ArticlePDF Available

The Relationship Between Violence in the Family of Origin and Dating Violence Among College Students

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

Prior research has established that violence in dating relationships is a serious social problem among adolescents and young adults. Exposure to violence during childhood has been linked to dating violence victimization and perpetration. Also known as the intergenerational transmission of violence, the link between violence during childhood and dating violence has traditionally focused on physical violence. This research examines the relationship between experiencing and perpetrating dating violence and exposure to violence in the family of origin. Specifically, the current research examines gender differences in the relationship between exposure to violence during childhood and physical and psychological abuse perpetration and victimization. Data were collected from a sample of approximately 2,500 college students at two southeastern universities. Findings indicate that childhood exposure to violence is a consistent predictor of involvement in relationships characterized by violence for males and females. The implications of the current research on policy are discussed.
Content may be subject to copyright.
http://jiv.sagepub.com
Violence
Journal of Interpersonal
DOI: 10.1177/0886260508314330
2008; 23; 1667 originally published online Mar 18, 2008; J Interpers Violence
Angela R. Gover, Catherine Kaukinen and Kathleen A. Fox
Dating Violence Among College Students
The Relationship Between Violence in the Family of Origin and
http://jiv.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/23/12/1667
The online version of this article can be found at:
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children
can be found at:Journal of Interpersonal Violence Additional services and information for
http://jiv.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:
http://jiv.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:
http://jiv.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/23/12/1667 Citations
at UNIV OF FLORIDA Smathers Libraries on December 29, 2008http://jiv.sagepub.comDownloaded from
The Relationship Between
Violence in the Family of
Origin and Dating Violence
Among College Students
Angela R. Gover
University of Colorado Denver
Catherine Kaukinen
University of Colorado at Colorado Springs
Kathleen A. Fox
University of Florida
Prior research has established that violence in dating relationships is a serious
social problem among adolescents and young adults. Exposure to violence
during childhood has been linked to dating violence victimization and perpetra-
tion. Also known as the intergenerational transmission of violence, the link
between violence during childhood and dating violence has traditionally
focused on physical violence. This research examines the relationship between
experiencing and perpetrating dating violence and exposure to violence in the
family of origin. Specifically, the current research examines gender differences
in the relationship between exposure to violence during childhood and physical
and psychological abuse perpetration and victimization. Data were collected from
a sample of approximately 2,500 college students at two southeastern universities.
Findings indicate that childhood exposure to violence is a consistent predictor
of involvement in relationships characterized by violence for males and females.
The implications of the current research on policy are discussed.
Keyw ords: dating violence; college students; perpetration and victimiza-
tion; family of origin violence; intergenerational transmission
of violence
F
or the past 25 years, scholars have conducted empirical research on the
extent to which dating relationships are characterized by aggression and
physical violence and the negative effects of violence on individuals.
Journal of Interpersonal
Violence
Volume 23 Number 12
December 2008 1667-1693
© 2008 Sage Publications
10.1177/0886260508314330
http://jiv.sagepub.com
hosted at
http://online.sagepub.com
1667
Authors’ Note: A version of this article was presented at the American Society of Criminology
annual meeting in November 2005 in Toronto, Canada.
Articles
at UNIV OF FLORIDA Smathers Libraries on December 29, 2008http://jiv.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Involvement in a violent relationship has been found to be related to poor
mental health outcomes such as anxiety, depression, reduced self-esteem,
stress, and various physical health consequences (Gibb, Abramson, &
Alloy, 2004; Messman-Moore, Long, & Siegfried, 2000). These negative
consequences indicate that the dynamics of dating violence is an important
area of study for prevention and intervention efforts. Early empirical stud-
ies characterized dating violence as relationships involving females as vic-
tims and males as perpetrators. However, since the first dating violence
study was published by Makepeace in 1981, prevalence rates of females as
perpetrators and males as victims have increased. Some dating violence
research has focused on factors that increase or decrease one’s risk for dat-
ing violence perpetration and victimization (Sharpe & Taylor, 1999; Stets
& Pirog-Good, 1987). According to the intergenerational transmission of
violence hypothesis, exposure to violence during childhood is related to
subsequent involvement in violent intimate relationships. The intergenera-
tional transmission of violence hypothesis describes a relationship between
experiencing child abuse and/or witnessing parental violence and subse-
quent dating violence victimization and perpetration in later intimate rela-
tionships. Research has stressed the importance of examining victimization
and perpetration as discrete events because not all victims are perpetrators.
Prior research has also documented different patterns in the factors that
increase the risk for dating violence among males and females (Harned,
2002). Differential predictive factors for psychological abuse among males
and females suggest that motivations for abuse may vary by gender, similar
to prior research on differential motivations for physical abuse across
gender (Hamby & Sugarman, 1999). The current study investigates the
intergenerational transmission of violence hypothesis among a sample of
young adults attending college.
Review of Prior Literature
Researchers have estimated that between 9% and 87% of high school
and college students are involved in violent dating relationships (Harned,
2002). Variation in estimates is affected by several measurement issues.
First, estimates are affected by the operationalization of the term violence.
Although the majority of research has focused on physical violence, other
studies have examined psychological or emotional abuse, threats of vio-
lence, verbal abuse, and sexual violence. Studies that examine only one
type of abuse or use a narrow definition of abuse report lower estimates
1668 Journal of Interpersonal Violence
at UNIV OF FLORIDA Smathers Libraries on December 29, 2008http://jiv.sagepub.comDownloaded from
than do studies that examine several types of abuse according to a broad
definition. Some studies report lifetime prevalence estimates and other
studies report dating violence experienced during the prior 12 months.
Similarly, studies’ prevalence estimates depend on whether respondents are
reporting experiences with current dating partners or prior experiences with
all dating partners. All of these methodological issues influence the extent
to which dating violence is viewed as a problem for adolescent and young
adults in romantic relationships today.
Gender and Dating Violence Prevalence Estimates
Research has suggested that college students are highly vulnerable for
dating violence because so many are involved in romantic relationships
during these formable years. Dating violence research has produced inter-
esting findings regarding the relationship between gender and victimiza-
tion. Early research on adolescent dating violence suggested that females
were more likely than males to be victimized by their dating partners
(Roscoe & Kelsey, 1986). For example, Bergman (1992) reported that
females were significantly more likely than males to be victims of sexual
and physical violence inflicted by a dating partner. Some studies have
reported similar dating violence victimization rates for males and females
(Marshall & Rose, 1988). For example, Harned (2002) reported 82% of
women and 87% of men were victims of psychological abuse and that 22%
of women and 21% of men reported experiencing physical dating violence
from a partner.
As researchers continued investigating prevalence rates, findings sug-
gested that males had higher dating violence victimization rates than did
females (see Foshee et al., 1996). According to Cercone, Beach, and Arias
(2005), 30% of males and 24% of females reported severe psychological
victimization and 18% of males and 13% of females reported severe phys-
ical assault by their partners. However, Alexander, Moore, and Alexander
(1991) reported that males were more likely than females to report verbal
and physical abuse perpetration and victimization. According to a recent
study by Luthra and Gidycz (2006), 25% of females and 10% of males self-
reported physical violence perpetration against a dating partner. It is likely
that a portion of women who report violence perpetration have done so in
self-defense (Harned, 2001). In addition, female self-reported violence per-
petration may not be as socially stigmatizing as male-reported violence per-
petration. As a result, these rates might reflect the fact that women may be
more comfortable reporting violence perpetration than men.
Gover et al. / Violence in the Family of Origin 1669
at UNIV OF FLORIDA Smathers Libraries on December 29, 2008http://jiv.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Correlates of Dating Violence
Perpetration and Victimization
Research conducted during the past 25 years has shed much light on the
understanding of dating violence. Most studies have used survey research to
focus on the extent to which high school and college students are involved
in violent dating relationships, either as victims or as perpetrators. Another
focus area of research has been the examination of factors that increase or
decrease one’s risk of dating violence victimization. Much of this research
has indicated that there are similarities and differences among the types of
factors that place males and females at risk for dating violence victimization
(Malik, Sorenson, & Aneshensel, 1997; Sharpe & Taylor, 1999; Stets &
Pirog-Good, 1987). Harned (2002) found different patterns in factors that
increase the risk for dating violence victimization (physical, psychological,
and sexual) among males and females. Of interest, these factors had stronger
predictive power for males than for females, which suggests that dating vio-
lence victimization is less predictable for women. Hammock and O’Hearn
(2002) suggested that evidence of differential predictive factors for psycho-
logical abuse among males and females indicates that motivations for abuse
may vary by gender, similar to research on differential motivation for phys-
ical abuse across gender (Hamby & Sugarman, 1999).
Although it is important to understand contributing factors for the risk of
violence victimization among young adults, another focus of research has
been on factors that increase the likelihood that one will perpetrate violence
(Aberele & Littlefield, 2001). Monson and Langhinrichsen-Rohling (2002)
examined dating violence perpetrator typologies to determine whether
there are differences in the context and motivations for violence perpetra-
tion among males and females. Male and female perpetrators were found to
differ in their typological categorization, which suggests that there are eti-
ological differences in intimate partner violence for males and females. The
following section reviews factors that are associated with dating violence
victimization and perpetration.
Exposure to violence during childhood. Exposure to violence during
childhood is one of the most commonly studied risk factors for involvement
in a violent intimate relationship (Langhinrichsen-Rohling, Hankla, &
Stormberg, 2004). Studies have measured exposure to violence during child-
hood as witnessing violence between parents and/or experiencing violence
by a parent or guardian. Most studies have used the Conflict Tactics Scale
(CTS) or a modified version of the CTS to measure exposure to childhood
1670 Journal of Interpersonal Violence
at UNIV OF FLORIDA Smathers Libraries on December 29, 2008http://jiv.sagepub.comDownloaded from
physical violence (Jankowski, Leitenberg, Henning, & Coffey, 1999; Marshall
& Rose, 1988). Witnessing violence between parents has been operationalized
by asking gender-specific modeling questions to determine if males model
their fathers’ behavior and if females model their mothers’ behavior. Some
studies have found support for same-sex parent modeling. For example,
Jankowski et al. (1999) found that witnessing a same-sex parent perpetrate
violence against an opposite-sex parent significantly influenced the risk of
perpetrating physical violence against a dating partner. Perpetration risk was
also influenced by witnessing bidirectional violence between parents.
