- Email: [email protected]
Dating violence: a comparison of rural, suburban, and urban teens
JOURNAL OF ADOLESCENT HEALTH 2000;27:302–305
ADOLESCENT HEALTH BRIEF
Dating Violence: A Comparison of Rural, Suburban, and Urban Teens GALE A. SPENCER, R.N., Ph.D., AND SHARON A. BRYANT, Ph.D.
This study analyzed rural, suburban, and urban differences in teen dating violence using the 1996 Teen Assessment Project data. Teens in rural school districts were more likely to be victims of dating violence than their suburban and urban counterparts; males reported being slapped, hit, or kicked more frequently than females. The findings of this study indicate that students in rural school districts are at greater risk for participating in dating violence than suburban and urban students, with rural female students at greatest risk. © Society for Adolescent Medicine, 2000 KEY WORDS: Dating violence Rural Suburban Teens Urban
There is a growing body of research that documents the problem of dating violence among junior and senior high school students. Some recent studies estimated that 15%– 42% of all high school students have experienced at least one violent episode with a dating partner (1,2). In addition, in one study 42% of students in grades 6 –12 experienced violence in a current dating relationship (3). Estimates of sexual violence among high school students vary from 3% to 23% for female students and 2% to 4% for male students (1,4 –7).
From the Decker School of Nursing, Binghamton University, Binghamton, New York Address correspondence to: Gale A. Spencer, R.N., Ph.D., Decker School of Nursing, Binghamton University, PO Box 6000, Binghamton, New York 13902-6000. E-mail: [email protected]. Manuscript accepted March 3, 2000. 1054-139X/00/$–see front matter PII S1054-139X(00)00125-7
Although most of the literature agrees that there is no difference between males and females in the amount of dating violence used, gender differences are found when victimization, perpetration, and nonsexual, sexual, and degrees of physical violence are taken into consideration (8 –10). For example, Foshee et al. found that whereas there was no significant gender difference in victimization prevalence, females reported higher rates of perpetration than males in nonsexual dating violence and males reported higher rates of perpetration than females in sexual dating violence (8,10). Most of prior research studies on dating violence have not identified location as an independent variable to account for differential patterns of dating violence (11–15). Only one study, by Bergman, compared rural, suburban, and urban students according to their dating violence behavior (1). This study found that suburban and urban schools reported higher rates of violence than rural schools and that the community setting had both an indirect and direct effect on dating violence. The Bergman study supports the idea that community setting should be considered an independent variable (1). Based on the lack of research in this area and the recent increase in violent behavior among teens residing in rural areas, this study investigated whether students living in urban, suburban, and rural communities experience the same rates of dating violence. Accordingly, this study: (a) compared the prevalence of dating violence among teens attending rural, suburban, and urban schools; and (b) compared the prevalence of dating violence victimization by gender among teens attending rural, suburban, and urban schools.
© Society for Adolescent Medicine, 2000 Published by Elsevier Science Inc., 655 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10010
November 2000
DATING VIOLENCE
Table 1. Demographic Characteristics of the Sample
Variable
Rural Suburban Urban (n ⫽ 492) (n ⫽ 438) (n ⫽ 1149) (%) (%) (%)
Gender Male Female
47 53
49 51
52 48
Race Native American African-American Hispanic Asian White, Non-Hispanic Biracial
3 3 0.4 0.2 88 5
3 2 2 0.9 80 12
3 8 4 5 70 10
Age (y) ⱕ 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ⱖ18
0.4 7 17 13 21 15 20 7
0 7 24 13 22 15 17 2
0.3 10 20 15 26 13 13 3
Grade level 7 9 11 12
29 35 35 1
35 36 28 1
34 41 23 2
Qualify for free school lunch
16
11
22
Methods This study used data from the 1996 Teen Assessment Project (TAP) questionnaire (16). TAP surveyed junior and senior high school students on a variety of health and sociobehavioral topics to assist educators in designing programs to meet the needs of students. The TAP questionnaire was administered to a sample of students who attended five school districts in upstate New York. Students in grades 7, 9, and 11, who were in attendance at school on a designated day, were surveyed. A total of 2094 students participated in the study. All school districts in an upstate county (n ⫽ 14) were asked to participate in the TAP project. Of the 14 school districts, 5 agreed to participate: 2 were rural, 1 was suburban, and 2 were urban. A total of 497 students attended rural schools, 441 students attended a suburban school, and 1156 students attended urban schools. Table 1 summarizes the characteristics of the sampled population. More female students participated in the survey than males in rural and suburban school districts; the opposite was true for urban school districts. The sample was predominately white non-Hispanic.
