- Email: [email protected]
Gender Differences in Dating Aggression Among Multiethnic High School Students
Journal of Adolescent Health 42 (2008) 473– 479
Original article
Gender Differences in Dating Aggression Among Multiethnic High School Students K. Daniel O’Leary, Ph.D.*, Amy M. Smith Slep, Ph.D., Sarah Avery-Leaf, Ph.D., and Michele Cascardi, Ph.D. Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York Manuscript received November 22, 2006; manuscript accepted September 7, 2007
Abstract
Purpose: (1) To assess prevalence of physical dating aggression and victimization among high school students; (2) to assess prevalence of mutual and exclusive aggression; (3) to determine whether aggression differs across ethnic groups and relationship type; and (4) to ascertain the likelihood of injury and breakup in individuals who reported that they were the recipients of physical aggression. Methods: Students (N ⫽ 2363) from seven multiethnic high schools participated. Because males in high school date females younger than they and the reverse for females, and because males and females may underreport aggression, only within gender comparisons were conducted. Results: More females reported engaging in physical aggression (40%) than reported being victims of aggression (30%). Fewer males reported engaging in physical aggression (24%) than reported being victims of physical aggression (31%). If physical aggression occurred, typically both partners were aggressive. For females, exclusive engagement in physical aggression (perpetration) was reported at higher rates than exclusively being the recipient of physical aggression (victimization) and vice versa for males. Dating aggression was less prevalent among male Asian students than other ethnic groups. Engaged males and females reported the highest rates of physical aggression. Injury was reported by over 25% of males and females who reported being the recipients of physical aggression. Conclusions: Dating aggression intervention programs should address physical aggression of both males and females. Because approximately 30% of the high school males and females reported being the recipients of physical aggression by their partners, primary prevention efforts should occur before high school. © 2008 Society for Adolescent Medicine. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Dating violence; Partner aggression; Partner abuse; Teenage; Ethnicity
Female victims of dating aggression in high school are at significant risk for substance abuse, unhealthy weight control behaviors, and pregnancy [1]. In addition, among steadily dating high school partners, dating aggression is remarkably stable [2]. Although partner aggression is accepted as a significant public health problem [3], the prevalence of such aggression by males and females in high school is unclear. There are two representative sample stud*Address correspondence to: K. Daniel O’Leary, Ph.D., Psychology Department, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY 11794-2500. E-mail address: [email protected]
ies in high school populations [3,4]; only one was in the United States [3], and it assessed victimization but not perpetration. The other was in Canada [4]. The prevalence rate of victimization of females in the United States’ study (9%) was approximately half of that in the Canadian study (19%). Thus, it seemed important to have additional prevalence data on a large sample of high school students in the United States. This report presents prevalence data on aggression and victimization for males and females in a sample of over 2000 high school students. For the steadily dating partners of this overall sample, psychological aggression had a
1054-139X/08/$ – see front matter © 2008 Society for Adolescent Medicine. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.09.012
474
K.D. O’Leary et al. / Journal of Adolescent Health 42 (2008) 473– 479
strong direct effect on physical aggression against a partner; and partners’ prior physical aggression directly predicted respondents’ current physical aggression for both for males and females [2]. Also, with the sample herein, attitudes supporting the use of physical aggression were associated with use of physical aggression by both males and females [5]. Further, in this sample and in another high school sample [6], physical aggression by females was more accepted than physical aggression by males. Thus, we hypothesized that a higher percentage of females would report engaging in physical aggression against their partners than would say that their partners engaged in aggression against them. In addition, based on our dyadic model of partner aggression [2,7] and related work with college students [8], we predicted that the majority of physical aggression reported would be reported by both partners (often called symmetrical or mutual aggression). Disparate findings regarding prevalence of partner aggression might be accounted for by differences in ethnicity and types of relationships (e.g., casual, engaged) in the populations. For example, two studies found that Asians had lower rates of such aggression than other ethnic groups [9,10]. Given the wide ethnic diversity of our sample, we were interested in whether dating aggression would vary across ethnic groups. In addition, a small percentage of high school students become engaged, but very early engagements and marriages are associated with divorce [11]. Thus, we evaluated dating aggression across types of relationships. In sum, the purposes of the study were as follows: (1) to assess prevalence of unilateral and mutual dating aggression and victimization by males and females, (2) to examine differences in aggression by ethnicity, (3) to evaluate rates of aggression by type of dating relationship (e.g., casual, engaged), and (4) to determine the likelihood