Marshall and Rose (1988) estimated separate models for males and
females to test the intergenerational transmission of violence hypothesis.
Witnessing violence was not found to have an impact on involvement in
dating violence; however, being abused as a child was significantly related
to dating violence victimization and perpetration among males. For women,
experiencing abuse as a child significantly predicted dating violence vic-
timization but not perpetration. Carr and VanDeusen (2002), however, did
not find a significant relationship between childhood physical violence and
dating violence perpetration. Overall, empirical support has been found for
the influence of childhood physical violence and witnessing parental vio-
lence on the subsequent involvement in a violent dating relationship, and
many studies have reported these relationships to be stronger for males
(Doumas, Margolin, & John, 1994).
Other risk factors for violence in dating relationships. Research has
demonstrated that ties to social institutions, such as family and religion, may
increase or decrease one’s risk for dating violence. High school students who
reported higher attachment to their parents were less likely to perpetrate dat-
ing violence (Chapple & Hope, 2003). In addition to ties to parents, research
has also examined the impact of family structure on one’s risk for victimiza-
tion. Those from single-parent households have a higher risk for violence
(Chase, Treboux, & O’Leary, 2002; Makepeace, 1987; Malik et al., 1997).
Religious institutions have also been examined as a protective factor for
involvement in a violent dating relationship. Students reporting more church
attendance were less likely to be involved in a violent dating relationship
(Coker et al., 2000; Gover, 2004). Most research has found positive associa-
tions among substance use and physical violence (Chase et al., 2002; Hines
& Straus, 2007; Malik et al., 1997) and sexual violence (Jackson, Cram, &
Seymour, 2000; Koss & Dinero, 1989; Muehlenhard & Linton, 1987). Some
studies, however, have reported mixed findings for the relationship between
Gover et al. / Violence in the Family of Origin 1671
at UNIV OF FLORIDA Smathers Libraries on December 29, 2008http://jiv.sagepub.comDownloaded from
alcohol and drug use and dating violence (Foo & Margolin, 1995; Olday &
Wesley, 1988). Studies examining the relationship between substance use and
psychological aggression are much less common (Hammock & O’Hearn,
2002). Another risk factor that has been examined in the dating violence lit-
erature is sexual risk taking. Research suggests that sexual risk behavior is
associated with dating violence victimization among college students
(Cleveland, Herrera, & Stuewig, 2003; Gover, 2004; Kreiter et al., 1999; Raj
et al., 2006).
Attitudinal variables have also been examined as risk factors for dating
violence. Feminists have proposed that violence is perpetuated in society
because of the influence of traditional and patriarchal attitudes toward
women (Kalmuss, 1984). Several studies have found evidence that traditional
and conservative attitudes toward women significantly influence dating vio-
lence perpetrated by males (see Bernard, Bernard, & Bernard, 1985). In con-
trast, other research has not supported the relationship between attitudes
toward women and dating violence (Johnston, 1988; Rouse, 1988), and
Alexander et al. (1991) reported that women’s attitudes toward women are
more relevant for the presence of violence in a relationship than are men’s
attitudes toward women. Avakame (1998b) examined the role that self-control
plays in the processes by which violence is transmitted through generations.
Self-control was found to mediate the relationship between witnessing
violence between parents and intimate partner violence. Avakame (1998a)
also examined the relationship between violence in the family of origin and
perpetration of psychological aggression. Support was not found for self-control
as a mediating variable in the relationship between violence in the family of
origin and adulthood psychological aggression among males.
Present Study
The current study adds to the literature on interpersonal violence
between dating partners in several ways. This research is one of the first
empirical studies to use a large sample of male and female college students
to comprehensively examine the intergenerational transmission of violence
thesis. Because adolescents typically experience their first dating relation-
ship by age 15 (Henton, Cate, Koval, Lloyd, & Christopher, 1983), college
students are an ideal population for the examination of attitudes and behav-
iors in dating relationships. In addition, the present study examines these
relationships separately for males and females because prior research has
indicated that there are gender differences among factors that place males
1672 Journal of Interpersonal Violence
at UNIV OF FLORIDA Smathers Libraries on December 29, 2008http://jiv.sagepub.comDownloaded from
and females at risk for dating violence (Harned, 2002). Furthermore,
gender differences in dating violence risk are explored for both victimiza-
tion and perpetration. Although it is common for victims of dating violence
to also be perpetrators, not all violence in intimate relationships is mutual.
Therefore, it is necessary to examine victimization and perpetration as
unique events to determine whether similar factors are related to victimiza-
tion and perpetration. A final contribution that the current study makes to
the literature is the examination of both physical violence and psychologi-
cal abuse using a large sample because the majority of prior research has
examined only one dimension of violence (physical violence).
Method
Sample and Procedure
For purposes of this study and subsequent research projects, an exten-
sive survey, titled “Family and Relationship Experiences and Attitudes
Among College Students,” was created and administered to a convenience
sample of undergraduate students at two large southeastern universities. As
victimization is a statistically rare event, a large sample is required to iden-
tify a subsample of dating violence perpetrators and victims for multivari-
ate analyses. Participants completed survey questionnaires in classroom
settings between August and December of 2005. The final sample consisted
of 2,541 students (see the Appendix for sample descriptives). The survey
response rate was 98%.
Measures
The survey consisted of 167 questions about topics such as violence in
the family of origin, attitudes toward women, dating relationship behaviors,
and protective and risk factors for perpetration and victimization. The
analysis included 4 dependent variables and 21 independent variables (see
the appendix for summated scale construction and reliability coefficients).
Dependent variables. The measures of physical and psychological abuse
perpetration and victimization are similar to those used in other studies
involving samples of college students. Items measuring dating violence are
modified from the Revised CTS (CTS2; Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, &
Sugarman, 1996). Physical and psychological dating violence perpetration
Gover et al. / Violence in the Family of Origin 1673
at UNIV OF FLORIDA Smathers Libraries on December 29, 2008http://jiv.sagepub.comDownloaded from
and victimization are dichotomous variables that indicate whether the
respondent engaged in (or experienced) at least one conflict resolution tactic
in the past 12 months.
Focal variables. Our analyses examine the intergenerational transmis-
sion of violence thesis with respect to the relationship between exposure to
childhood violence and dating violence. A dichotomous measure of child
abuse was created from the CTS2 (Straus et al., 1996) to indicate whether
students had ever experienced an abusive incident at the hands of their
parent, guardian, or other caretaker. We also use two dichotomous measures
indicating whether students witnessed their mom hit their dad or their dad
hit their mom. Gender receives special attention as a focal variable as
reflected by its inclusion in our overall and gender-specific analyses.
Control variables. We include several measures as controls. Some mea-
sures are created from survey items to tap the following construct domains:
substance use, sexual risk taking, friend’s substance use, self-control, atti-
tudes toward women, and religiosity. Other controls include race, family
structure, attachment to mom and dad, current living situation, and involve-
ment in an exclusive dating relationship.
Analyses
Our analyses explore the association between exposure to violence in the
family of origin and subsequent physical violence and psychological abuse.
We first conduct a series of chi-square analyses to test pairwise associations
between exposure to childhood violence measures and physical violence and
psychological abuse. Logit regression analysis is employed to evaluate the
relationship between a set of independent variables and dichotomous depen-
dent variables. Logit models allow one to examine the relationship between
an independent variable and dependent variable while controlling for the
influence of all other variables in the model. Binary logit models may be
interpreted the same way as ordinary least squares models; what is modeled
in additive form is the natural log of the odds of the dependent variable rel-
ative to the omitted category. Because there is no intuitive meaning to these
estimates, we exponentiate these coefficients in the results section and refer
to the odds of violence perpetration and victimization. Models are estimated
for the association between exposure to childhood violence and subsequent
physical violence and psychological abuse among the full sample, women,
and men. Because of missing data, valid sample sizes ranged from 2,289 to
1674 Journal of Interpersonal Violence
at UNIV OF FLORIDA Smathers Libraries on December 29, 2008http://jiv.sagepub.comDownloaded from
2,305 for the full models examining dating violence perpetration and
victimization and from 892 to 1,406 for the gender-specific models.
Results
Bivariate Analyses
The prevalence and extent of physical violence. We first examine the
overall extent of physical violence among our sample of college students.
1
Overall, 29% of students perpetrated physical dating violence and 22% had
been victims of physical violence during the past 12 months. Chi-square
analyses (available on request from the authors) indicate that victims of
childhood abuse and those who witnessed one parent hit the other parent
perpetrated and experienced significantly higher rates of physical violence
in dating relationships compared to those who were not exposed to violence
during childhood. Of those abused during childhood, 38% perpetrated
physical violence, whereas 25% of those who were not abused during child-
hood perpetrated physical violence. Of those abused during childhood, 32%
were subsequent victims of physical violence, whereas 18% of those who
were not abused during childhood experienced physical violence within a
current or recent dating relationship. Respondents who witnessed their
father hitting their mother were almost twice as likely to perpetrate and
experience violence compared to those who did not witness their father hit-
ting their mother (44% vs. 28% for perpetration and 39% vs. 21% for vic-
timization). In addition, students who witnessed mother-to-father violence
are more likely to perpetrate and experience physical violence compared to
those who did not witness their mother hitting their father (42% vs. 28% for
perpetration and 38% vs. 21% for victimization). We also find significant
gender differences in physical violence perpetration (24% of males vs. 32%
of females-perpetrated physical violence against their partner). A signifi-
cant bivariate relationship, however, is not found between gender and phys-
ical violence victimization.
