more likely to experience psychological abuse than that of heterosexual students. Yet this work is limited by its failure to fully address the context and dynamics of violence in LGBTIQ relationships and did not include a sample of college students. Using a convenience sampling design, Freedner, Freed, Yang, and Austin (2002) also found that the overall prevalence of dating violence among LGBTIQ adolescents is similar to that of heterosexuals, yet they also found that bisexual men and women reported higher rates of abuse. They hypothesize that threats of outing, such as threatening to reveal lesbian or gay identity to family, friends, expartners, or employers, are particularly high for bisexual adolescents. In an exploration of the motivations and dynamic underlying dating violence among lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered (LGBT) students, Edwards and Sylaska (2013) have assessed how elements of minority experience and minority


290


stress are associated with physical, sexual, and psychological intimate partner violence perpetration among LGBT college students. In particular, they examined how sexual orientationrelated victimization, sexual minority stigma, internalized homonegativity, and sexual identity concealment shaped the risk of perpetration. Their findings suggest that the perpetration of psychological abuse is unrelated to minority experience and stress variables. In contrast, they found that internalized homonegativity is associated with both physical and sexual perpetration and that identity concealment is related to physical violence perpetration. Academic engagement and dating violence. There is a clear paucity in the literature on the association between dating violence and academic engagement among college students. Mason and Smithey (2012) have explored the role of academic demands and expectations that are a cause of stress among college students but less often researched within the etiology of college dating violence. They anticipated a positive relationship between time involved in academic work and increased risk of dating violence, yet their results indicate there may be a negative relationship between the two variables. They suggest that it is hours spent engaged in academic activities that may decrease opportunity for dating violence. Using data on young adults from the Rochester Youth Development Study, Smith, Park, Ireland, Elwyn, and Thornberry (2013) examined the role of educational experiences in moderating the impact of child abuse on dating violence. Their findings indicate that the impact of child abuse and maltreatment is mediated by academic performance, specifically grade point average (GPA). They conclude that school GPA serves to protect abused children from later engagement in dating violence perpetration. There are important academic consequences associated with dating, peer, and other violent victimization (Banyard & Cross, 2008; Bergman, 1992; Espelage, Hong, Rao, & Low, 2013). Although research on college students is limited, earlier work by DeKeseredy and Schwartz (1998) points to a number of negative academic outcomes associated with dating violence among college students. Student’s experiences as victims likely increase the risk of academic disengagement, missing or dropping classes, academic failure, and school withdrawal. DeKeseredy and Schwartz (1998) suggest that perpetrators may engage in a host of behaviors that prevent victims from fully engaging in college, leading to negative academic outcomes. In the most recent empirical research, Jordan, Combs, and Smith (Forthcoming) draw on a sample of incoming freshmen to examine the association between sexual assault victimization and academic performance among college women. As compared to nonvictims, they find that women with prior experiences with sexual violence entered college with lower academic performance as measured by GPA. These young women also earned lower grades during freshmen year. Similarly, young women who were victimized during their first year experienced a negative impact on their academic performance. These findings point to the impact of prior victimization for

women entering college and the continuity of violence and academic consequences. Protective factors. Identifying and understanding the role of protective factors is equally as important as researching risk factors, providing direction for prevention and intervention. Generally, protective factors are studied less extensively as compared to risk factors. Many dating violence scholars have suggested that there is a notable lack of research identifying the protective factors that serve to prevent or buffer the risk of college dating violence victimization and perpetration and its aftermath (Vagi et al., 2013). In the review given subsequently, the limited research on college dating violence protective factors is explored. The review also highlights the larger public health literature on protective factors that buffer stressful life events. Research on protective factors although limited with respect to dating violence suggests that a number of factors will serve to buffer or moderate the impact. These include social support, family attachments, and spirituality. Research suggests that perceptions of availability of support may serve to buffer the relationship between victimization and psychological outcomes (McNally & Newman, 1999; Lopez & Heffer, 1998; Widom & Ames, 1994). Seeking help and the receipt of social support is argued to buffer the negative effects of many stressful life experiences and lead to positive posttrauma outcomes (Ullman, 1996). Folger and O’Dougherty Wright (2013) found that women with high levels of support from family reported experiencing lower levels of dating violence but only in the context of low levels of childhood maltreatment. They conclude that for those with severe histories of child abuse and maltreatment social support may not be a sufficient protective factor. An additional way to conceptualize access to social support is attachments to caring and loving family and friends (Gover et al., 2008). Research by Cleveland, Herrera, and Stuewig (2003) points to the importance of female attachments to mothers in reducing the risk of being a victim of dating violence. With respect to perpetration, Chapple and Hope (2003) have demonstrated the importance of parental attachments for both young men and young women. Scholarship on the importance of social support from friends includes work by Richards and Branch (2012) drawing on data from college students. They found that those students with higher levels of support were significantly less likely to both perpetrate dating violence and experience dating violence as a victim. Interestingly, when they explored this relationship across gender, they found that the buffering effect of social support was only significant for female students.