303
Measures Physical and sexual violence was measured by two items selected from the TAP questionnaire. Physical violence was measured by the item: “Have you been slapped, hit, or kicked by a boyfriend or girlfriend?” Response choices for both questions were: “never,” “once,” “several times,” and “many times.” For the purposes of this study, “several” and “many times” were combined. Sexual violence was measured by two questions. The first item was: “Has another teen ever done something sexual with you that you didn’t want?” The response choices were: “no,” “unwanted kissing,” “unwanted touching,” “unwanted kissing and touching,” “sexual intercourse,” and “unwanted touching and sexual intercourse.” The second item was: “What was the relationship of this person to you?” The response choices for this question were: “no relationship,” “a date,” “boyfriend or girlfriend,” “a friend or acquaintance,” “a stranger,” and “a teen relative.” Sociodemographic factors such as age, gender, educational level, and socioeconomic status (as measured by qualifying for free school lunch) were used to describe the population.
Data Analysis Approval for this study was granted from the Human Subjects Research Committee of Binghamton University. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS (17). Frequencies were used to describe the sociodemographic characteristics of the sample. The Chi-square statistic was used to identify relationships among rural, suburban, and urban teens regarding dating violence.
Results Table 2 shows the relationship between dating violence and location of school district. Sixteen percent of students in rural areas reported having been slapped, kicked, or hit by a boyfriend or girlfriend several times compared with 9% of suburban and 8% of urban students (⌾2 ⫽ 28.88; p ⫽ .000). Table 2 also depicts the association between location of school district and dating violence victimization by gender. Male students in rural areas (18%) were more likely to have been slapped, hit, or kicked several times than either suburban (9%) or urban (9%) males (⌾2 ⫽ 15.09; p ⫽ .005). Female students (14%) in rural schools were also more likely to have been slapped, hit, or kicked several times than sub-
SPENCER AND BRYANT
304
JOURNAL OF ADOLESCENT HEALTH Vol. 27, No. 5
Table 2. Relationship Between School Location and Dating Violence for All Students and By Gender* Students All Rural (n ⫽ 479) Suburban (n ⫽ 434) Urban (n ⫽ 1080) Males Rural (n ⫽ 218) Suburban (n ⫽ 212) Urban (n ⫽ 557) Females Rural (n ⫽ 257) Suburban (n ⫽ 219) Urban (n ⫽ 519)
Never (%)
Once (%)
Several Times (%)
p .000
73
12
16
82
9
9
83
9
8
70
12
18
80
11
9
80
11
9
75
11
14
84
8
8
87
7
6
.005
.001
*By Chi-square analysis.
urban (8%) or urban (6%) females (⌾2 ⫽ 18.58; p ⫽ .001). Whereas sexual violence was found in teens in all three school locations, no significant differences were found between or among school districts (rural, suburban, and urban) for students experiencing sexual victimization in their dating relationships. In addition, female students were found to be at significantly greater risk for sexual victimization than male students in all school locations.