of injury and breakup in individuals who were the recipients of physical aggression. Methods Subjects were students enrolled in health classes from seven large public high schools in Suffolk County, Long Island, NY (N ⫽ 2363). This sample was representative of each school’s student body, as health education was a graduation requirement, required of all students in their junior or senior year. A small percentage of students took health education in their sophomore year. With the exception of absences on the days of the assessment, all health class students participated. The attendance rates at the schools varied between 92% and 95%, and thus the sample herein is quite representative of the overall school populations. The data reported herein were part of a larger evaluation conducted in 1996 designed to ascertain if a five-session curriculum implemented by the schools’ health teachers had its intended effect of reducing attitudes supporting dating
aggression and reducing dating aggression. Schools were matched and randomly assigned to include this specific curriculum or their standard health curriculum. In the context of this evaluation, we assessed dating aggression, attitudes toward dating aggression, and knowledge about dating aggression. The assessment was completed individually by the students within the class period. Analyses reported in this manuscript are based on the preintervention assessment at all participating schools. This research was approved by the Stony Brook University institutional review board. Superintendents and principals of the schools approved of the study, and a letter was sent to all parents describing that there was going to be an evaluation of a portion of the health education curriculum regarding physical aggression in dating relationships, and that all information collected would be confidential from the school. Parents were asked to sign and return a prepared note if they did not want their child to participate. No parent prohibited participation. Measures Dating behaviors. Individual items assessed dating history and current relationship status. Respondents were asked the age when they had their first boy/girlfriends and whether they were currently in a dating relationship. If the respondent answered affirmatively to this last item, he/she was also asked to indicate the level of commitment of the current relationship. The five response choices were 1 ⫽ new (just started seeing each other), 2 ⫽ casual (we see other people), 3 ⫽ steady (we see each other and not anybody else), 4 ⫽ serious (we make plans for the future together), and 5 ⫽ engaged to be married. The respondents were also asked to indicate the frequency of contact with their partners and to indicate a prediction for future status. The four choices were: “get married,” “keep seeing each other,” “I will break up with him/her,” and “he/she will break up with me.” Physical aggression and victimization. The Modified Conflict Tactics Scale (MCTS) was adapted from Straus [12]. It is an 18-item instrument measuring an individual’s means of resolving conflict during the course of a disagreement with his/her partner. Students were asked to rate each MCTS behavior for themselves and their dating partners for the entire duration of their current dating relationship. If they were not currently in a dating relationship, the respondent was to rate the behaviors for the most recent relationship. Response options on the MCTS were modified from the more typical frequency count to a more global five-point rating scale (1⫽ never to 5 ⫽ very often). Six self-reported psychological aggression and eight physical aggression items were used in the current study, and the psychometrics of this format of the MCTS, using data from the same sample as reported herein, were described in detail [13]. Several items were added to the MCTS measure to assess extent of injury sustained as a result of the aggression
K.D. O’Leary et al. / Journal of Adolescent Health 42 (2008) 473– 479
engaged in or experienced by the respondent (i.e., minor cuts/bruises, severe cuts/bruises, black eye/broken nose, treatment from doctor) and likelihood of breakup. Exclusive perpetration, exclusive victimization, and mutual aggression were examined for both psychological and physical aggression. Exclusive perpetration of aggression has two characteristics: (1) the individual reports aggressing against his/her partner; and (2) the individual reports that he/she was not the victim of any aggression by his/her partner. Exclusive victimization also has two characteristics: (1) the individual reports that he/she was the recipient of physical aggression by a partner, and (2) the individual reports that he/she did not engage in any physical aggression against the partner. Mutual aggression refers to reports by an individual that he/she engaged in aggression against a partner, and that the partner engaged in aggression against the individual. We also examined the mean perpetration and mean victimization rates for males and females, using the continuous 1–5 rating (never to very often). Because high school males typically date females younger than they and vice versa for females, and because males and females may underreport physical aggression against dating partners [14 –17], withingender comparisons were conducted for the mean perpetration and victimization rates just as they were for the percentages of males and females who reported perpetration and victimization. The data analytic plan involved assessment of prevalence rates of perpetration of aggression and victimization by gender, ethnicity, and type of relationship; of injury; and of likelihood of breakup. Individuals who reported that they had never dated were excluded from the analyses of rates of aggression and victimization. Results Student characteristics The vast majority of the ethnically diverse sample was between 15 and18 years old and in 11th and 12th grade. More specifically, for the full sample, the average age of males was 16.75 (SD ⫽ .93; range 14 –20) and the average age of the females was 16.59 (SD ⫽ .85, range 14 –20). For males, 97% of the sample was between 15 and 18 years; for females, 98% of the sample was between 15 and 18 years. For males and females respectively, 92% and 93% of the sample was in 11th or 12th grades. The ethnic composition of the sample is described in detail in Table 1. Because of missing data for some variables for certain subjects, the ns do not necessarily add to N. Dating behavior With the exception of low rates of dating among the Asian males and females, there were no overall differences in the rates of nondating across the ethnic groups. However,