Discussion and Implications The research review presented earlier points to a number of conclusions regarding the factors associated with college dating violence. First, both men and women are at risk of involvement in dating violence as both perpetrators and victims, and their involvement in violent relationships is shaped by motives,


Kaukinen

291

precipitating events, and the abuse history of their partners. Second, violence in the family of origin heightens the risk of both dating violence perpetration and victimization in both continuing and new relationships, and the association between historic violence and subsequent dating violence differs for young men and women. Third, health and behavioral risk factors, including negative emotional states, symptomatic mental health, substance use, and sexual risk taking, are part of set of co-occurring risk factors that place young adults at risk of dating violence, which in turn have larger health implications and consequences for academic success. Fourth, among college students, expectations for monogamy, levels of sexual and physical intimacy, and the level of commitment are important factors shaping the meaning of intimate relationships. This in turn is likely to impact the level of sexual jealousy and the need for power and control by both men and women. Fifth, although limited in scope, research suggests that LGBT students are at greater risk of all types of dating violence as compared to heterosexual students. Sixth, although research is limited thus far, academic engagement likely serves as a protective factor for victims and as a potential barrier and threat for perpetrators attempting to control their relationship and intimate partner. Finally, social support from family, friends, and academic institutions serves to buffer the impact of victimization. These individuals and offices on campus service serve as important resources for victims, moderating the impact of prior victimization and experiences of child abuse on subsequent risk for violence within college intimate relationships. One of the most important directions for research and college dating violence education and prevention is explorations of the gendered nature of dating violence victimization and offending. This is important for the development of dating violence education, interventions, and outreach that are inclusive in their message, thereby reducing the risk of alienating young men within prevention educational settings. ‘‘Men as abusers, and women as victims,’’ based educational messages not only disengage men in classrooms where violence prevention education occurs, but they are inaccurate and disempower male victims from disclosing abuse. Given the co-occurrence of intimate partner violence and other health risks, it is imperative that clinical approaches address these interrelated issues and tailor interventions to victims most at risk for long-term health and behavioral consequences. It is also imperative that health and mental health providers on college campuses properly identify the treatment needs of victims with diverse co-occurring problems. Dating violence has implications for a host of educational outcomes with consequences for our students’ success and the university’s retention rates. A whole host of the other academic and nonacademic issues are currently part of orientations and educational programming (such as sexual harassment, sexual health, drinking, drug use, and academic misconduct). These other student risks cluster with dating violence. College campuses need to develop interventions that draw on the most recent scientific research and evidence in building on the protective factors for dating violence and related health and

behavioral risks. College campuses also need to be sure that their dating violence interventions recognize the impact of past experiences with violence in the family of origin and the continuity of violence both within new and continuing relationships. This points to the need for interventions that break the cycle of violence and by offering couples alternative conflict resolution strategies while promoting healthy relationships. The application of research reviews to policy initiatives offers the ability to inform the development of programs offered by colleges, campus-based health and social service providers, and community interventions to help reduce the risks and consequences of dating violence. Research has shown a relationship between sexual risk taking and dating violence among college students; it is clear that education and prevention needs to build on these findings and integrate discussions on women’s power, decision making, and relationship autonomy into primary prevention and relationship interventions. Given that a number of health risk behaviors are associated with violence, colleges should take a harm reduction approach that addresses these interrelated health risks. Many colleges offer presentations to sororities, fraternities, athletes, and students living on campus. These discussions focus on issues of campus safety, sexual assault, and problematic drinking. They could simultaneously focus on building healthy adolescent relationships, handling dating stressors, abuse of power and control in relationships, alcohol and drug use, and sexual risk taking. Given the nature of today’s college audience, it is clear that dating violence prevention efforts need to utilize a variety of technological mediums. At the same time, young men and students in LGBTIQ relationships are less often featured in prevention materials or provided with information regarding their risk of violence and abuse at the hands of their partner by campus service providers. Failing to recognize the harm of dating violence to both heterosexual and LGBTIQ men and women runs the risk of failing to ameliorate violence within all intimate relationships. Dahlberg and Krug (2002) suggest that prevention strategies should be developmentally appropriate and conducted across the life span. This would include education rooted in the risk and protective factors for dating violence that begin in early adolescence and continue in college, addressing the continuity of dating violence within and across new relationships. It is clear that this has not been the approach taken with respect to dating violence education. The CDC’s social–ecological model highlights the interplay between individual, relationship, community, and societal factors in developing meaningful violence prevention and intervention. Examples of individuallevel strategies are those that are designed to address violence by and against both young men and women, which promote attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors that ultimately prevent dating violence. Specific approaches may include education and life skills training as have been developed via bystander intervention and healthy relationship skill building. Prevention strategies rooted at the relationship level would include programs designed to reduce relationship conflict, foster problemsolving skills, address sexual jealousy, and promote healthy