Discussion The results of this study cannot be generalized because of sampling and measurement factors. The urban school districts in this study were located in cities with a population of approximately 55,000; thus, they cannot be generalized to school districts in major metropolitan areas. In addition, all of the measures used in the study were based on selfreported data. Self-reported data have inherent problems owing to the reporting of incorrect information either consciously or unconsciously. The self-report of dating violence is also somewhat suspect because only one person’s perspective is reported. However, this study reports findings from an area currently
under-researched and these findings add to the existing literature on teen dating violence. Rural students were more at risk for being the victims of dating violence than were suburban and urban students. Furthermore, both male and female students attending rural schools were more likely to report having experienced physical violence than students attending suburban and urban schools. Malik et al. found that exposure to weapons and other forms of violence was an important predictor of involvement in violence in both the community and the dating context (14). Male students in rural areas reported that they were hit, kicked, or slapped by their girlfriends more frequently than were rural female students by their boyfriends. Whereas rural students reported this to have occurred significantly more than the urban and suburban students, the trend for males being hit, kicked, or slapped by their girlfriends more than females by their boyfriends was found in all school locations and is increasingly supported in the literature. Prior research indicates that teenage girls perpetrate more physical violence in their dating relationships than do teenage boys (3,8,14,18), even when controlling for violence perpetrated in selfdefense (14). The prevalence rates of experiencing physical dating violence (17–38%) in this group of junior and senior high school students are similar to prior reports (1,4 –7); our findings suggest the need for programs to address violence in dating relationships. These programs should address mutually violent relationships and their consequences, as current programs tend to address violence from a one-sided perspective in which the male is the perpetrator and the female is the victim.
References 1. Bergman L. Dating violence among high school students. Social Work 1992;37:21–7. 2. Smith J, William J. From abusive household to dating violence. J Fam Violence 1992;7:153– 65. 3. Gray H, Foshee V. Adolescent dating violence: differences between one-sided and mutually violent profiles. J Interperson Violence 1997;12:126 – 42. 4. Canterbury R, Grossman S, Lloyd E. Drinking behaviors and lifetime incidence of date rape among high school students upon entering college. Coll Student J 1993;27:75– 84. 5. Davis T, Peck G, Strorment J. Acquaintance rape and the high school student. J Adolesc Health 1993;14:220 – 4. 6. DeKeseredy W, Schwartz M. Locating a history of some Canadian woman abuse in elementary and high school dating relationships. Hum Soc 1994;18:49 – 63.
November 2000
7. Vicary J, Klingaman L, Karkness W. Risk factors associated with date rape and sexual assault of adolescent girls. J Adolesc 1995;18:289 –306. 8. Foshee V. Gender differences in adolescent dating abuse prevalence, types, and injuries. Health Educ Res 1996;11:275– 86. 9. Foshee V, Bauman K, Arriaga X, et al. An evaluation of safe dates an adolescent dating violence prevention program. Am J Public Health 1998;88:45–50. 10. Foshee V, Linder G, Bauman K, et al. The safe dates project: Theoretical basis, evaluation, and selected base-line findings. Am J Prev Med 1996;12:39 – 47. 11. O’Keefe M. Factors mediating the link between witnessing interparental violence and dating violence. J Fam Violence 1998;13:39 –57. 12. Jezl D, Molidor C, Wright T. Physical, sexual and psychological abuse in high school dating relationships: Prevalence rates
DATING VIOLENCE
13.
14.
15.
16. 17. 18.
305
and self-esteem issues. Child Adolesc Soc Work J 1996;13:69 – 86. Bennett L, Fineran S. Sexual and severe physical violence among high school students. Am J Orthopsychiatry 1998;68: 645–52. Malik S, Sorenson S, Aneshensel C. Community and dating violence among adolescents: Perpetration and victimization. J Adolesc Health 1997;21:291–302. Symons P, Groer M., Kepler-Youngblood P, Stater V. Prevalence and predictors of adolescent dating violence. J Child Adolesc Psychiatric Nurs 1994;7:14 –23. Cornell Cooperative Extension, Broome County, New York. Teen Assessment Project Report, November 1996. SPSS 9.0 for Windows. SPSS Inc. Chicago, IL: SPSS Inc., 1999. Stets J, Pirog-Good M. Violence in dating relationships. Soc Psychol Q 1987;50:237– 46.