The prevalence and extent of psychological abuse. Our findings indicate
that the amount of psychological abuse in college dating relationships is
extensive.
2
Overall, 54% of college students reported perpetrating psycho-
logical abuse, and 52% reported psychological abuse victimization by a
dating partner during the past 12 months. Chi-square analyses indicate that
Gover et al. / Violence in the Family of Origin 1675
at UNIV OF FLORIDA Smathers Libraries on December 29, 2008http://jiv.sagepub.comDownloaded from
victims of childhood abuse and those who witness one parent hitting
another parent perpetrated and experienced significantly higher rates of
psychological abuse compared to those who were not exposed to childhood
violence. Two thirds of those abused during childhood perpetrated psycho-
logical abuse compared to 51% of nonchildhood victims, and 59% of those
abused during childhood were victims of psychological abuse compared to
50% of nonchildhood victims. Those who witnessed father-to-mother vio-
lence were more likely to perpetrate and experience psychological abuse
(64% vs. 53% for perpetration and 61% vs. 52% for victimization). In addi-
tion, students who witnessed mother-to-father violence were more likely to
perpetrate and experience violence (67% vs. 53% for perpetration and 64%
vs. 52% for victimization). Our bivariate analyses also find significant
gender differences in psychological abuse victimization and perpetration.
Females were significantly more likely than males to perpetrate and expe-
rience psychological abuse (57% of women vs. 50% of men perpetrated
abuse and 55% of women vs. 50% of men were victims).
Multivariate Analyses
Correlates of physical violence perpetration. Our multivariate analyses
specifically examine the intergenerational transmission of violence hypoth-
esis in terms of the relationship between experiencing childhood abuse and
witnessing parental violence and dating violence. We also examine whether
factors associated with physical violence and psychological abuse perpetra-
tion and victimization differ for males and females.
3
Table 1 (Equations 1 to
3) reports the correlates of physical violence perpetration, controlling for
confounding variables. Males are significantly less likely than females to
perpetrate physical violence (B = –0.706, p < .001), and specifically, being
male decreases the odds of physical violence perpetration by 50% (e
–0.706
=
0.494). The full sample model indicates that experiencing childhood abuse
is significantly associated with physical violence perpetration (B = 0.357,
p < .01). Respondents who experienced childhood abuse are 43% more
likely (e
0.357
= 1.428) to perpetrate physical violence compared to respon-
dents who did not experience childhood abuse. This finding is reinforced by
the gender-specific models, which indicate that males (B = 0.425, p < .05)
and females (B = 0.317, p < .05) who experienced abuse during childhood
are significantly more likely to perpetrate physical dating violence compared
to males and females who did not experience childhood abuse. Witnessing
parental violence is not found to be significantly related to physical violence
perpetration among dating partners. Among the full sample of males and
females, other important correlates of physical violence perpetration are
1676 Journal of Interpersonal Violence
at UNIV OF FLORIDA Smathers Libraries on December 29, 2008http://jiv.sagepub.comDownloaded from
self-control, attachment to father, sexual risk taking, and exclusive dating.
Although high self-control and attachment to father reduce the likelihood of
physical violence perpetration, sexual risk takers and those in exclusive dat-
ing relationships have a heightened risk of physical violence perpetration.
Correlates of physical violence victimization. Table 1 (Equations 4 to 6)
reports the correlates of physical violence victimization, controlling for con-
founding variables. Similar to physical violence perpetration, our findings
indicate that gender is significantly related to physical violence victimiza-
tion. Specifically, males are significantly less likely than females to be vic-
tims of physical violence (B = –0.271, p < .05), and being male decreases
the odds of physical violence victimization by almost 25% (e
–0.271
= 0.763).
The full sample model indicates that experiencing childhood abuse is
significantly related to physical violence victimization (B = 0.410, p < .01).
Respondents who experienced childhood abuse are 51% more likely
(e
0.410
= 1.507) to be victims of physical violence compared to respondents
who did not experience childhood abuse. This finding, however, is not rein-
forced by the gender-specific models. Childhood abuse is associated with
the likelihood of violence victimization for females (B = 0.485, p < .01) but
not for males. Female childhood abuse victims are 63% more likely
(e
0.485
= 1.625) to experience physical violence victimization by a dating
partner compared to females who did not experience childhood abuse.
The full sample model indicates that respondents who witnessed their
mom hit their dad during childhood are significantly more likely to be victims
of physical violence (B = 0.429, p < .05). Furthermore, the gender-specific
model for females indicates a significant relationship between witnessing
paternally perpetrated violence and violence victimization (B = 0.545, p <
.05). Females who witnessed paternally perpetrated violence are 72% more
likely (e
0.545
= 1.724) to experience physical violence victimization com-
pared to females who did not witness paternally perpetrated violence. Other
important correlates of physical violence victimization for college students
are self-control, sexual risk taking, and exclusive dating. Higher levels of
self-control reduces the likelihood of physical violence victimization,
whereas engaging in risky sexual behavior and exclusively dating increase
the risk of physical violence victimization. The gender-specific models
indicate that maternal attachment significantly reduces the likelihood of
physical violence victimization for males, but not for females.
Correlates of psychological abuse perpetration. Our analyses examine
the relationship between exposure to violence during childhood and
Gover et al. / Violence in the Family of Origin 1677
at UNIV OF FLORIDA Smathers Libraries on December 29, 2008http://jiv.sagepub.comDownloaded from
1678
Table 1
Adjusted Odds Ratios (AORs) and Logistic Regression Coefficients (Bs) for
Physical Violence Perpetration and Victimization
Physical Violence Perpetration Models Physical Violence Victimization Models
Equation 1, Equation 2, Equation 3, Equation 4, Equation 5, Equation 6,
Full Model Male Model Female Model Full Model Male Model Female Model
B AOR B AOR B AOR B AOR B AOR B AOR
n 2,305 900 1,405 2,304 898 1,406
Male –0.70*** 0.49 –0.27* 0.76
Exclusive dating 0.67*** 1.97 0.53** 1.71 0.77*** 2.16 0.62*** 1.87 0.49** 1.64 0.71*** 2.04
Dad hit mom 0.17 1.19 0.20 1.23 0.22 1.25 0.40 1.49 0.03 1.03 0.54* 1.72
Mom hit dad 0.28 1.33 0.21 1.24 0.30 1.35 0.42* 1.53 0.45 1.57 0.453 1.57
Child abuse 0.35** 1.42 0.42* 1.53 0.31* 1.37 0.41** 1.50 0.29 1.34 0.48** 1.62
Attitudes toward 0.01 1.01 0.00 1.00 0.01 1.01 0.01 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.01 1.00
women
Self-control –0.03*** 0.97 –0.03** 0.96 –0.03*** 0.97 –0.04*** 0.95 –0.05*** 0.95 –0.04*** 0.95
Mom attachment –0.01 0.99 –0.05* 0.94 0.01 1.01 –0.02 0.98 –0.08** 0.92 0.01 1.01
Dad attachment –0.03** 0.96 –0.02 0.98 –0.03* 0.96 –0.01 0.98 –0.01 0.98 –0.01 0.99
Sexual risk taking 0.09*** 1.10 0.08*** 1.09 0.11*** 1.12 0.10*** 1.11 0.08*** 1.09 0.13*** 1.14
Constant 0.51 1.67 0.49 1.64 0.12 1.12 0.85 2.35 1.42 4.15 0.334 1.39
–2 log likelihood 2444.94 868.96 1548.35 2097.68 805.34 1263.63
Model χ
2
315.697 111.302 212.238 312.774 139.562 201.869
Note: These models estimate the coefficients shown in the table controlling for university, class standing, family structure, school living situation,
race, religiosity, substance use, and friend’s substance use.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
at UNIV OF FLORIDA Smathers Libraries on December 29, 2008http://jiv.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Gover et al. / Violence in the Family of Origin 1679
psychological abuse perpetration and victimization and whether these
relationships differ for males and females. Table 2 (Equations 1 to 3)
reports the correlates of psychological abuse perpetration, controlling for
confounding variables. Our findings indicate that males are significantly
less likely than females to perpetrate psychological abuse, and being male
decreases the odds of psychological abuse perpetration by 35% (e
–0.436
=
0.647). The full sample model indicates that experiencing childhood abuse
is significantly associated with psychological abuse perpetration. Respondents
who experienced childhood abuse are 35% more likely (e
0.299
= 1.348) to
perpetrate psychological abuse compared to respondents who did not expe-
rience childhood abuse. However, this finding is not reinforced by the
gender-specific models for both males and females. The gender-specific
models indicate that childhood abuse is associated with the likelihood of
perpetrating psychological abuse for females but not for males. Among
females, victims of childhood abuse are 34% more likely (e
0.291
= 1.337) to
perpetrate psychological abuse compared to females who did not experi-
ence childhood abuse. The full sample model indicates that respondents
who witnessed their mom hit their dad are 57% more likely (e
0.448
= 1.566)
to perpetrate psychological abuse compared to respondents who did not
witness maternally perpetrated violence during childhood. The influence of
this variable is not significant in the gender-specific models.
Self-control, sexual risk taking, substance abuse, and exclusive dating
are significantly related to psychological abuse perpetration. Self-control is
significant in the male model of psychological abuse perpetration. The rela-
tionship between substance use and the risk of psychological abuse perpe-
tration is particularly true for female college students. Finally, the female
model indicates that women who are strongly attached to fathers are less
likely to perpetrate psychological abuse.
Correlates of psychological abuse victimization. Table 2 reports the corre-
lates of psychological abuse victimization, controlling for confounding vari-
ables (Equations 4 to 6). We find that males are significantly less likely than
females to be victims of psychological abuse (B = –0.347, p < .01). In the full
model, respondents who experienced abuse during childhood are 31% more
likely (e
0.268
= 1.307) to be victims of psychological abuse in a dating relation-
ship compared to respondents who did not experience childhood abuse. This
finding, however, does not hold in the gender-specific models for males and
females. Witnessing parental violence does not have a significant impact on
psychological abuse victimization in the full, male, or female sample models.