475
Table 1 Characteristics of sample (n ⫽ 2363) Male (n ⫽ 1186)
Female (n ⫽ 1177)
Demographic variables
n (%)
n (%)
White African–American Hispanic Asian Mixed Other Ever dated Currently dating
652 (55) 156 (13) 213 (18) 30 (3) 91 (8) 35 (3) 1060 (89) 543 (46)
651 (56) 175 (15) 211 (18) 19 (2) 87 (7) 26 (2) 1052 (89) 706 (60)
dating rates of Asian males and females were significantly lower than the rest of the sample: males, 2 (1) ⫽ 8.50, p ⬍ .05; females, 2 (1) ⫽ 9.24, p ⬍ .01. More females than males were in a current dating relationship, 2 (1) ⫽ 14.57, p ⬍ .001. The age of the currently dating males was 16.90 years, and the average age of the currently dating females was 16.68 years. The age of the current partners of males was 16.73 years, whereas the average age of the current partners of females was 18.64 years (t ⫽ 14.3, df ⫽ 1221, p ⬍ .001). The types of current dating relationships were as follows for females: new, 13% (n ⫽ 90); casual, 9% (n ⫽ 59); steady, 40% (n ⫽ 270); serious, 35% (n ⫽ 239); engaged, 4% (n ⫽ 26). For males, the types were as follows: new, 18% (n ⫽ 95); casual, 11% (n ⫽ 60); steady, 39% (n ⫽ 202); serious, 28% (n ⫽ 149); engaged, 4% (n ⫽ 19). Aggression perpetration and victimization As seen in Tables 2 and 3, 85% of males and 92% of females reported that they engaged in at least one act of psychological aggression against their partner. Approximately 85% of males and 88% of females reported that they were the recipients of at least one act of psychological aggression in the past year. The most common behaviors reported by males and females were sulking/refusing to talk. Also as revealed in Table 2, 24% of currently dating males said they had used at least one physically aggressive tactic toward their dating partners, whereas 31% of the males reported that their partners physically aggressed against them. As reflected in Table 3, 40% of the currently dating females indicated that they physically aggressed against their boyfriends, whereas 30% of the females reported that their partners physically aggressed against them. Both of these within gender comparisons were significant. We then compared perpetration and victimization rates for each of the CTS psychological and physical aggression items for the currently dating partners. Males reported that their partners were more likely to engage in aggression than they on the following behaviors: threatened to hit/throw at partner; threw, hit, kicked something; threw something at partner; pushed, grabbed, or shoved; slapped; and kicked,
476
K.D. O’Leary et al. / Journal of Adolescent Health 42 (2008) 473– 479 Table 2 Reports of perpetration and victimization by currently dating males (n ⫽ 543)
Psychological aggression Insulted/swore Sulked/refused to talk Stomped out of room Did/said something to spite Threatened to hit/throw at partner Threw, hit, kicked something Any psychological Physical aggression Threw something at partner Physically restrained Pushed, grabbed, or shoved Slapped Kicked, bit, or hit Choked Beat up Threatened with knife or gun Any physical
2
Perpetration
Victimization
n (%)
n (%)
266 (50) 362 (67) 208 (39) 283 (53) 61 (11) 220 (41) 462 (85)
271 (51) 385 (72) 221 (41) 282 (52) 113 (21) 176 (33) 458 (85)
ns ns ns ns 18.51*** 7.70* ns
30 (6) 88 (16) 77 (14) 29 (5) 31 (6) 15 (3) 7 (1) 5 (1) 131 (24)
81 (15) 71 (13) 114 (21) 99 (18) 86 (16) 20 (4) 14 (3) 12 (2) 168 (31)
26.10*** ns 8.70** 43.40*** 28.98*** ns ns ns 6.31**
* p ⬍ .05; ** p ⬍ .01; *** p ⬍ .001.
bit or hit. In no case did a significantly higher percentage of males report that they engaged in a physically aggressive behavior than their partner. Females reported that they more likely perpetrated aggression than were victimized for the following behaviors: insulted or swore; sulk/refused to talk; stomped out of the room; did/said something to spite; threatened to hit/throw at partner; threw something at partner; pushed, grabbed, or shoved; slapped; and kicked, bit or hit. In no case did a significantly higher percentage of females
report that their partners engaged in significantly more aggression than they did. When examining the extent of physical aggression (1 ⫽ never to 5 ⫽ very often) perpetration and victimization for currently dating partners, we found that females reported that they engaged in more physical aggression (mean ⫽ 1.20) than their partners engaged in against them (mean ⫽ 1.15), t (698) ⫽ 5.81, p ⬍ .001. In addition, males reported that their partners engaged in more physical
Table 3 Reports of perpetration and victimization by currently dating females (n ⫽ 706)
Psychological aggression Insulted/swore Sulked/refused to talk Stomped out of room Did/said something to spite Threatened to hit/throw at partner Threw, hit, kicked something Any psychological Physical aggression Threw something at partner Physically restrained Pushed, grabbed or shoved Slapped Kicked, bit, or hit Choked Beat up Threatened with knife or gun Any physical * p ⬍ .05; ** p ⬍ .01; *** p ⬍ .001.