292


sexual and intimate relationships. These interventions need to address the role of past victimization, sexual risk taking, substance use, and educational engagement in the risk of and trajectory of violent relationships. Campus-based interventions in particular need to address social norms among students experiencing dating violence, such as drinking, sexual risking, and other behavioral risk factors while also educating the faculty, staff, and administrators tasked with ending violence on their campuses.

Conclusions and Future Methodological Considerations Although researchers have begun to develop a solid literature on the factors that are associated with involvement in violent college dating relationships and the factors that help to buffer risk, this scholarly work is not without its limitations. Much of the previous research has focused on the factors that increase one’s involvement in violent intimate relationships and the identification of the characteristics and actions that buffer victimization risk utilizing primarily convenience samples and cross-sectional research designs. Less often have scholars used longitudinal research to fully investigate the context and dynamics in which violence and other health risk behaviors occur in college dating relationships. Research has also not fully explored how the timing of risk factors and life events shape the progression of dating violence within and across relationships. Much of the literature relies on research instruments designed to measure violence among adults. These likely fail to fully tap the context in which young people use violence within intimate relationships and the meaning youth attach to intimate relationships, violent behavior, and coercive control. An additional limitation of the college dating violence literature is the failure to carefully tap violence and abuse in both current and previous relationships or measure the frequency and severity of violence across a variety of retrospective time periods. Future data collections need to overcome these limitations while also clearly tapping the relationship statuses students assign to their intimate relationships (casual vs. exclusive for example) and how these are associated with violent and nonviolent relationships. Scholarship also needs to more fully examine the motives associated with dating violence, the situational context in which perpetration and victimization occurs, and to distinguish between and among primary aggression, mutual violence, and self-defense. Although dating violence scholars have begun to identify pathways among adolescent perpetrators, less often have researchers examined the developmental pathways of violent relationships or identified the factors associated with both continuity and change in relationships among college students. This suggests the need to parallel the work of Michael Johnson (1995) conducted within the adult intimate partner violence literature. These would include but are not limited to identifying and examining the etiology of a variety of types of violent relationships including (but not limited to) ‘‘common couple violence,’’ self-defensive violence (male or female), primary

aggressor, and so on. This type of academic work would allow for the development of theoretical models of violent relationship typologies and identification of the distinct subgroups of both violent individuals and victimized partners. An important limitation within the literature on dating violence is the lack of clearly identified protective factors and how these buffer risk both within and across intimate relationships. As Vagi et al. (2013) have noted, very few protective factors have been identified in the literature on dating violence among college students, and this points to the need for greater attention to be paid to those protective factors that act as buffers between specific risk factors and adolescent dating violence (p. 647). This would include elaborating the factors that buffer the impact of child abuse and past experiences of violence and those protective factors that insulate young adults from both health risk behaviors and engagement in violent relationships. The literature on the role of social support clearly provides a starting point to further identifying the protective factors for dating violence victimization and perpetration. This suggests the need to educate and empower not only those at risk of violent victimization and perpetration but also the help givers and social support networks of those who have the greatest potential to offer social support and assistance.