Other correlates of psychological abuse victimization for college students are
at UNIV OF FLORIDA Smathers Libraries on December 29, 2008http://jiv.sagepub.comDownloaded from
1680
Table 2
Adjusted Odds Ratios (AORs) and Logistic Regression Coefficients (Bs) for
Psychological Abuse Perpetration and Victimization
Psychological Abuse Perpetration Models Psychological Abuse Victimization Models
Equation 1, Equation 2, Equation 3, Equation 4, Equation 5, Equation 6,
Full Model Male Model Female Model Full Model Male Model Female Model
B AOR B AOR B AOR B AOR B AOR B AOR
n 2,305 900 1,405 2,304 898 1,406
Male 0.43*** 0.64 0.34** 0.70
Exclusive dating 0.95*** 2.59 0.74*** 2.10 1.07*** 2.94 0.82*** 2.29 0.58*** 1.79 0.97*** 2.64
Dad hit mom 0.06 1.07 0.06 0.93 0.14 1.16 0.05 1.06 0.05 0.94 0.16 1.17
Mom hit dad 0.44* 1.56 0.41 1.51 0.50 1.66 0.35 1.42 0.31 1.37 0.37 1.45
Child abuse 0.29** 1.34 0.30 1.36 0.29* 1.33 0.26* 1.30 0.32 1.38 0.22 1.25
Attitudes toward
women 0.001 0.99 0.00 0.99 0.02 0.98 0.01 0.98 0.01 0.98 0.01 0.98
Self-control 0.01** 0.98 0.03** 0.97 0.01 0.98 0.01* 0.98 0.02** 0.97 0.01 0.99
Mom attachment 0.01 0.99 0.03 0.96 0.001 1.001 0.00 0.99 0.02 0.97 0.01 1.01
Dad attachment 0.01 0.98 0.01 1.01 0.02* 0.97 0.00 0.99 0.01 1.01 0.02 0.98
Sexual risk taking 0.10*** 1.10 0.11*** 1.12 0.09*** 1.09 0.09*** 1.09 0.09*** 1.10 0.09*** 1.09
Constant 0.51 1.67 0.59 1.80 0.27 1.32 0.07 0.92 0.39 1.47 0.52 0.59
–2 log likelihood 2794.16 1085.25 1686.12 2843.54 1111.74 1710.35
Model χ
2
367.78 151.24 231.48 322.18 120.66 218.36
Note: These models estimate the coefficients shown in the table controlling for university, class standing, family structure, school living situation,
race, religiosity, substance use, and friend’s substance use.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
at UNIV OF FLORIDA Smathers Libraries on December 29, 2008http://jiv.sagepub.comDownloaded from
self-control, sexual risk taking, exclusive dating, and substance abuse. In the
gender-specific models, self-control has a significant impact on psychologi-
cal abuse victimization for males and substance use has a significant impact
on psychological abuse victimization for females.
Discussion
Prior to discussing our findings and their implications, it is important to
note several methodological limitations of this research. First, this study
relies on retrospective accounts of violence exposure during childhood and
self-reported accounts of experiences with adult violence. It is possible that
both estimates of childhood violence and dating violence contain measure-
ment error because of problems of recall and inaccurate reporting
(Hindelang, Hirschi, & Weis, 1981). Some respondents may not have been
willing to self-report violence perpetration because of social desirability
issues. Another limitation of this study is the cross-sectional nature of these
data, which prohibit conclusions about causal relationships. In addition,
because the participants in this research are a homogeneous sample of college
students, care should be exercised when generalizing the findings to young
men and women outside of colleges and universities. The findings from the
current study are further limited by our use of the CTS2 to measure violence
perpetration and victimization because it does not investigate the contextual
nature of violence (DeKeseredy & Schwartz, 1998). Specifically, the CTS2
does not include indicators that would identify whether reported acts of
aggression are reactive behaviors engaged in for self-defense. Another limi-
tation of our study in terms of examining gender differences is our exclusion
of the CTS2 Injury scale, which would have allowed us to assess the conse-
quences of violence perpetrated by women versus men in terms of injury.
Gender and Physical Violence
Perpetration and Victimization
Consistent with prior research on dating violence among college
samples, our findings indicate that females reported physical violence per-
petration in dating relationships more often than did males (Cercone et al.,
2005; Foshee et al., 1996; Straus, 2004). As mentioned earlier, prior research
has suggested that this phenomenon may be attributed to females behaving
in a reactive manner in which physical violence is used against a dating
partner in self-defense (Harned, 2001). Young women’s greater perpetration
Gover et al. / Violence in the Family of Origin 1681
at UNIV OF FLORIDA Smathers Libraries on December 29, 2008http://jiv.sagepub.comDownloaded from
of violence compared to college men may also reflect the nature of college
dating relationships. In particular, we find that college men have higher lev-
els of sexual risk taking compared to college women in terms of greater
numbers of prior sexual partners. Similar to research on the risk of violence
among cohabitating dating partners, the lack of official commitment (i.e.,
marriage) among college daters may lead to jealousy and frustration among
some young women that heightens their risk of perpetrating a variety of
coercively controlling behaviors. Other researchers have suggested that this
finding may be a result of social stigmatization (Jackson, 1999). Traditionally,
males have been recognized as perpetrators of violence and females as the
victims of their abuse; therefore, the role reversal we are seeing now may
be a type of retaliation against centuries of abuse. Considering this perspec-
tive, it is reasonable to suspect that some females may be more comfortable
admitting their physical abuse perpetration. Similarly, as some research has
suggested, it is possible that males may be equally uncomfortable reporting
their violent behavior toward a dating partner (Kaukinen, 2002). The cul-
ture surrounding men as victims and women as abusers is often portrayed
by the media in a humorous and inconsequential way. Furthermore, the
inappropriateness of aggression perpetrated by women is often overlooked
(Perry & Fromuth, 2005). Failing to recognize the harm of dating violence
to both men and women runs the risk of failing to ameliorate violence
within all intimate relationships. In terms of victimization, our findings
support prior research indicating that females are more likely to experience
physical violence victimization in a dating relationship (Bergman, 1992;
Roscoe & Kelsey, 1986). This suggests the need for future research to
explore the overlap in offending behavior and victimization experiences
and the context in which college men and women both perpetrate and expe-
rience physical violence.
Gender, Exposure to Violence During Childhood,
and Physical Violence Perpetration and Victimization
The purpose of this study is to examine the influence of the intergener-
ational transmission of violence hypothesis on physical and psychological
victimization and perpetration among a sample of male and female college
students. Although previous research has suggested that males are more
likely than females to model the abusive behaviors of their parents
(Marshall & Rose, 1988), males and females who experienced abuse dur-
ing childhood are significantly more likely to perpetrate physical dating
1682 Journal of Interpersonal Violence
at UNIV OF FLORIDA Smathers Libraries on December 29, 2008http://jiv.sagepub.comDownloaded from
violence. However, childhood abuse is found to be associated with the
likelihood of dating violence victimization among females but not males.
Therefore, the current research supports the intergenerational transmission
of violence hypothesis in terms of the relationship between childhood vio-
lence victimization and physical violence perpetration in a dating relation-
ship. Our models indirectly test the social learning theory assumption that
“children of violent parents use violence because they have observed more
functionally positive than negative consequences of their parents’ use of
violence” (Foshee, Bauman, & Linder, 1999, p. 332). Our findings show
that witnessing violence between parents does not have a significant
impact on dating violence perpetration, but witnessing paternally perpe-
trated abuse is significantly related to physical dating violence victimiza-
tion for females. As with prior research (Carr & VanDeusen, 2002;
Jankowski et al., 1999; Marshall & Rose, 1988), this suggests that children
who observe parents using violence are witnessing a script for that behav-
ior. Foshee et al. (1999) further suggested that this includes the events and
circumstances that lead up to the abuse and the circumstances and conse-
quences of violence.
Gender, Exposure to Violence During Childhood, and
Psychological Violence Perpetration and Victimization
Although prior research on the topic of physical dating violence is abun-
dant, few studies have examined psychological abuse in dating relation-
ships. In fact, most prior research on psychological abuse within relationships
focuses almost exclusively on domestic violence among couples who
are married and cohabitating rather than dating (Johnson & Ferraro, 2000;
Kaukinen, 2002). Furthermore, much of the research that has examined
psychological abuse in dating relationships has focused on adolescents
rather than college-age individuals. Our research is one of the few studies
to examine psychological abuse perpetration and victimization in dating
relationships among college students. We find young women are more likely
than men to be the perpetrators and victims of psychological abuse. Future
research should examine the context in which women engage in and expe-
rience psychological abuse in both physically violent and nonviolent rela-
tionships. In particular, research should look at whether psychological
abuse is a precursor for physical violence or part of an overall continuum
of violence within intimate relationships. Consistent with prior research
(Hammock & O’Hearn, 2002), females report perpetrating psychological
Gover et al. / Violence in the Family of Origin 1683
at UNIV OF FLORIDA Smathers Libraries on December 29, 2008http://jiv.sagepub.comDownloaded from
abuse more often than do males. Similar to those of physical dating
violence, gender differences in psychological abuse perpetration reporting
rates may also be a result of social stigmatization in that females may
be more comfortable than males admitting to psychological abuse. These
findings may also result from a reactive, or self-defensive, type of behavior.
Harned (2002) found psychological victimization in dating relationships
to be predictive of the exposure to psychological aggression from one’s
dating partner.