2
Perpetration
Victimization
n (%)
n (%)
461 (66) 519 (74) 376 (54) 439 (63) 199 (28) 298 (43) 643 (92)
403 (58) 471 (67) 307 (44) 402 (58) 124 (18) 303 (43) 618 (88)
10.03** 7.79** 13.50*** 4.02* 22.58*** ns 4.63*
114 (16) 92 (13) 203 (29) 135 (19) 118 (17) 16 (2) 27 (4) 14 (2) 278 (40)
80 (11) 109 (16) 154 (22) 57 (8) 75 (11) 22 (3) 18 (3) 10 (1) 213 (30)
6.91* ns 9.01** 36.67*** 11.10** ns ns ns 13.19**
K.D. O’Leary et al. / Journal of Adolescent Health 42 (2008) 473– 479
aggression against them (mean ⫽ 1.19) than they engaged in against their partners (mean ⫽ 1.10), t (538) ⫽ 6.29, p ⬍ .001). Considering all dating males (n ⫽ 1060) and females (n ⫽ 1052) (current and recent daters), and using Spearman’s rank order correlation, reports of victimization were correlated with reports of perpetration for both males (r ⫽ .79, p ⬍ .001) and females (r ⫽ .76, p ⬍ .001). Similarly, using dichotomous measures of victimization and perpetration, the correlations were .74 (p ⬍ .001) for males and .70 (p ⬍ .001) for females. Thus, using either a continuous or a dichotomous measure of physical aggression, there was a very large association between one’s reports of perpetration and victimization. Approximately 94% of males and females reported that the psychological aggression was mutual, and approximately two-thirds of both males and females involved in physically aggressive relationships reported that there was mutual physical aggression (65% for females and 66% for males). However, there was a marked gender difference for the two unilateral categories, namely, exclusive aggression and exclusive victimization. Twenty-eight percent of females reported that they were the exclusive perpetrators, whereas only 5% of males reported such, 2 (1) ⫽ 26.71, p ⬍ .001. Only 5% of females reported that they were exclusively victimized whereas 27% of males reported such, 2 (1) ⫽ 32.05, p ⬍ .001. Ethnicity There were no differences between currently dating and recently dating individuals in self-reported rates of physical aggression against a partner or in self-reported rates of victimization for males or females. Thus, we used both currently and recently dating individuals to evaluate whether there were differences in the percentages of perpetration of physical aggression by ethnic group. Fewer male Asian students reported engaging in any physical aggression than the other groups, 2 (1) ⫽ 4.51, p ⬍ .05. More specifically, 3% of the dating Asian males reported that they engaged in physical aggression against their partners, whereas the overall percentage of dating aggression by non-Asian males was 23%. Fewer Asian males reported that they engaged in physical aggression than Whites, 2 (1) ⫽ 5.08, p ⬍ .05, Blacks, 2 (1) ⫽ 7.92, p ⬍ .01, Hispanics, 2 (1) ⫽ 7.50, p ⬍ .01, mixed ethnic, 2 (1) ⫽ 8.45, p ⬍ .01, and other, 2 (1) ⫽ 5.15, p ⬍ .05. For females, there were no overall differences in the percentages of perpetration of physical aggression by ethnic group, 2 (5) ⫽ 6.90, p ⬎ .05. The Asian women had rates of perpetrating physical aggression that were only slightly lower (32%) than the overall percentage of dating aggression for non-Asian females (38%). For victimization, there were no differences across ethnic groups for males or females. Inspection of the rates across the ethnic groups did not suggest any differences
477
among any of the groups except that Asian males dated fewer partners on average than did the other males, t (1051) ⫽ 2.86, p ⬍ .005. Type of relationship and aggression For currently dating individuals, physical aggression differed by type of relationship, with the highest probability of perpetrating physical aggression in engaged relationships, that is, males, 37%; females, 58%. There was a significant association of type of relationship with physical aggression for both males and females. A Spearman correlation showed that as the relationships moved from new to engaged, for females, the self-reported extent of perpetration (r ⫽ .14, p ⬍ .001) and victimization increased (r ⫽ .11, p ⬍ .003). Similarly, for males, the self-reported extent of perpetration (r ⫽ .09, p ⬍ .05) and victimization increased (r ⫽ .11, p ⬍ .004). Injuries and likelihood of breakup Of the dating females in aggressive relationships, 26% reported that they had been injured by their partners, and 33% reported that they injured their partners, 2 (1) ⫽ 5.82, p ⬍ .025. Of the males in aggressive relationships, 30% reported that they had been injured, and 22% reported that they injured their partners, 2 (1) ⫽ 5.35, p ⬍. 