Implications for Practice, Policy, and Research There is an absence of longitudinal studies on college dating violence, which has prevented a thorough understanding of the extent, dynamic, and nature of dating violence and its associated risk and protective factors. Among college students, it is important for both researchers and those working with students to recognize that much of the experience of dating violence includes students’ experiences as both victims and offenders. This finding has implications for developing violence prevention education and interventions. College campuses need to collaborate with researchers to be sure that they develop interventions that draw on the most recent scientific research and evidence in building on the protective factors for dating violence. Many faculty, staff, and administrators are likely to hold a set of ideas and assumptions on the nature and extent of dating violence. This may be particularly true around gender. This points to the need for researchers to educate and challenge these assumptions, and work with campuses in the development of educational messages and intervention materials. Faculty, academic advisors, and other college staff directly interacting with college students need to be educated on the prevalence and nature of college dating violence victimization and offending. This education should also include how to respond to reports of violence and how to provide students with pathways to resources and recovery.


Kaukinen

293

Universities and colleges need to identify the problems their students face with respect to dating violence and associated health risk behaviors. This suggests the need for universities and colleges to invest resources to collect regularly scheduled climate surveys that measure student involvement in risky health behaviors and dating violence. College staff that interact with students on a regular basis need to be equipped to screen for victimization and recognize that the experience and impact of dating violence is likely to manifest in a variety of student outcomes including substance abuse, mental health, and sexual risk taking, and negatively impact academic success and engagement. Universities need to create collaborative working groups on campus that may be brought together to evaluate research and develop education and awareness programming that cut across a continuum of health risk behaviors. These collaborations might include counseling centers, health centers, student conduct offices, housing, athletics, women’s centers, student success centers. University and college health and mental health providers need to properly identify the treatment needs of victims with diverse co-occurring problems. Declaration of Conflicting Interests The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References Abbey, A. (2002). Alcohol-related sexual assault: A common problem among college students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 118–128. Abbey, A. (2011). Alcohol and dating risk factors for sexual assault double standards are still alive and well entrenched. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35, 362–368. Amar, A. L., & Gennaro, S. (2005). Dating violence in college women: associated physical injury, healthcare usage, and mental health symptoms. Nursing Research, 54, 235–242. Banyard, V. L., & Cross, C. (2008). Consequences of teen dating violence understanding intervening variables in ecological context. Violence Against Women, 14, 998–1013. Barrick, K., Krebs, C. P., & Lindquist, C. H. (2013). Intimate partner violence victimization among undergraduate women at historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs). Violence Against Women, 19, 1014–1033. Barter, C. (2009). In the name of love: Exploitation and violence in teenage dating relationships. British Journal of Social Work, 39, 211–233. Bergman, L. (1992). Dating violence among high school students. Social Work, 37, 21–27.

Bethke, T, M., & DeJoy, D. M. (1993). An experimental study of factors influencing the acceptability of dating violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 8, 36–51. Black, D. S., Sussman, S., & Unger, J. B. (2010). A further look at the intergenerational transmission of violence: Witnessing interparental violence in emerging adulthood. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 1022–1042. Bogle, K. A. (2008). Hooking up: Sex, dating, and relationships on campus. New York: NYU Press. Buelna, C., Ulloa, E. C., & Ulibarri, M. D. (2009). Sexual relationship power as a mediator between dating violence and sexually transmitted infections among college women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24, 1338–1357. Bundock, L., Howard, L. M., Trevillion, K., Malcolm, E., Feder, G., & Oram, S. (2013). Prevalence and risk of experiences of intimate partner violence among people with eating disorders: A systematic review. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 47, 1134–1142. Campbell, R., Sullivan, C. M., & Davidson, W. S. (1995). Women who use domestic violence shelters: Changes in depression over time. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 19, 237–255. Carlson, B. E., McNutt, L. A., & Choi, D. Y. (2003). Childhood and adult abuse among women in primary health care: Effects on mental health. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 924–941. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2009). Healthy youth. National center for chronic disease prevention and health promotion. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/HealthyYouth/healthtopics/index.htm Cercone, J. J., Beach, S. R. H., & Arias, I. (2005). Gender symmetry in dating intimate partner violence: Does similar behavior imply similar constructs? Violence and Victims, 20, 207–218. Champion, H., Long Foley, K., Durant, R. H., Hensberry, R., Altman, R., & Wolfson, M. (2004). Adolescent sexual victimization, use of alcohol and other substances, and other health risk behaviors. Journal of Adolescent Health, 35, 321–328. Chapple, L. C., & Trina, L. H. (2003). An analysis of the self-control and criminal versatility of dating and gang violence offenders. Violence and Victims, 18, 671–690. Chase, K. A., Treboux, D., & O’Leary, K. D. (2002). Characteristics of high-risk adolescents’ dating violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17, 33–49. Cleveland, H., Herrera, V. M., & Stuewig, J. (2003). Abusive males and abused females in adolescent relationships: Risk factor similarity and dissimilarity and the role of relationship seriousness. Journal of Family Violence, 18, 325–339. Coker, A. L., McKeown, R. E., Sanderson, M., Davis, K. E., Valois, R. F., & Huebner, E. S. (2000). Severe dating violence and quality of life among South Carolina high school students. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 19, 220–227. Coker, A. L., Smith, P. H., McKeown, R. E., & King, M. R. (2000). Frequency and correlates of intimate partner violence by type: Physical, sexual, and psychological battering. American Journal of Public Health, 90, 553–559. Dahlberg, L. L., & Krug, E. G. (2002). Violence-a global public health problem. In E. Krug, L. L. Dahlberg, J. A. Mercy, A. B. Zwi, & R. Lozano (Eds.), World report on violence and health (pp. 1–56). Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.