Conclusions
Although young women report violence perpetration more often than
do college men, women are also more likely to report victimization. The
obvious question is how college women’s greater perpetuation of violence
does not translate into a greater risk of victimization for college men. The
answer to this question could be that young women are not necessarily
dating college men. They could be dating older men who are out of col-
lege, younger men who are not yet in college, or men who choose not to
attend college. The same may be true for the young men in our sample
who are not necessarily dating young women in college but are perhaps
involved in violent relationships with older women who are out of col-
lege, with younger women who are still in high school or with women
who choose not to attend college. To sort out these and other empirical
questions regarding men and women’s perpetration and victimization of
dating violence, it is important that researchers continue to recognize the
need for gender-specific analyses (Katz, Carino, & Hilton, 2002).
The greater involvement of young women as perpetrators suggests the
need for empirical data from college samples to explore the context in
which young women use and experience violence in their intimate relation-
ships. Preliminary analyses of the overlap between perpetration and victim-
ization using data from the current study indicates substantial
co-occurrence, particularly among women. Graves, Sechrist, White, and
Paradise (2005) suggested that there is a need to sort out the interactive
processes by which victimization and perpetration co-occur. In addition to
focusing on the co-occurrence of victimization and perpetration, it is also
important for future research to explore the co-occurrence of physical and
psychological aggression perpetration. Preliminary analyses of the current
study’s data indicate that those who perpetrate psychological abuse are also
1684 Journal of Interpersonal Violence
at UNIV OF FLORIDA Smathers Libraries on December 29, 2008http://jiv.sagepub.comDownloaded from
engaging in physical violence perpetration. Although some researchers
have suggested that psychological abuse may be a precursor to physical
violence (Macmillan & Gartner, 1999), others (Johnson & Ferraro, 2000)
have suggested that psychological abuse reflects attempts by partners to
gain control through coercive tactics within both violent and nonviolent
relationships. An exploration of the role of psychological abuse would
accomplish what Johnson (1995) saw as the need to recognize the contin-
uum of violence, control, and psychological abuse within intimate relation-
ships and would have implications for identifying the correlates and
consequences of abuse.
Although the current study focused on examining the intergenerational
transmission of violence hypothesis in dating relationships, other variables
emerged throughout the multivariate analyses as being related to dating
violence, in addition to violence exposure during childhood. Being in an
exclusive relationship, self-control, and sexual risk taking contribute to all
victim and perpetrator categories examined. These findings warrant further
examination of their relationships to dating violence victimization and per-
petration and whether there are differences in these relationships across
gender.
The findings from this study indicate that women are more likely
than men to be the victims of physical violence in dating relationships.
These findings are consistent with those reported by the National Crime
Victimization Survey (NCVS) and the National Violence Against Women
Survey (NVAWS). At the same time, this study reports dating violence per-
petration rates for men and women that cannot be directly compared to
those of the NCVS and NVAWS. Although the NCVS and NVAWS show
large gender disparities in terms of victimization, it is important to note that
these studies do not collect self-reported perpetration data. Furthermore,
given that the NCVS and NVAWS data are based on population samples,
they are more apt to tap partner violence in married and cohabitating rela-
tionships over the life course. Our findings suggest that it is likely that vio-
lence experienced and perpetrated among young adults is qualitatively
different from violence within married and cohabitating couples. Although
among college daters sexual jealousy, alcohol use, and lack of formal com-
mitment may shape the risk of dating violence, many married and cohabi-
tating couples are dealing with a host of stressors and frustrations related to
a variety of social, economic, and family responsibilities. All of these diver-
gent factors come together to shape and determine when and how men and
women use and experience violence.
Gover et al. / Violence in the Family of Origin 1685
at UNIV OF FLORIDA Smathers Libraries on December 29, 2008http://jiv.sagepub.comDownloaded from
1686
Appendix
Variable Coding, Descriptive Statistics, and Scale Construction
Variable
Physical violence and
psychological abuse
measures
Physical violence
perpetration
(Straus, Hamby,
Boney-McCoy,
& Sugarman,
1996)
Physical violence
victimization
(Straus et al.,
1996)
Psychological
abuse perpetration
(Straus et al.,
1996)
Psychological
abuse
victimization
(Straus et al.,
1996)
%
28.90
22.10
54.10
52.70
M SD
0.45
0.42
0.50
0.50
Range
0 to 1
0 to 1
0 to 1
0 to 1
Variable or Scale Description
How many times within the past year did you do each of the following to a dating
partner: Threw something that could hurt, twisted arm or hair, kicked or slapped,
pushed or shoved, punched or hit with hand or an object, choked, slammed against a
wall, grabbed, used force (like hitting, holding down, or using a weapon) to make
my partner have sex (vaginal, oral, and/or anal), insisted on sex (vaginal, oral, and/or
anal) when my partner did not want to (but did not use physical force).
How many times within the past year did a dating partner do each of the following to
you: Threw something that could hurt, twisted arm or hair, kicked or slapped,
pushed or shoved, punched or hit with hand or an object, choked, slammed against
a wall, grabbed, used force (like hitting, holding down, or using a weapon) to
make my partner have sex (vaginal, oral, and/or anal), insisted on sex (vaginal,
oral, and/or anal) when my partner did not want to (but did not use physical force).
How many times within the past year did you do each of the following to a dating
partner: Threatened to hit or throw something, prevented from seeing family or
friends, insisted on knowing whereabouts all the time, insisted on knowing who was
on the phone, insulted or swore, accused of being a lousy lover, called bad names,
shouted or yelled, used threats to have sex, made partner have sex without a condom.
How many times within the past year did a dating partner do each of the following to
you: Threatened to hit or throw something, prevented from seeing family or friends,
insisted on knowing whereabouts all the time, insisted on knowing who was on the
phone, insulted or swore, accused of being a lousy lover, called bad names, shouted
or yelled, used threats to have sex, made to have sex without a condom.
α
(continued)
at UNIV OF FLORIDA Smathers Libraries on December 29, 2008http://jiv.sagepub.comDownloaded from
1687
Variable
Family measures
Attachment to dad
(Hirschi, 1969,
modified)
Attachment to
mom (Hirschi,
1969, modified)
Witnessed mom
hit dad
Witnessed dad hit
mom
Child abuse
(Straus et al.,
1996)
Two-parent home
Risk-taking behavior
Self-control
(Grasmick,
Tittle, Bursick,
& Arneklev,
1993)
Substance use
(Substance Use
and Mental
Health Services
Administration,
2004)
%
7.50
8.20
28.80
73.60
M
15.90
17.56
65.5
3.07
SD
4.55
3.26
0.27
0.26
0.45
0.44
10.20
2.01
Range
3 to 20
4 to 20
0 to 1
0 to 1
0 to 1
0 to 1
3 to 92
0 to 9
Variable or Scale Description
1. How often do you trust your dad? 2. How often do you feel you can talk to him
about your problems? 3. How often do you think he is genuinely interested in
you? 4. How often do you feel that he supports you? (never = 1, sometimes = 2,
half of the time = 3, usually = 4, always = 5)
1. How often do you trust your mom? 2. How often do you feel you can talk to
her about your problems? 3. How often do you think she is genuinely interested in
you? 4. How often do you feel that she supports you? (never = 1, sometimes =
2, half of the time = 3, usually = 4, always = 5)
When you were a child, did you ever see your mother hit your father?
When you were a child, did you ever see your father hit your mother?
Did a parent ever throw something at you that could hurt you, pull your hair, kick
or bite you, choke or attempt to drown you, beat you up, hit you so hard that it
left bruises or marks, hurt you in a sexual way.
Respondent is from a two-parent home
Self-Control is a summated scale made up of 23 items similar to the following: I
often act on the spur of the moment without stopping to think, I don't devote
much thought and effort to preparing for the future, I often do whatever brings
me pleasure here and now, even at the cost of some distant goal, and I’m more
concerned with what happens to me in the short run than in the long run.
(strongly agree = 1, agree = 2, disagree = 3, strongly disagree = 4)
1. In the past year did you drink alcohol? 2. In the past year did you use marijuana?
3. In the past year did you use hard drugs like cocaine or heroin? (never = 0,
once = 1, a few times = 2, often = 3)
α
.85
.87
.87
.56
(continued)
Appendix (continued)
at UNIV OF FLORIDA Smathers Libraries on December 29, 2008http://jiv.sagepub.comDownloaded from
1688
Appendix (continued)
Variable
Friend’s substance
use (Substance
Use and Mental
Health Services
Administration,
2004)
Sexual risk taking
(Gover, 2004)
Attitudes
Religiosity index
(Gover, 2004)
(Negative) attitudes
toward women
(Spence & Hahn,
1997, modified)
%
M
4.55
4.99
2.39
17.20
SD
2.29
4.32
1.64
4.69
Range
0 to 9
0 to 18
0 to 5
2 to 38
Variable or Scale Description
1. In the past year did your friend(s) drink alcohol? 2. In the past year did your
friend(s) use marijuana? 3. In the past year did your friend(s) use hard drugs
like cocaine or heroin? (never = 0, once = 1, a few times = 2, often = 3)
1. How old were you when you had sexual intercourse for the first time? Reverse
coded (I have never had sexual intercourse = 0, thirteen or younger = 1, fourteen =
2, fifteen = 3, sixteen = 4, seventeen = 5, eighteen or older = 6) 2. During your life,
how many people have you had sexual intercourse with? (I have never had sexual
intercourse = 0, 1 partner = 1, 2 partners = 2, 3 partners = 3, 4 partners = 4, 5
partners = 5, 6 partners or more = 6) 3. During the last three months, how many
people have you had sexual intercourse with? (I have never had sexual intercourse =
0, I did not have sexual intercourse during the past 3 months = 1, 1 partner = 2, 2
partners = 3, 3 partners = 4, 4 partners = 5, 5 partners = 6, 6 partners or more = 7)
1. In the last year, how often did you attend religious services? (never = 0, seldom = 1,
monthly = 2, weekly = 3) 2. How religious are you? (not religious = 0, moderately
religious = 1, very religious = 2)
Attitudes Toward Women is a summated scale made up of 10 items similar to the
following: Swearing and obscenity are more repulsive in the speech of a woman
than of a man (reverse coded); Under modern economic conditions with women
being active outside the home, men should share in household tasks such as
washing dishes and doing the laundry (reverse coded); Women should worry
less about their rights and more about becoming good wives and mothers
α
.48
.78
.75
.83
(continued)
at UNIV OF FLORIDA Smathers Libraries on December 29, 2008http://jiv.sagepub.comDownloaded from
1689
Appendix (continued)
Variable
Controls and
demographics
Gender
School
Race (White)
African American
Exclusive
relationship
Class standing
Lives off campus
%
39.80
58.00
68.20
14.90
36.00
24.30
60.70
M
SD
0.49
0.49
0.47
0.36
0.48
0.43
0.49
Range
0 to 1
0 to 1
0 to 1
0 to 1
0 to 1
0 to 1
0 to 1
Variable or Scale Description
(reverse coded); and Women should assume their rightful place in business and all
the professions along with men (reverse coded). (strongly agree = 1, agree = 2,
disagree = 3, strongly disagree = 4)
Male
University A
White and non-White Hispanic or Latino
African American (non-Hispanic)
In an exclusive intimate relationship
Class standing is senior (or graduate student)
Respondent lives off campus
at UNIV OF FLORIDA Smathers Libraries on December 29, 2008http://jiv.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Notes
1. Violence perpetration and victimization experiences ranged from 5% to 15% for pushes,
slaps, and thrown objects and were less than 2% for the most severe forms of violence (i.e.,
sexual assault and choking).