ADOLESCENT HEALTH BRIEF
Dating Violence: A Comparison of Rural, Suburban, and Urban Teens GALE A. SPENCER, R.N., Ph.D., AND SHARON A. BRYANT, Ph.D.
This study analyzed rural, suburban, and urban differences in teen dating violence using the 1996 Teen Assessment Project data. Teens in rural school districts were more likely to be victims of dating violence than their suburban and urban counterparts; males reported being slapped, hit, or kicked more frequently than females. The findings of this study indicate that students in rural school districts are at greater risk for participating in dating violence than suburban and urban students, with rural female students at greatest risk. © Society for Adolescent Medicine, 2000 KEY WORDS: Dating violence Rural Suburban Teens Urban
There is a growing body of research that documents the problem of dating violence among junior and senior high school students. Some recent studies estimated that 15%– 42% of all high school students have experienced at least one violent episode with a dating partner (1,2). In addition, in one study 42% of students in grades 6 –12 experienced violence in a current dating relationship (3). Estimates of sexual violence among high school students vary from 3% to 23% for female students and 2% to 4% for male students (1,4 –7).
From the Decker School of Nursing, Binghamton University, Binghamton, New York Address correspondence to: Gale A. Spencer, R.N., Ph.D., Decker School of Nursing, Binghamton University, PO Box 6000, Binghamton, New York 13902-6000. E-mail: [email protected]. Manuscript accepted March 3, 2000. 1054-139X/00/$–see front matter PII S1054-139X(00)00125-7
Although most of the literature agrees that there is no difference between males and females in the amount of dating violence used, gender differences are found when victimization, perpetration, and nonsexual, sexual, and degrees of physical violence are taken into consideration (8 –10). For example, Foshee et al. found that whereas there was no significant gender difference in victimization prevalence, females reported higher rates of perpetration than males in nonsexual dating violence and males reported higher rates of perpetration than females in sexual dating violence (8,10). Most of prior research studies on dating violence have not identified location as an independent variable to account for differential patterns of dating violence (11–15). Only one study, by Bergman, compared rural, suburban, and urban students according to their dating violence behavior (1). This study found that suburban and urban schools reported higher rates of violence than rural schools and that the community setting had both an indirect and direct effect on dating violence. The Bergman study supports the idea that community setting should be considered an independent variable (1). Based on the lack of research in this area and the recent increase in violent behavior among teens residing in rural areas, this study investigated whether students living in urban, suburban, and rural communities experience the same rates of dating violence. Accordingly, this study: (a) compared the prevalence of dating violence among teens attending rural, suburban, and urban schools; and (b) compared the prevalence of dating violence victimization by gender among teens attending rural, suburban, and urban schools.
© Society for Adolescent Medicine, 2000 Published by Elsevier Science Inc., 655 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10010
November 2000
DATING VIOLENCE
Table 1. Demographic Characteristics of the Sample
Variable
Rural Suburban Urban (n ⫽ 492) (n ⫽ 438) (n ⫽ 1149) (%) (%) (%)
Gender Male Female
47 53
49 51
52 48
Race Native American African-American Hispanic Asian White, Non-Hispanic Biracial
3 3 0.4 0.2 88 5
3 2 2 0.9 80 12
3 8 4 5 70 10
Age (y) ⱕ 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ⱖ18
0.4 7 17 13 21 15 20 7
0 7 24 13 22 15 17 2
0.3 10 20 15 26 13 13 3
Grade level 7 9 11 12
29 35 35 1
35 36 28 1
34 41 23 2
Qualify for free school lunch
16
11
22
Methods This study used data from the 1996 Teen Assessment Project (TAP) questionnaire (16). TAP surveyed junior and senior high school students on a variety of health and sociobehavioral topics to assist educators in designing programs to meet the needs of students. The TAP questionnaire was administered to a sample of students who attended five school districts in upstate New York. Students in grades 7, 9, and 11, who were in attendance at school on a designated day, were surveyed. A total of 2094 students participated in the study. All school districts in an upstate county (n ⫽ 14) were asked to participate in the TAP project. Of the 14 school districts, 5 agreed to participate: 2 were rural, 1 was suburban, and 2 were urban. A total of 497 students attended rural schools, 441 students attended a suburban school, and 1156 students attended urban schools. Table 1 summarizes the characteristics of the sampled population. More female students participated in the survey than males in rural and suburban school districts; the opposite was true for urban school districts. The sample was predominately white non-Hispanic.