294


Dank, M., Lachman, P., Zweig, J. M., & Yahner, J. (2013). Dating violence experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 1–12. DeKeseredy, W. S., & Schwartz, M. D. (1998). Woman abuse on campus: Results from the Canadian national survey. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Doumas, D., Margolin, G., & John, R. S. (1994). The intergenerational transmission of aggression across three generations. Journal of Family Violence, 9, 157–175. Edwards, K. M., & Sylaska, K. M. (2013). The perpetration of intimate partner violence among LGBTQ college youth: The role of minority stress. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 1721–1731. Espelage, D. L., Hong, J. S., Rao, M. A., & Low, S. (2013). Associations between peer victimization and academic performance. Theory Into Practice, 52, 233–240. Flannery, D., Singer, M., Williams, L., & Castro, P. (1998). Adolescent violence exposure and victimization at home: Coping and psychological trauma symptoms. International Review of Victimology, 6, 29–48. Folger, S., & Wright, M. O. (2013). Altering risk following child maltreatment: Family and friend support as promotive factors. Journal of Family Violence, 28, 325–337. Follette, V. M., & Alexander, P. C. (1992). Dating violence current and historical correlates. Behavioral Assessment, 14, 39–52. Follingstad, D. R., Bradley, R. G., Helff, C. M., & Laughlin, J. E. (2002). A model for predicting dating violence: Anxious attachment, angry temperament, and need for relationship control. Violence and Victims, 17, 35–47. Follingstad, D. R., Bradley, R. G., Laughlin, J. E., & Burke, L. (1999). Risk factors and correlates of dating violence: The relevance of examining frequency and severity levels in a college sample. Violence and Victims, 14, 365–380. Foshee, V. A., Bauman, K. E., Linder, F., Rice, J., & Wilcher, R. (2007). Typologies of adolescent dating violence: Identifying typologies of adolescent dating violence perpetration. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22, 498–519. Foshee, V. A., Karriker-Jaffe, K. J., McNaughton Reyes, H. L., Ennett, S. T., Suchindran, C., Bauman, K. E., & Benefield, T. S. (2008). What accounts for demographic differences in trajectories of adolescent dating violence? An examination of intrapersonal and contextual mediators. Journal of Adolescent Health, 42, 596–604. Foshee, V. A., Linder, F., MacDougall, J., & Bangdiwala, S. (2001). Gender differences in the longitudinal predictors of adolescent dating violence. Preventive Medicine, 32, 128–141. Foshee, V. A., & Matthew, R. A. (2007). Adolescent dating abuse perpetration: A review of findings, methodological limitations, and suggestions for future research. In A. Vazonsyi & I. Waldman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of violence behavior and aggression (pp. 431–449). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Franklin, C. A., & Kercher, G. A. (2012). The intergenerational transmission of intimate partner violence: Differentiating correlates in a random community sample. Journal of Family Violence, 27, 187–199. Fredlanda, N. M., Ricardob, I. B., Campbell, J. C., Sharpsc, P. W., Kubc, J. K., & Yonasd, M. (2005). The meaning of dating violence in the lives of middle school adolescents: A report of a focus group study. Journal of School Violence, 4, 95–114.