2. Between 5% and 45% of students reported experiences with invasion of privacy, social
isolation and control, and put-downs and/or threats.
3. Models are also estimated that distinguished between more and less severe forms of vio-
lence (analyses not shown but are available on request from authors). These findings are sub-
stantively similar, especially with regard to the effect of gender on violent victimization and
perpetration.
References
Aberele, C. C., & Littlefield, R. P. (2001). Family functioning and sexual aggression in a sam-
ple of college men. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16, 565-579.
Alexander, P. C., Moore, S., & Alexander, E. (1991). What is transmitted in the intergenera-
tional transmission of violence? Journal of Marriage and Family, 53, 657-668.
Avakame, E. F. (1998a). Intergenerational transmission of violence and psychological aggres-
sion against wives. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 30, 193-202.
Avakame, E. F. (1998b). Intergenerational transmission of violence, self-control, and conjugal
violence: A comparative analysis of physical violence and psychological aggression.
Violence and Victims, 13, 301-316.
Bergman, L. (1992). Dating violence among high school students. Social Work, 37, 21-27.
Bernard, J. L., Bernard, S. L., & Bernard, M. L. (1985). Courtship violence and sex-typing.
Family Relations, 34, 573-576.
Carr, J., & VanDeusen, K. M. (2002). The relationship between family of origin violence and
dating violence in college men. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17, 630-646.
Cercone, J. J., Beach, S. R. H., & Arias, I. (2005). Gender symmetry in dating intimate part-
ner violence: Does similar behavior imply similar constructs? Violence and Victims, 20,
207-218.
Chapple, C. L., & Hope, T. L. (2003). An analysis of the self-control and criminal versatility
of gang and dating 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 ado-
lescent 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, S.
(2000). Severe dating violence and quality of life among South Carolina high school
students. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 19, 220-227.
DeKeseredy, W. S., & Schwartz, M. D. (1998). Women 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 aggres-
sion across three generations. Journal of Family Violence, 9, 157-175.
Foo, L., & Margolin, G. (1995). A multivariate investigation of dating aggression. Journal of
Family Violence, 10, 351-377.
1690 Journal of Interpersonal Violence
at UNIV OF FLORIDA Smathers Libraries on December 29, 2008http://jiv.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Foshee, V. A., Bauman, K. E., & Linder, G. F. (1999). Family violence and the perpetration of
adolescent dating violence: Examining social learning and social control processes.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 331-342.
Foshee, V. A., Linder, G. F., Bauman, K. E., Langwick, S. A., Arriaga, X. B., & Heath, J. L.
(1996). The Safe Dates Project: Theoretical basis, evaluation design, and selected baseline
findings. American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 12, 39-47.
Gibb, B. E., Abramson, L. Y., & Alloy, L. B. (2004). Emotional maltreatment from parents,
verbal peer victimization, and cognitive vulnerability to depression. Cognitive Therapy
and Research, 28, 1-21.
Gover, A. R. (2004). Risky lifestyles and dating violence: A theoretical test of violent victim-
ization. Journal of Criminal Justice, 32, 171-180.
Grasmick, H. G., Tittle, C. R., Bursick, R. J., & Arneklev, B. J. (1993). Testing the core empir-
ical implications of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime. Journal of Research
in Crime and Delinquency, 30, 5-29.
Graves, K. N., Sechrist, S. M., White, J. W., & Paradise, M. J. (2005). Intimate partner vio-
lence perpetrated by college women within the context of a history of victimization.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 278-289.
Hamby, S. L., & Sugarman, D. B. (1999). Acts of psychological aggression against a partner
and their relation to physical assault and gender. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61,
959-970.
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 out-
comes of dating violence. Violence and Victims, 16, 269-285.
Harned, M. S. (2002). A multivariate analysis of risk markers for dating violence victimiza-
tion. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17, 1179-1197.
Henton, J., Cate, R., Koval, J., Lloyd, S., & Christopher, F. S. (1983). Romance and violence
in dating relationships. Journal of Family Issues, 4, 434-482.
Hindelang, M., Hirschi, T., & Weis, J. (1981). Measuring delinquency. Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage.
Hines, D. A., & Straus, M. A. (2007). Binge drinking and violence against dating partners: The
mediating effect of antisocial traits and behaviors in a multinational perspective.
Aggressive Behavior, 33, 1-17.
Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Jackson, S. M. (1999). Issues in the dating violence research: A review of the literature.
Aggression and Violent Behavior, 4, 233-247.
Jackson, S. M., Cram, F., & Seymour, F. M. (2000). Violence and sexual coercion in high
school students’ dating relationships. Journal of Family Violence, 15, 23-36.
Jankowski, M. K., Leitenberg, H., Henning, K., & Coffey, P. (1999). Intergenerational trans-
mission of dating aggression as a function of witnessing only same sex parents vs. oppo-
site sex parents vs. both parents as perpetrators of domestic violence. Journal of Family
Violence, 14, 267-279.
Johnson, M. P. (1995). Patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence: Two forms of vio-
lence against women. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 283-294.
Johnson, M. P., & Ferraro, K. (2000). Research on domestic violence in the 1990s: Making
distinctions. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 948-963.
Johnston, M. E. (1988). Correlates of early violence experience among men who are abusive
toward female mates. In G. T. Hotaling, D. Finkelhor, J. T. Kirkpatrick, & M. A. Straus
Gover et al. / Violence in the Family of Origin 1691
at UNIV OF FLORIDA Smathers Libraries on December 29, 2008http://jiv.sagepub.comDownloaded from
(Eds.), Family abuse and its consequences: New directions in research (pp. 192-202).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Kalmuss, D. (1984). The intergenerational transmission of marital aggression. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 47, 11-19.
Katz, J., Carino, A., & Hilton, A. (2002). Perceived verbal conflict behaviors associated with
physical aggression and sexual coercion in dating relationships: A gender-sensitive analy-
sis. Violence and Victims, 17, 93-109.
Kaukinen, C. E. (2002). Adolescent victimization and problem drinking. Violence and Victims,
17, 669-689.
Koss, M. P., & Dinero, T. (1989). Discriminant analyses of risk factors for sexual victimiza-
tion among a national sample of college students. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 57, 242-250.
Kreiter, S. R., Krowchuk, D. P., Woods, C. R., Sinal, S. H., Lawless, M. R., & DuRant, R. H.
(1999). Gender differences in risk behaviors among adolescents who experience date fight-
ing. Pediatrics, 104, 1286-1292.
Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., Hankla, M., & Stormberg, C. D. (2004). The relationship behav-
ior networks of young adults: A test of the intergenerational transmission of violence
hypothesis. Journal of Family Violence, 19, 139-151.
Luthra, R., & Gidycz, C. A. (2006). Dating violence among college men and women:
Evaluation of a theoretical model. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21, 717-731.
Macmillan, R., & Gartner, R. (1999). When she brings home the bacon: Labor-force partici-
pation and the risk of spousal violence against women. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 61, 947-958.
Makepeace, J. M. (1981). Courtship violence among college students. Family Relations, 30,
97-102.
Makepeace, J. M. (1987). Social factor and victim-offender differences in courtship violence.
Family Relations, 36, 87-91.
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.
Marshall, L. L., & Rose, P. (1988). Family of origin violence and courtship abuse. Journal of
Counseling and Development, 66, 414-418.
Messman-Moore, T. L., Long, P. J., & Siegfried, N. J. (2000). The revictimization of child
sexual abuse survivors: An examination of the adjustment of college women with child
sexual abuse, adult sexual assault, and adult physical abuse. Child Maltreatment, 5, 18-27.
Monson, C. M., & Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J. (2002). Sexual and nonsexual dating violence
perpetration. Violence and Victims, 17, 403-428.
Muehlenhard, C. L., & Linton, M. A. (1987). Date rape and sexual aggression in dating situ-
ations: Incidence and risk factors. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34, 186-196.
Olday, D., & Wesley, B. (1988). Dating violence: A comparison of high school and college
subsamples. Free Inquiry in Creative Sociology, 16, 183-190.
Perry, A. R., & Fromuth, M. E. (2005). Courtship violence using couple data: Characteristics
and perceptions. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20, 1078-1095.
Raj, A., Santana, C., La Marche, A., Amaro, H., Cranston, K., & Silverman, J. G. (2006).
Perpetration of intimate partner violence associated with sexual risk behaviors among
young adult men. American Journal of Public Health, 96, 1873-1878.