303
Measures Physical and sexual violence was measured by two items selected from the TAP questionnaire. Physical violence was measured by the item: “Have you been slapped, hit, or kicked by a boyfriend or girlfriend?” Response choices for both questions were: “never,” “once,” “several times,” and “many times.” For the purposes of this study, “several” and “many times” were combined. Sexual violence was measured by two questions. The first item was: “Has another teen ever done something sexual with you that you didn’t want?” The response choices were: “no,” “unwanted kissing,” “unwanted touching,” “unwanted kissing and touching,” “sexual intercourse,” and “unwanted touching and sexual intercourse.” The second item was: “What was the relationship of this person to you?” The response choices for this question were: “no relationship,” “a date,” “boyfriend or girlfriend,” “a friend or acquaintance,” “a stranger,” and “a teen relative.” Sociodemographic factors such as age, gender, educational level, and socioeconomic status (as measured by qualifying for free school lunch) were used to describe the population.
Data Analysis Approval for this study was granted from the Human Subjects Research Committee of Binghamton University. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS (17). Frequencies were used to describe the sociodemographic characteristics of the sample. The Chi-square statistic was used to identify relationships among rural, suburban, and urban teens regarding dating violence.
Results Table 2 shows the relationship between dating violence and location of school district. Sixteen percent of students in rural areas reported having been slapped, kicked, or hit by a boyfriend or girlfriend several times compared with 9% of suburban and 8% of urban students (⌾2 ⫽ 28.88; p ⫽ .000). Table 2 also depicts the association between location of school district and dating violence victimization by gender. Male students in rural areas (18%) were more likely to have been slapped, hit, or kicked several times than either suburban (9%) or urban (9%) males (⌾2 ⫽ 15.09; p ⫽ .005). Female students (14%) in rural schools were also more likely to have been slapped, hit, or kicked several times than sub-
SPENCER AND BRYANT
304
JOURNAL OF ADOLESCENT HEALTH Vol. 27, No. 5
Table 2. Relationship Between School Location and Dating Violence for All Students and By Gender* Students All Rural (n ⫽ 479) Suburban (n ⫽ 434) Urban (n ⫽ 1080) Males Rural (n ⫽ 218) Suburban (n ⫽ 212) Urban (n ⫽ 557) Females Rural (n ⫽ 257) Suburban (n ⫽ 219) Urban (n ⫽ 519)
Never (%)
Once (%)
Several Times (%)
p .000
73
12
16
82
9
9
83
9
8
70
12
18
80
11
9
80
11
9
75
11
14
84
8
8
87
7
6
.005
.001
*By Chi-square analysis.
urban (8%) or urban (6%) females (⌾2 ⫽ 18.58; p ⫽ .001). Whereas sexual violence was found in teens in all three school locations, no significant differences were found between or among school districts (rural, suburban, and urban) for students experiencing sexual victimization in their dating relationships. In addition, female students were found to be at significantly greater risk for sexual victimization than male students in all school locations.