Freedner, N., Freed, L. H., Yang, Y. W., & Austin, S. B. (2002). Dating violence among gay, lesbian, and bisexual adolescents: Results from a community survey. Journal of Adolescent Health, 31, 469–474. Garcia, J. R., & Reiber, C. (2008). Hook-up behavior: A biopsychosocial perspective. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 2, 192–208. Gidycz, C. A., Warkentin, J. B., & Orchowski, L. M. (2007). Predictors of perpetration of verbal, physical, and sexual violence: A prospective analysis of college men. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 8, 79–94. Gover, A. R. (2004). Risky lifestyles and dating violence: A theoretical test of violent victimization. Journal of Criminal Justice, 32, 171–180. Gover, A. R., Kaukinen, C., & Fox, K. A. (2008). The relationship between violence in the family of origin and dating violence among college students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23, 1667–1693. Halpern, C. T., Young, M. L., Waller, M., Martin, S. L., & Kupper, L. (2004). Prevalence of partner violence in same-sex romantic and sexual relationships in a national sample of adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 35, 124–131. Hammock, G., & O’Hearn, R. (2002). Psychological aggression in dating relationships: Predictive models for males and females. Violence and Victims, 17, 525–540. Harned, M. S. (2001). Abused women or abused men? An examination of the context and outcomes of intimate partner violence. Violence and Victims, 16, 269–285. Herrera, V. M., Wiersma, J. D., & Cleveland, H. H. (2008). The influence of individual and partner characteristics on the perpetration of intimate partner violence in young adult relationships. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37, 284–296. Howard, D. E., & Wang, M. Q. (2003). Risk profiles of adolescent girls who were victims of dating violence. Adolescence, 38, 1–14. Jennings, W. G., Park, M., Tomsich, E. A., Gover, A. R., & Akers, R. L. (2011). Assessing the overlap in dating violence perpetration and victimization among South Korean college students: The influence of social learning and self-control. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 36, 188–206. Johnson, M. P. (1995). Patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence: Two forms of violence against women. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 283–294. Jordan, C. E., Combs, J. L, & Smith, G. T. (Forthcoming). An exploration of sexual victimization and academic performance among college women. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse. Kaukinen, C., Gover, A. R., & Hartman, J. (2012). College women’s experiences of dating violence in casual and exclusive relationships both as victims and perpetrators. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 37, 146–162. Kaura, S. A., & Lohman, B. J. (2007). Dating violence victimization, relationship satisfaction, mental health problems, and acceptability of violence: A comparison of men and women. Journal of Family Violence, 22, 367–381. Kendra, R., Bell, K. M., & Guimond, J. M. (2012). The impact of child abuse history, PTSD symptoms, and anger arousal on dating violence perpetration among college women. Journal of Family Violence, 27, 165–175.


Kaukinen

295

Koss, M. P., & Cleveland, M. P. (1997). Stepping on toes: Social roots of date rape lead to intractability and politicization. In M. D. Schwartz (Ed.), Researching sexual violence against women: Methodological and personal perspectives (pp. 4–21). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., Hankla, M., & Stormberg, C. D. (2004). The relationship behavior networks of young adults: A test of the intergenerational transmission of violence hypothesis. Journal of Family Violence, 19, 139–151. Leisring, P. A. (2013). Physical and emotional abuse in romantic relationships motivation for perpetration among college women. Journal of interpersonal violence, 28, 1437–1454. Lopez, M., & Heffer, R. (1998). Self-concept and social competence of university student victims of childhood physical abuse. Child Abuse and Neglect, 22, 183–195. Lormand, D. K., Markham, C. M., Peskin, M. F., Byrd, T. L., Addy, R. C., Baumler, E., & Tortolero, S. R. (2013). Dating violence among urban, minority, middle school youth and associated sexual risk behaviors and substance use. Journal of School Health, 83, 415–421. Makepeace, J. M. (1981). Courtship violence among college students. Family Relations, 30, 97–102. Malik, S., Sorenson, S. B., & Aneshensel, C. S. (1997). Community and dating violence among adolescents: Perpetration and victimization. Journal of Adolescent Health, 21, 291–302. Manning, W. D., Giordano, P. C., & Longmore, M. A. (2006). Hooking up: The relationship contexts of ‘non-relationship’ sex. Journal of Adolescent Research, 21, 459–483. Marshall, L. L., & Rose, P. (1988). Family of origin violence and courtship abuse. Journal of Counseling and Development, 66, 414–418. Marx, B. P., Van Wie, V., & Gross, A. M. (1996). Date rape risk factors: A review and methodological critique of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 1, 27–45. Mason, B., & Smithey, M. (2012). The effects of academic and interpersonal stress on dating violence among college students: A test of classical strain theory. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27, 974–986. McNally, S., & Newman, S. (1999). Objective and subjective conceptualizations of social support. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 46, 309–314. Milletich, R. J., Kelley, M. L., Doane, A. N., & Pearson, M. R. (2010). Exposure to interparental violence and childhood physical and emotional abuse as related to physical aggression in undergraduate dating relationships. Journal of Family Violence, 25, 627–637. Monson, C. M., & Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J. (2002). Sexual and nonsexual dating violence perpetration: Testing an integrated perpetrator typology. Violence and Victims, 17, 403–428. Nabors, E. L., Dietz, T. L., & Jasinski, J. L. (2006). Domestic violence beliefs and perceptions among college students. Violence and Victims, 21, 779–795. Porter, J. L., & McQuiller Williams, L. (2013). Dual marginality: The impact of auditory status and sexual orientation on abuse in a college sample of women and men. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 22, 577–589.