025. Most of the injuries were minor. More specifically, for females, the injuries received were as follows: minor cuts/bruises, 24%; severe cuts/bruises; 3%; black eye/broken nose, 1%; needed treatment from doctor, 3%. For males, the rates of injuries received were as follows: minor cuts/bruises, 26%; severe cuts/bruises; 3%; black eye/broken nose, 2%; needed treatment from doctor, 3%. If individuals reported that they were the victims of physical aggression by their partners, females and males reported a greater likelihood that they or their partner would end the relationship than remain together, 2 (1) ⫽ 6.54, df ⫽ 1, p ⬍ .025, and 2 (1) ⫽ 4.29, df ⫽ 1, p ⬍ .05. However, even in relationships characterized by victimization, only 14% of females and 23% of males reported that they would break up at some point in the future. Discussion The scope and significance of partner aggression in high school is underscored by three results herein: (1) approximately 30% males and 30% of females reported that they were the targets of physical aggression by their partners; (2) approximately one-quarter of the males and females who reported that their partners aggressed against them reported that they had minor cuts or bruises as a result; and (3) 3% of the females and males who reported being injured indicated that they were injured enough to receive medical attention. In accord with our predictions, a greater percentage of females reported perpetrating physical partner aggression
478
K.D. O’Leary et al. / Journal of Adolescent Health 42 (2008) 473– 479
than being the recipients of physical partner aggression. Our prediction was based on findings of more accepting attitudes regarding use of physical aggression by females [5,6]; and that attitudes accepting of use of physical aggression were associated with use of physical aggression in this sample [5]. Similar to our results herein, an examination of the data in a Spanish survey [18] showed a higher rate of aggression by females than victimization. We believe that these withingender comparisons are much more important than crossgender comparisons because females in high school often date older males, whereas the opposite is true for males. Second, given that a greater percentage of females reported that they aggressed against their partners than they reported that they were aggressed against seems more meaningful than crossgender of reporter comparisons. The overall results from our study and the Malik et al study [9] suggest that pushing and slapping, the most common types of aggression by females, are a common style of relating to male partners when the females get mad. This pattern of pushing and shoving does not appear to be a method aimed at resolving a conflict. For example, when college females were asked why they engaged in physical aggression against their partners, the top four reasons given were anger, verbal argument that escalated, frustrations, and feelings hurt [19]. In a representative sample of parents of young children, women reported that verbal aggression of their husbands was the most common precipitant of women’s physical aggression [20]. It would be important to replicate the results regarding aggression in Asian and non-Asian groups because the number of Asians in this sample was relatively small. However, the results herein are consistent with those of Malik et al [9]. It is unclear why the rates of aggression by Asian males were lower than those for other ethnic groups, but the difference may have been due, in part, to Asian males reporting having dated fewer partners compared to other males because fewer partners was correlated with less physical aggression for males (r ⫽ .12, p ⬍ .001). Physical aggression differed across types of dating relationships with perpetration being most likely in engaged relationships for both males (37%) and females (58%). Although the engaged group was only 4% of the overall sample of high school males and females, the relationships of engaged males and females appear to be at particularly high risk for partner aggression. Certain limitations of this study should be noted. Our reports are based on one partner, with many of our participants not dating each other, thereby precluding couplelevel data analyses. Studies of representative samples of high school-age dating couples could provide useful information on partner agreement and disagreement about the presence and extent of physical aggression, as well as perception of the context of the physical aggression. The high rates of both female and male aggression, as well the extent of mutual aggression, suggest that preven-
tion programs need to target both male and female aggression. This is consistent with others’ recommendations [9]. Given the very significant stability of physical aggression for male and female daters in relationships of at least a few months’ duration in high school [2], it also seems that prevention programs may need to start earlier than high school. Finally, given the strong association between psychological and physical aggression in numerous studies, it is also important to address psychological aggression if one wishes to prevent physical aggression in dating relationships.
Acknowledgments Support for this research came from NIMH Grants 47801 and 57985. Dr. Avery-Leaf is now in private practice in Durham, NH, and Dr. Cascardi lives in Glen Ridge, NJ. Thanks is due Susan O’Leary, who provided significant editorial feedback.