Discussion The results of this study cannot be generalized because of sampling and measurement factors. The urban school districts in this study were located in cities with a population of approximately 55,000; thus, they cannot be generalized to school districts in major metropolitan areas. In addition, all of the measures used in the study were based on selfreported data. Self-reported data have inherent problems owing to the reporting of incorrect information either consciously or unconsciously. The self-report of dating violence is also somewhat suspect because only one person’s perspective is reported. However, this study reports findings from an area currently
under-researched and these findings add to the existing literature on teen dating violence. Rural students were more at risk for being the victims of dating violence than were suburban and urban students. Furthermore, both male and female students attending rural schools were more likely to report having experienced physical violence than students attending suburban and urban schools. Malik et al. found that exposure to weapons and other forms of violence was an important predictor of involvement in violence in both the community and the dating context (14). Male students in rural areas reported that they were hit, kicked, or slapped by their girlfriends more frequently than were rural female students by their boyfriends. Whereas rural students reported this to have occurred significantly more than the urban and suburban students, the trend for males being hit, kicked, or slapped by their girlfriends more than females by their boyfriends was found in all school locations and is increasingly supported in the literature. Prior research indicates that teenage girls perpetrate more physical violence in their dating relationships than do teenage boys (3,8,14,18), even when controlling for violence perpetrated in selfdefense (14). The prevalence rates of experiencing physical dating violence (17–38%) in this group of junior and senior high school students are similar to prior reports (1,4 –7); our findings suggest the need for programs to address violence in dating relationships. These programs should address mutually violent relationships and their consequences, as current programs tend to address violence from a one-sided perspective in which the male is the perpetrator and the female is the victim.
References 1. Bergman L. Dating violence among high school students. Social Work 1992;37:21–7. 2. Smith J, William J. From abusive household to dating violence. J Fam Violence 1992;7:153– 65. 3. Gray H, Foshee V. Adolescent dating violence: differences between one-sided and mutually violent profiles. J Interperson Violence 1997;12:126 – 42. 4. Canterbury R, Grossman S, Lloyd E. Drinking behaviors and lifetime incidence of date rape among high school students upon entering college. Coll Student J 1993;27:75– 84. 5. Davis T, Peck G, Strorment J. Acquaintance rape and the high school student. J Adolesc Health 1993;14:220 – 4. 6. DeKeseredy W, Schwartz M. Locating a history of some Canadian woman abuse in elementary and high school dating relationships. Hum Soc 1994;18:49 – 63.
November 2000
7. Vicary J, Klingaman L, Karkness W. Risk factors associated with date rape and sexual assault of adolescent girls. J Adolesc 1995;18:289 –306. 8. Foshee V. Gender differences in adolescent dating abuse prevalence, types, and injuries. Health Educ Res 1996;11:275– 86. 9. Foshee V, Bauman K, Arriaga X, et al. An evaluation of safe dates an adolescent dating violence prevention program. Am J Public Health 1998;88:45–50. 10. Foshee V, Linder G, Bauman K, et al. The safe dates project: Theoretical basis, evaluation, and selected base-line findings. Am J Prev Med 1996;12:39 – 47. 11. O’Keefe M. Factors mediating the link between witnessing interparental violence and dating violence. J Fam Violence 1998;13:39 –57. 12. Jezl D, Molidor C, Wright T. Physical, sexual and psychological abuse in high school dating relationships: Prevalence rates
DATING VIOLENCE
13.
14.
15.
16. 17. 18.
305
and self-esteem issues. Child Adolesc Soc Work J 1996;13:69 – 86. Bennett L, Fineran S. Sexual and severe physical violence among high school students. Am J Orthopsychiatry 1998;68: 645–52. Malik S, Sorenson S, Aneshensel C. Community and dating violence among adolescents: Perpetration and victimization. J Adolesc Health 1997;21:291–302. Symons P, Groer M., Kepler-Youngblood P, Stater V. Prevalence and predictors of adolescent dating violence. J Child Adolesc Psychiatric Nurs 1994;7:14 –23. Cornell Cooperative Extension, Broome County, New York. Teen Assessment Project Report, November 1996. SPSS 9.0 for Windows. SPSS Inc. Chicago, IL: SPSS Inc., 1999. Stets J, Pirog-Good M. Violence in dating relationships. Soc Psychol Q 1987;50:237– 46.