Pulerwitz, J., Gortmaker, S. L., & DeJong, W. (2000). Measuring sexual relationship power in HIV/STD research. Sex Roles, 42, 637–660. Purdie, M. P., Abbey, A., & Jacques-Tiura, A. J. (2010). Perpetrators of intimate partner sexual violence: Are there unique characteristics associated with making partners have sex without a condom? Violence Against Women, 16, 1086–1097. Richards, T. N., & Branch, K. A. (2012). The relationship between social support and adolescent dating violence a comparison across genders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27, 1540–1561. Roudsari, B. S., Leahy, M. M., & Walters, S. T. (2009). Correlates of dating violence among male and female heavy-drinking college students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 24, 1892–1905. Rutter, L. A., Weatherill, R. P., Taft, C. T., & Orazem, R. J. (2012). Examining gender differences in the relationship between dating violence victimization and anger in college students. Violence and Victims, 27, 70–77. Saunders, B., Kilpatrick, B., Hanson, R., Resnick, H., & Walker, M. (1999). Prevalence, case characteristics, and long-term psychological correlates of child rape among women: A national survey. Child Maltreatment, 4, 187–200. Shorey, R. C., Temple, J. R., Febres, J., Brasfield, H., Sherman, A. E., & Stuart, G. L. (2012). The consequences of perpetrating psychological aggression in dating relationships a descriptive investigation. Journal of interpersonal violence, 27, 2980–2998. Silverman, J. G., Raj, A., Mucci, L. A., & Hathaway, J. E. (2001). Dating violence against adolescent girls and associated substance use, unhealthy weight control, sexual risk behavior, pregnancy, and suicidality. Journal of the American Medical Association, 286, 372–379. Smith, C. A., Park, A., Ireland, T. O., Elwyn, L., & Thornberry, T. P. (2013). Long-term outcomes of young adults exposed to maltreatment the role of educational experiences in promoting resilience to crime and violence in early adulthood. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28, 121–156. Smith, P. H., White, J. W., & Holland, L. J. (2003). A longitudinal perspective on dating violence among adolescent and college-age women. American Journal of Public Health, 93, 1104–1109. Stith, S. M., Rosen, K. H., Middleton, K. A., Busch, A. L., Lundeberg, K., & Carlton, R. P. (2000). The intergenerational transmission of spouse abuse: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62, 640–654. Straight, E. S., Harper, F. K., & Arias, I. (2003). The impact of partner psychological abuse on health behaviors and health status in college women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 1035–1054. Swahn, M. H., Bossarte, R. M., Palmier, J. B., Yao, H., & Van Dulmen, M. H. (2013). Risk factors for multiple forms of violent experiences: Analyses of the 2009 youth risk behavior survey. Vulnerable Children and Youth Studies: An International Interdisciplinary Journal for Research, Policy and Care, 8, 225–236. Swahn, M. H., Simon, T. R., Hertz, M., Arias, I., Bossarte, R. M., Ross, J., & Hamburger, M. (2008). Linking dating violence, peer violence, and suicidal behaviors among high-risk youth. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 34, 30–38. Taylor, M. J., Wamser, R. A., Welch, D. Z., & Nanney, J. T. (2012). Multidimensional self-esteem as a mediator of the relationship


296


between sports participation and victimization: A study of African American girls. Violence and victims, 27, 434–452. Temple, J. R., Shorey, R. C., Fite, P., Stuart, G. L., & Le, V. D. (2013). Substance use as a longitudinal predictor of the perpetration of teen dating violence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 596–606. Ullman, S. (1996). Do social reactions to sexual assault victims vary by support provider? Violence and Victims, 11, 143–157. Vagi, K. J., Rothman, E. F., Latzman, N. E., Tharp, A. T., Hall, D. M., & Breiding, M. J. (2013). Beyond correlates: a review of risk and protective factors for adolescent dating violence perpetration. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 633–649. Widom, C., & Ames, M. A. (1994). Criminal consequences of childhood sexual victimization. Child Abuse and Neglect, 18, 303–318.