References [1] Silverman JG, Raj A, Mucci LA, et al. Dating violence against adolescent girls and associated substance use, unhealthy weight control, sexual risk behavior, pregnancy, and suicidality. JAMA 2001; 28:572–9. [2] O’Leary KD, Slep AMS. A dyadic longitudinal model of adolescent dating aggression. J Child Adolesc Psychol 2003;32:314 –27. [3] CDC. Physical dating violence among high school students—United States, 2003. MMWR 2006;532–5. [4] Wolfe DA, Scott K, Wekerle C, et al. Child maltreatment: risk of adjustment problems and dating violence in adolescence. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychol 2001;40:282–9. [5] Slep AMS, Cascardi M, Avery-Leaf S, et al. Two new measures of attitudes about the acceptability of teen dating aggression. Psychol Assess 2001;13:306 –18. [6] Schwartz M, O’Leary SG, Kendziora KT. Dating aggression among high school students. Viol Victims 1997;12:295–305. [7] Riggs DS, O’Leary KD. Aggression between heterosexual dating partners: an examination of a causal model of courtship aggression. J Interpers Viol 1996;11:519 – 40. [8] Straus MA, Ramirez IL. Gender symmetry in prevalence, severity and chronicity of physical aggression against dating partners by university students in Mexico and USA. Aggress Behav 2007;33:281–90. [9] Malik S, Sorensen S, Aneshensel C. Community and dating violence among adolescents: perpetration and victimization. J Adolesc Health 1997;21:291–302. [10] Tjaden P, Thoennes N. Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Violence Against Women: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 2000. [11] Bramlett MD, Mosher WD. First Marriage Dissolution, Divorce, and Remarriage: United States, Advance Data, Vol. 323. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention—National Center for Health Statistics, 2001:1–9. [12] Straus MA. Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: the conflict tactics (CT) scales. J Marr Fam 1979;41:75– 86. [13] Cascardi M, Avery-Leaf S, O’Leary KD, et al. Factor structure and convergent validity of the Conflict Tactics Scale in high school students. Psychol Assess 1999;11:546 –55.
K.D. O’Leary et al. / Journal of Adolescent Health 42 (2008) 473– 479 [14] O’Leary KD. Are women really more aggressive than men in intimate relationships? Comment on Archer (2000). Psychol Bull 2000;126: 685–9. [15] Moffit TE, Caspi A, Kreuger RF, et al. Do partners agree about abuse in their relationship? A psychometric evaluation of inter-partner agreement. Psychol Assess 1997;9:47–56. [16] Heyman RE, Schlee KA. Toward a better estimate of the prevalence of partner abuse. adjusting rates based on the sensitivity of the Conflict Tactics Scale. J Fam Psychol 1997;11:331–338.
479
[17] O’Leary KD, Williams MC. Agreement about acts of aggression in marriage. J Fam Psychol 2006;20:656 – 62. [18] Munoz-Rivas MJ, Grana JL, O’Leary KD, et al. Aggression in adolescent dating relationships: prevalence, justification, and health consequences. J Adolesc Health 2007;40:298 –304. [19] Hettrick EL, O’Leary KD. Females’ reasons for their aggression in dating relationships. J Interpers Viol (in press). [20] O’Leary SG, Slep AMS. Precipitants of partner aggression. J Fam Psychol 2006;20:344 –7.
Original article
Gender Differences in Dating Aggression Among Multiethnic High School Students K. Daniel O’Leary, Ph.D.*, Amy M. Smith Slep, Ph.D., Sarah Avery-Leaf, Ph.D., and Michele Cascardi, Ph.D. Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York Manuscript received November 22, 2006; manuscript accepted September 7, 2007
Abstract
Purpose: (1) To assess prevalence of physical dating aggression and victimization among high school students; (2) to assess prevalence of mutual and exclusive aggression; (3) to determine whether aggression differs across ethnic groups and relationship type; and (4) to ascertain the likelihood of injury and breakup in individuals who reported that they were the recipients of physical aggression. Methods: Students (N ⫽ 2363) from seven multiethnic high schools participated. Because males in high school date females younger than they and the reverse for females, and because males and females may underreport aggression, only within gender comparisons were conducted. Results: More females reported engaging in physical aggression (40%) than reported being victims of aggression (30%). Fewer males reported engaging in physical aggression (24%) than reported being victims of physical aggression (31%). If physical aggression occurred, typically both partners were aggressive. For females, exclusive engagement in physical aggression (perpetration) was reported at higher rates than exclusively being the recipient of physical aggression (victimization) and vice versa for males. Dating aggression was less prevalent among male Asian students than other ethnic groups. Engaged males and females reported the highest rates of physical aggression. Injury was reported by over 25% of males and females who reported being the recipients of physical aggression. Conclusions: Dating aggression intervention programs should address physical aggression of both males and females. Because approximately 30% of the high school males and females reported being the recipients of physical aggression by their partners, primary prevention efforts should occur before high school. © 2008 Society for Adolescent Medicine. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Dating violence; Partner aggression; Partner abuse; Teenage; Ethnicity