Roscoe, B., & Kelsey, T. (1986). Dating violence among high school students. Psychology, 23,
53-57.
Rouse, L. P. (1988). Abuse in dating relationships: A comparison of Blacks, Whites, and
Hispanics. Journal of College Student Development, 9, 312-319.
1692 Journal of Interpersonal Violence
at UNIV OF FLORIDA Smathers Libraries on December 29, 2008http://jiv.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Sharpe, D., & Taylor, J. K. (1999). An examination of variables from a social-developmental
model to explain physical and psychological dating violence. Canadian Journal of
Behavioural Science, 31, 165-175.
Spence, J. T., & Hahn, E. D. (1997). The attitudes toward women scale and attitude change in
college students. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 17-34.
Stets, J. E., & Pirog-Good, M. A. (1987). Violence in dating relationships. Social Psychology
Quarterly, 50, 237-246.
Straus, M. A. (2004). Prevalence of violence against dating partners by male and female uni-
versity students worldwide. Violence Against Women, 10, 790-811.
Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. B. (1996). The Revised
Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal
of Family Issues, 17, 283-316.
Substance Use and Mental Health Services Administration. (2004). National Survey of Drug
Use and Health. Rockville, MD: Author.
Angela R. Gover is an associate professor in the School of Public Affairs at the University of
Colorado Denver. Her research interests include policy-relevant family violence issues, vio-
lence against women, gender and crime, and evaluation research.
Catherine Kaukinen is an associate professor in the School of Public Affairs and director of
the Criminal Justice Program at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs. Her current
research interests include intimate partner violence, risk and protective factors for violent vic-
timization, and the relationship between family structure and adolescent problem behaviors.
Kathleen A. Fox is a doctoral student in the department of Criminology, Law and Society at
the University of Florida. Her research interests include intimate partner violence, stalking,
gender and crime, fear of crime, and campus safety and security issues.
Gover et al. / Violence in the Family of Origin 1693
at UNIV OF FLORIDA Smathers Libraries on December 29, 2008http://jiv.sagepub.comDownloaded from
... As such, DV is a major public health issue among adolescents and young adults. Risk factors for DV victimization and/or perpetration may include gender (Gover et al., 2008;Luthra & Gidycz, 2006; perpetration only), childhood physical abuse (Foshee et al., 2004;victimization only;Gover et al., 2008;Herrenkohl et al., 2004;Simons et al., 2008; perpetration only), witnessing parental violence (Duval et al., 2020;Gover et al., 2008;perpetration only), sexual risk-taking behavior (Gover et al., 2008), and substance use (Duval et al., 2020;McNaughton Reyes et al., 2012;per petration only;Neavins et al., 2020). ...
... As such, DV is a major public health issue among adolescents and young adults. Risk factors for DV victimization and/or perpetration may include gender (Gover et al., 2008;Luthra & Gidycz, 2006; perpetration only), childhood physical abuse (Foshee et al., 2004;victimization only;Gover et al., 2008;Herrenkohl et al., 2004;Simons et al., 2008; perpetration only), witnessing parental violence (Duval et al., 2020;Gover et al., 2008;perpetration only), sexual risk-taking behavior (Gover et al., 2008), and substance use (Duval et al., 2020;McNaughton Reyes et al., 2012;per petration only;Neavins et al., 2020). ...
... As such, DV is a major public health issue among adolescents and young adults. Risk factors for DV victimization and/or perpetration may include gender (Gover et al., 2008;Luthra & Gidycz, 2006; perpetration only), childhood physical abuse (Foshee et al., 2004;victimization only;Gover et al., 2008;Herrenkohl et al., 2004;Simons et al., 2008; perpetration only), witnessing parental violence (Duval et al., 2020;Gover et al., 2008;perpetration only), sexual risk-taking behavior (Gover et al., 2008), and substance use (Duval et al., 2020;McNaughton Reyes et al., 2012;per petration only;Neavins et al., 2020). ...
Article
Though dating violence (DV) is prevalent on college campuses, few studies have examined a multitude of risk factors that may better explain this process. As such, we examined the role of family violence (i.e., childhood physical abuse, witnessing parental violence), personality traits (i.e., entitlement, antisocial personality [ASP] and borderline personality [BP]) and risk behaviors (i.e., risky sexual behaviors, heavy drinking, marijuana use, illicit drug use) on DV victimization and perpetration among 783 college students. Path analysis revealed that witnessing parental violence was linked to DV perpetration while experiencing more physical abuse was positively correlated with entitlement (females only), ASP traits, and BP traits. ASP traits (both males and females) and entitlement (females only) were directly associated with high-risk behaviors. Among females, entitlement was also indirectly associated with DV victimization and perpetration through sexual risk behaviors. Findings highlight the importance of histories of physical abuse and personality traits in understanding DV.
... This model suggests that parents model aggression within the home, in which children learn that aggressive behavior is an acceptable method of handling interpersonal conflict and an adaptive way to achieve certain goals (Calvete, 2007;Mohalic & Elliott, 1997). Consistent literature supports the ITV and social learning models across generations (Black et al., 2010;Carr & VanDeusen, 2002;Gover et al., 2008;Heyman & Slep, 2002;Jankowski et al., 1999;Milletich et al., 2010). ...
Full-text available
Article
Prior literature suggests exposure to family violence often leads to aggressive behavior among adolescents. Despite this association, little is known of the potential explanatory variables that could link exposure to family violence and aggressive behavior, such as substance use and depressive symptoms. Thus, guided by the intergenerational transmission of violence theory, this cross-sectional study used data from the Bullying, Sexual, and Dating Violence Trajectories From Early to Late Adolescence in the Midwestern United States, 2007–2013, to test whether exposure to family violence is associated with aggressive behavior. Then, using structural equation model, this study explored whether depressive symptoms and substance use sequentially explained the relationship between exposure to family violence and aggressive behavior. A total of 1162 adolescents (M = 12.29), 52.1% males and 47.9% females, participated. Results show that exposure to family violence positively associated with aggressive behavior. Although sequentially, substance use and depressive symptoms did not explain the relationship between exposure to family violence and aggressive behavior, substance use alone had a significant indirect effect on the relationship between exposure to family violence and aggressive behavior. Therapeutic and theoretical implications are discussed.
... From a psychoanalytic perspective, experiences of violence in the family of origin can result in feelings of unworthiness and in a lack of emotion regulation abilities, which can contribute to the use of violence within the relationship (Miltz et al., 2019). Furthermore, direct and indirect experiences of violence within the family of origin can serve as a model for conflict resolution that will be applied in future relationships (Zavala, 2017), according to the social learning theory (Felson & Lane, 2009;Gover et al., 2008;Mihalic & Elliott, 1997). However, considering the studies included in the current review, primarily suffering violence within the family of origin, rather than witnessing parental violence, emerged as a risk factor for IPV perpetration. ...
Full-text available
Article
Introduction Intimate partner violence (IPV) among sexual minority people has been underestimated since few decades ago despite its spreading. The current systematic review aims to review and systematize studies on factors associated with IPV perpetration within this population. Methods Data search was conducted on EBSCO and PubMed considering articles published until July 2022, and 78 papers were included. Results Although methodological limitations can affect the results found, the data demonstrated an association between IPV perpetration and psychological, relational, family of origin-related and sexual minority-specific factors, substance use, and sexual behaviors. Conclusion The findings emerged highlight the importance of a multidimensional approach to tackle IPV perpetration among sexual minority people and limit relapses, while increasing individual and relational wellbeing. Policy Implications The empirical evidence emerged can contribute to the development of policies and services tailored for sexual minority people victims of IPV, to date still scarce and often ineffective.
... In the present times, cases of rape, theft, assault, and burglary are beginning to increase in university institutions noticeably. Gover et al (2008), identifies two major categories of crimes that occur on tertiary institution campuses. The first type referred to is the "low-probability, multiple-death incident", where consequences are wide-spread and long-lasting. ...
Article
Most prior research on violence among tertiary students has been restricted to dating and sexual violence and neglected cross-cultural variation. To provide more comprehensive and intersectional understandings, this study examined the prevalence and cultural differences in intimate partner and family violence among women tertiary students in Australia. Data were collected from 1,845 women studying at post-secondary institutions and weighted by age and country of birth to reflect the population composition. Eighty-seven percent (86.7%) of participants reported having experienced violence (physical, sexual, psychological, and/or financial) from an intimate partner and/or family member during adulthood. Students who identified as Anglo were more likely to report victimization by intimate partners, while those who identified as non-Anglo and multicultural were more likely to report victimization by family members. The findings highlight the need for tertiary education institutions to prioritize preventing and responding to intimate partner and family violence in their culturally diverse student bodies.