Future Reading Amar, A. L., & Gennaro, S. (2005). Dating violence in college women: Associated physical injury, healthcare usage, and mental health symptoms. Nursing Research, 54, 235–242. Barrick, K., Krebs, C. P., & Lindquist, C. H. (2013). Intimate partner violence victimization among undergraduate women at historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs). Violence against women, 19, 1014–1033. Buelna, C., Ulloa, E. C., & Ulibarri, M. D. (2009). Sexual relationship power as a mediator between dating violence and sexually transmitted infections among college women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24, 1338–1357. Gidycz, C. A., Warkentin, J. B., & Orchowski, L. M. (2007). Predictors of perpetration of verbal, physical, and sexual violence: A prospective analysis of college men. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 8, 79–94. Lormand, D. K., Markham, C. M., Peskin, M. F., Byrd, T. L., Addy, R. C., Baumler, E., & Tortolero, S.R. (2013). Dating violence

among urban, minority, middle school youth and associated sexual risk behaviors and substance use. Journal of School Health, 83, 415–421. Silverman, J. G., Raj, A., Mucci, L. A., & Hathaway, J. E. (2001). Dating violence against adolescent girls and associated substance use, unhealthy weight control, sexual risk behavior, pregnancy, and suicidality. Journal of the American Medical Association, 286, 372–379.

Author Biography Catherine Kaukinen is an associate professor in the School of Public Affairs at the University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, and is the director of Graduate Programs in Criminology and Criminal Justice. She teaches courses on violence against women, victimization, and policy interventions. Dr. Kaukinen received her PhD in sociology in 2001 from the University of Toronto. Her research interests include intimate partner violence, risk and protective factors for violent victimization, and the relationship between family structure and adolescent development. She recently conducted a National Institute of Justice–sponsored project examining the effect of intensive enforcement of no-contact orders in cases of misdemeanor criminal domestic violence on victim well-being and offender recidivism. She is currently funded by the Office on Violence Against Women to implement a multicampus victim service intervention and prevention program addressing dating violence, intimate partner violence, sexual assault, and stalking.


Examining suicide protective factors among black college students.

A Gender Comparison of Motivations for Physical Dating Violence Among College Students.

Dating violence victimization and perpetration rates among high school students.

Committed dating relationships and mental health among college students.

The relation between alcohol use and psychological, physical, and sexual dating violence perpetration among male college students.

Neighborhood Factors and Dating Violence Among Youth: A Systematic Review.

Dating between American and Foreign College Students.

Associations of Teen Dating Violence Victimization With School Violence and Bullying Among US High School Students.

Dating Violence in Mexican College Students: Evaluation of an Educational Workshop.

Physical dating violence, sexual violence, and unwanted pursuit victimization: a comparison of incidence rates among sexual-minority and heterosexual college students.

Dating Violence and Injury Among Youth Exposed to Violence.

Technology-Delivered Dating Aggression: Risk and Promotive Factors and Patterns of Associations Across Violence Types Among High-Risk Youth.

Violence exposure and teen dating violence among African American youth.

Exposure to Spousal Violence in the Family, Attitudes and Dating Violence Perpetration Among High School Students in Port-au-Prince.

The Prevalence of Psychiatric Distress and Associated Risk Factors among College Students Using GHQ-28 Questionnaire.

The temporal relationship between alcohol, marijuana, angry affect, and dating violence perpetration: A daily diary study with female college students.

Personality profiles and psychopathology among students exposed to dating violence at theObafemi AwolowoUniversity, Ile-Ife.

Examining Protective Factors Against Violence among High-risk Youth: Findings from the Seattle Social Development Project.

11 College Student Veterans.

Dating Violence Victimization Among High School Students in Minnesota: Associations With Family Violence, Unsafe Schools, and Resources for Support.

Risk and Protective Factors for Lifetime Marijuana Use among Colombian Emergent Adults Attending College.

Psychosocial Factors and Health-Risk Behaviors Associated with Hookah use among College Students.

Time-Varying Risk Factors and Sexual Aggression Perpetration Among Male College Students.

Multiple partners and partner choice as risk factors for sexually transmitted disease among female college students.