Female victims of dating aggression in high school are at significant risk for substance abuse, unhealthy weight control behaviors, and pregnancy [1]. In addition, among steadily dating high school partners, dating aggression is remarkably stable [2]. Although partner aggression is accepted as a significant public health problem [3], the prevalence of such aggression by males and females in high school is unclear. There are two representative sample stud*Address correspondence to: K. Daniel O’Leary, Ph.D., Psychology Department, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY 11794-2500. E-mail address: [email protected]
ies in high school populations [3,4]; only one was in the United States [3], and it assessed victimization but not perpetration. The other was in Canada [4]. The prevalence rate of victimization of females in the United States’ study (9%) was approximately half of that in the Canadian study (19%). Thus, it seemed important to have additional prevalence data on a large sample of high school students in the United States. This report presents prevalence data on aggression and victimization for males and females in a sample of over 2000 high school students. For the steadily dating partners of this overall sample, psychological aggression had a
1054-139X/08/$ – see front matter © 2008 Society for Adolescent Medicine. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.09.012
474
K.D. O’Leary et al. / Journal of Adolescent Health 42 (2008) 473– 479
strong direct effect on physical aggression against a partner; and partners’ prior physical aggression directly predicted respondents’ current physical aggression for both for males and females [2]. Also, with the sample herein, attitudes supporting the use of physical aggression were associated with use of physical aggression by both males and females [5]. Further, in this sample and in another high school sample [6], physical aggression by females was more accepted than physical aggression by males. Thus, we hypothesized that a higher percentage of females would report engaging in physical aggression against their partners than would say that their partners engaged in aggression against them. In addition, based on our dyadic model of partner aggression [2,7] and related work with college students [8], we predicted that the majority of physical aggression reported would be reported by both partners (often called symmetrical or mutual aggression). Disparate findings regarding prevalence of partner aggression might be accounted for by differences in ethnicity and types of relationships (e.g., casual, engaged) in the populations. For example, two studies found that Asians had lower rates of such aggression than other ethnic groups [9,10]. Given the wide ethnic diversity of our sample, we were interested in whether dating aggression would vary across ethnic groups. In addition, a small percentage of high school students become engaged, but very early engagements and marriages are associated with divorce [11]. Thus, we evaluated dating aggression across types of relationships. In sum, the purposes of the study were as follows: (1) to assess prevalence of unilateral and mutual dating aggression and victimization by males and females, (2) to examine differences in aggression by ethnicity, (3) to evaluate rates of aggression by type of dating relationship (e.g., casual, engaged), and (4) to determine the likelihood of injury and breakup in individuals who were the recipients of physical aggression. Methods Subjects were students enrolled in health classes from seven large public high schools in Suffolk County, Long Island, NY (N ⫽ 2363). This sample was representative of each school’s student body, as health education was a graduation requirement, required of all students in their junior or senior year. A small percentage of students took health education in their sophomore year. With the exception of absences on the days of the assessment, all health class students participated. The attendance rates at the schools varied between 92% and 95%, and thus the sample herein is quite representative of the overall school populations. The data reported herein were part of a larger evaluation conducted in 1996 designed to ascertain if a five-session curriculum implemented by the schools’ health teachers had its intended effect of reducing attitudes supporting dating
aggression and reducing dating aggression. Schools were matched and randomly assigned to include this specific curriculum or their standard health curriculum. In the context of this evaluation, we assessed dating aggression, attitudes toward dating aggression, and knowledge about dating aggression. The assessment was completed individually by the students within the class period. Analyses reported in this manuscript are based on the preintervention assessment at all participating schools. This research was approved by the Stony Brook University institutional review board. Superintendents and principals of the schools approved of the study, and a letter was sent to all parents describing that there was going to be an evaluation of a portion of the health education curriculum regarding physical aggression in dating relationships, and that all information collected would be confidential from the school. Parents were asked to sign and return a prepared note if they did not want their child to participate. No parent prohibited participation. Measures Dating behaviors. Individual items assessed dating history and current relationship status. Respondents were asked the age when they had their first boy/girlfriends and whether they were currently in a dating relationship. If the respondent answered affirmatively to this last item, he/she was also asked to indicate the level of commitment of the current relationship. The