Full-text available
Article
Tanımlayıcı tipteki bu araştırmada üniversite öğrencilerinin cinsel taciz ve saldırı hakkındaki düşüncelerini ve deneyimlerini belirlemek amaçlanmıştır. Araştırmanın örneklemini 2013-2014 akademik yılında bir vakıf üniversitesinde 3. ve 4. sınıfta eğitim ve öğretime devam eden öğrenciler oluşturmuştur. Veriler, öğrencilerin sosyo-demografik özelliklerini, cinsel taciz ve saldırı ile ilişkili düşüncelerini ve deneyimlerini sorgulayan 16 sorudan oluşan soru formu ile toplanmıştır. Veriler Qualtrics Survey Software programı kullanılarak online toplandığından öğrencilerin katılımı az olup anket formunu eksiksiz dolduran 121 öğrenci (%15.08) örnekleme dahil edilmiştir. Öğrencilerin yaş ortalaması 22.12+1.11 olup, %71.9"u 3. sınıf öğrencisidir. Öğrencilerin % 28.9"unun kendisinin, % 7.4"ü ise bir arkadaşının cinsel tacize maruz kaldığı ve cinsel tacize uğradığını belirten öğrencilerin en sık % 21,6"sının yakın arkadaşı tarafından cinsel tacize uğradığı belirlenmiştir. Öğrenciler en az oranda "cinsel içerikli şakalar yapılmasını", en fazla oranda ise "Cinsel ilişkiye (fiziksel olarak) zorlanmayı" ve "rıza olmadan bedenin herhangi bir yerine dokunulmasını" cinsel taciz olarak belirtmişlerdir. Öğrencilerin "cinsel ilişkiye (fiziksel olarak) zorlanmayı" cinsel taciz olarak değerlendirme durumları ile cinsel tacize maruz kalma durumları, cinsiyet, yaşanılan yer, uzun süre yaşanılan yer, anne ve baba eğitim durumu gibi sosyo-demografik özellikleri arasındaki fark istatistiksek olarak anlamlı değildir. Bu çalışma, çalışmaya katılan örneklem sayısı az olmakla birlikte, öğrencilerin cinsel saldırı ve tacize uğrama oranlarının yüksek olduğunu ve öğrencilerin bu konu ile ilişkili farkındalıklarının düşük olduğunu göstermesi açısından önemlidir. Bu nedenle; hem öğrencilerin hem de yöneticilerin bu konuda farkındalık kazanmaları, baş etme yöntemlerinin geliştirilmesi, güvenlik önlemlerinin artırılması gibi cinsel tacizi önlemeyi ve olumsuz etkilerini azaltmayı hedefleyen girişimlerin planlanmasının önemli olduğu düşünülmektedir.
Article
This study examined factors associated with marital satisfaction/dissatisfaction among Ghanaian couples living in Ghana and abroad. Using a correlational design, data from a convenience sample of 231 married participants from Ghana and abroad were collected via an online survey. Results from regression analyses revealed that four positive behaviors—affection, companionship, commitment to the family, and financial support—and one negative behavior, beatings/slaps, were significantly associated with marital satisfaction. Three negative behaviors—annoying habits, selfishness, and disrespect—were significantly associated with marital dissatisfaction. Participants in Ghana reported significantly higher rates of beatings in marriage compared to those abroad. Also, negative behaviors experienced in marriage were significantly associated with less secure and more anxious attachment styles. Finally, slaps/beatings as associated with marital satisfaction show unique cultural/sub-cultural interpretations of behaviors. Findings contribute to growing studies and clinical practice that serve multicultural individuals and families.
Article
Purpose Psychological intimate partner violence (IPV) will impact almost half of US adults throughout the lifespan and as many as 80% of undergraduate college students; however, psychological IPV remains understudied. Examining perceptions of IPV can aid in the identification of potential barriers to treatment seeking and advance intervention efforts. The current study intended to determine how myths and stigmatizing beliefs about IPV affected the minimization (i.e., neutralization) of IPV acts and how history of psychological IPV victimization could moderate the aforementioned associations. Methods Participants were undergraduate students in the southeastern United States ( N = 52) who were currently, or had previously been, in a relationship for at least 1 month. Data were collected regarding IPV victimization and perpetration and perceptions of IPV, including stigmatizing beliefs, myth endorsement, and neutralizing beliefs. Results Findings indicated that those reporting higher levels of psychological IPV victimization endorsed more neutralizing beliefs about IPV more stigmatizing beliefs about females experiencing IPV victimization, compared to those reporting fewer stigmatizing beliefs towards females experiencing IPV. That is, individuals who have experienced psychological IPV and also stigmatize females experiencing IPV victimization may tend to normalize IPV. Conclusions Findings illuminate how perceptions and personal experiences of IPV can minimize someone’s views of the severity of others’ IPV victimization. This research has implications for highlighting barriers to help-seeking behaviors for individuals experiencing IPV and informing future studies about help-seeking in undergraduate populations.
Article
The present study focuses on the interrelationships among gender, self-control, and intimate partner violence (IPV). The extant bodies of literature suggest that both IPV and low self-control are gendered phenomena. That is, males tend to display lower mean levels of self-control than females, and there are notable differences in IPV between males and females. Since both phenomena are gendered, it is plausible that the relationship between self-control and IPV may also be gendered. To that end, the purpose of the present study is to explore the role played by gender in the relationship between self-control and IPV. To accomplish this, a sample of currently dating undergraduate and graduate college students (n = 960) was analyzed. The first objective is to determine whether self-control and IPV vary across gender. The second objective is to examine whether self-control predicts IPV differently by gender. Results indicated partial support for Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime. Self-control operated similarly on IPV for both males and females, supporting the gender-neutrality of their theory. However, the interaction between gender and self-control did not significantly impact IPV offending. Moreover, the gender gap in crime as it relates to self-control remains in question as females were more likely than males to commit more types of IPV. Implications and directions for future research are discussed.
Full-text available
Article
This study explored emotional fear of crime among university students in a rural college town. More specifically, this study separately examined fear of property and violent crime both on and off campus. Findings indicate that males are more fearful of property crime on campus while females are more fearful of violent crime off campus. Victimization and personal safety are also significantly related to fear of crime both on and off campus. Lastly, perceptions of crime control by the police should be considered as an important independent variable for studying emotional fear. These findings hold important implications for addressing fear of crime among young adults in rural areas. Data used for this study came from administering an online survey to college students.
Full-text available
Article
Because employment plays a central role in shaping gender identities and gender relations, it has important implications for understanding women's risks of spousal violence. This article analyzes the relationship between participation in the labor force and the risk of spousal violence against women by treating employment as a symbolic, rather than simply socioeconomic resource. We begin with a latent class analysis that identifies qualitatively distinct patterns of violence against wives. We then examine direct and conditional effects of employment on women's risks of spousal violence. Our results show that the effect of a woman's employment on her risk of spousal violence is conditioned by the employment status of her partner. To some extent, these effects reflect efforts by men to coercively control their female partners.
Full-text available
Article
This paper examines violence in white, heterosexual, dating relationships among college students and highlights the gender differences that are found. Our analysis focuses on particular individual and relationship-specific characteristics that influence the propensity for men and women to use and receive violence. The results strongly suggest that seriousness of the relationship and the personality dimensions of instrumentality and expressiveness explain dating violence for men, while a situation of jealousy explains dating violence for women. Assitionally, though men and women do not significantly differ in the rate ot which they use violence, women are more likely than men to receive violence. These findings are understood in terms of the aspect of control which we argue underlies violent relationships.
Article
This article presents rates of violence against dating partners by students at 31 universities in 16 countries (5 in Asia and the Middle East, 2 in Australia-New Zealand, 6 in Europe, 2 in Latin America, 16 in North America). Assault and injury rates are presented for males and females at each of the 31 universities. At the median university, 29% of the students physically assaulted a dating partner in the previous 12 months (range = 17% to 45%) and 7% had physically injured a partner (range = 2% to 20%). The results reveal both important differences and similarities between universities. Perhaps the most important similarity is the high rate of assault perpetrated by both male and female students in all the countries.
Article
Examined the accuracy with which rape and lesser sexual assaults were predicted among a representative national sample of 2,723 college women. A total of 14 risk variables operationalized three vulnerability hypotheses: (a) vulnerability-creating traumatic experiences, (b) social-psychological vulnerability, and (c) vulnerability-enhancing situations. Each hypothesis was tested individually, and a composite model was developed via discriminant analysis. Only the traumatic experiences variables clearly improved over the base rates in identifying rape victims, but risk variables from each vulnerability hypothesis met criteria for inclusion in the composite model. A risk profile emerged that characterized only 10% of the women, but among them the risk of rape was twice the rate of women without the profile. The concept of traumatic sexualization was used to explain this finding. However, the vast majority of sexually victimized women (75-91%) could not be differentiated from nonvictims. Language: en
Article
In this study we assessed the incidence of and the risk factors for date rape and other forms of male-against-female sexual aggression (SA) in dating situations. Over the course of two semesters, 341 women and 294 men anonymously completed questionnaires. They were asked to describe their most recent date (to provide normative data on dating) and their worst experience with SA during a date, if applicable. We assessed possible risk factors in three ways: (a) For people who had been involved in SA, we compared the characteristics of their SA dates and their recent dates; anything occurring more often on SA dates than on recent dates might be a risk factor. (b) We compared the most recent dates of people who had versus had not experienced SA to identify differences in their dating habits. (c) We compared attitudes of people who had versus had not been involved in SA. Results showed that 77.6% of the women and 57.3% of the men had been involved in some form of SA; 14.7% of the women and 7.1% of the men had been involved in unwanted sexual intercourse. Variables that appear to be risk factors are the man's initiating the date, paying all the expenses, and driving; miscommunication about sex; heavy alcohol or drug use; "parking"; and men's acceptance of traditional sex roles, interpersonal violence, adversarial attitudes about relationships, and rape myths. The length of time that dating partners have known each other seems unrelated to the risk of SA. Implications for rape-prevention programs are discussed.
Article
Recent concern with family violence has focused on child abuse and wife battering, while other forms have been relatively neglected. A need to recognize and focus on violence that occurs during the dating and courtship period is suggested. Descriptive information on the extent and nature of courtship violence found in a sample of college students is reported. The significance of the figures, the "idealized" nature of both popular and professional accounts of the dating and courtship period, and the need for further work in this area are discussed.
Article
The Historical, Social and Political Context of the Canadian National Survey on Woman Abuse in Dating The Incidence and Prevalence of Woman Abuse in Canadian Courtship 'But Women Do It Too' The Meanings of and Motives for Women's Use of Violence Risk Factors and Dating Abuse Progressive Policy Proposals
Article
This article argues that there are two distinct forms of couple violence taking place within families in the United States and other Western countries. A review of evidence from large-sample survey research and from qualitative and quantitative data gathered from women's shelters suggests that some families suffer from occasional outbursts of violence from either husbands or wives (common couple violence), while other families are terrorized by systematic male violence (patriarchal terrorism). It is argued that the distinction between common couple violence and patriarchal terrorism is important because it has implications for the implementation of public policy, the development of educational programs and intervention strategies, and the development of theories of interpersonal violence.