five response choices were 1 ⫽ new (just started seeing each other), 2 ⫽ casual (we see other people), 3 ⫽ steady (we see each other and not anybody else), 4 ⫽ serious (we make plans for the future together), and 5 ⫽ engaged to be married. The respondents were also asked to indicate the frequency of contact with their partners and to indicate a prediction for future status. The four choices were: “get married,” “keep seeing each other,” “I will break up with him/her,” and “he/she will break up with me.” Physical aggression and victimization. The Modified Conflict Tactics Scale (MCTS) was adapted from Straus [12]. It is an 18-item instrument measuring an individual’s means of resolving conflict during the course of a disagreement with his/her partner. Students were asked to rate each MCTS behavior for themselves and their dating partners for the entire duration of their current dating relationship. If they were not currently in a dating relationship, the respondent was to rate the behaviors for the most recent relationship. Response options on the MCTS were modified from the more typical frequency count to a more global five-point rating scale (1⫽ never to 5 ⫽ very often). Six self-reported psychological aggression and eight physical aggression items were used in the current study, and the psychometrics of this format of the MCTS, using data from the same sample as reported herein, were described in detail [13]. Several items were added to the MCTS measure to assess extent of injury sustained as a result of the aggression
K.D. O’Leary et al. / Journal of Adolescent Health 42 (2008) 473– 479
engaged in or experienced by the respondent (i.e., minor cuts/bruises, severe cuts/bruises, black eye/broken nose, treatment from doctor) and likelihood of breakup. Exclusive perpetration, exclusive victimization, and mutual aggression were examined for both psychological and physical aggression. Exclusive perpetration of aggression has two characteristics: (1) the individual reports aggressing against his/her partner; and (2) the individual reports that he/she was not the victim of any aggression by his/her partner. Exclusive victimization also has two characteristics: (1) the individual reports that he/she was the recipient of physical aggression by a partner, and (2) the individual reports that he/she did not engage in any physical aggression against the partner. Mutual aggression refers to reports by an individual that he/she engaged in aggression against a partner, and that the partner engaged in aggression against the individual. We also examined the mean perpetration and mean victimization rates for males and females, using the continuous 1–5 rating (never to very often). Because high school males typically date females younger than they and vice versa for females, and because males and females may underreport physical aggression against dating partners [14 –17], withingender comparisons were conducted for the mean perpetration and victimization rates just as they were for the percentages of males and females who reported perpetration and victimization. The data analytic plan involved assessment of prevalence rates of perpetration of aggression and victimization by gender, ethnicity, and type of relationship; of injury; and of likelihood of breakup. Individuals who reported that they had never dated were excluded from the analyses of rates of aggression and victimization. Results Student characteristics The vast majority of the ethnically diverse sample was between 15 and18 years old and in 11th and 12th grade. More specifically, for the full sample, the average age of males was 16.75 (SD ⫽ .93; range 14 –20) and the average age of the females was 16.59 (SD ⫽ .85, range 14 –20). For males, 97% of the sample was between 15 and 18 years; for females, 98% of the sample was between 15 and 18 years. For males and females respectively, 92% and 93% of the sample was in 11th or 12th grades. The ethnic composition of the sample is described in detail in Table 1. Because of missing data for some variables for certain subjects, the ns do not necessarily add to N. Dating behavior With the exception of low rates of dating among the Asian males and females, there were no overall differences in the rates of nondating across the ethnic groups. However,
475
Table 1 Characteristics of sample (n ⫽ 2363) Male (n ⫽ 1186)
Female (n ⫽ 1177)
Demographic variables
n (%)
n (%)
White African–American Hispanic Asian Mixed Other Ever dated Currently dating
652 (55) 156 (13) 213 (18) 30 (3) 91 (8) 35 (3) 1060 (89) 543 (46)
651 (56) 175 (15) 211 (18) 19 (2) 87 (7) 26 (2) 1052 (89) 706 (60)
dating rates of Asian males and females were significantly lower than the rest of the sample: males, 2 (1) ⫽ 8.50, p ⬍ .05; females, 2 (1) ⫽ 9.24, p ⬍ .01. More females than males were in a current dating relationship, 2 (1) ⫽ 14.57, p ⬍ .001. The age of the currently dating males was 16.90 years, and the average age of the currently dating females was 16.68 years. The age of the current partners of males was 16.73 years, whereas the average age of the current partners of females was 18.64 years (t ⫽ 14.3, df ⫽ 1221, p ⬍ .001). The types of current dating relationships were as follows for females: new, 13% (n ⫽ 90); casual, 9% (n ⫽ 59); steady, 40% (n ⫽ 270); serious, 35% (n ⫽ 239); engaged, 4% (n ⫽ 26). For males, the types were as follows: new, 18% (n ⫽ 95); casual, 11% (n ⫽ 60); steady, 39% (n ⫽ 202); serious, 28% (n ⫽ 149); engaged, 4% (n ⫽ 19). Aggression perpetration and victimization As seen in Tables 2 and 3, 85% of males and 92% of females reported that they engaged in at least one act of psychological aggression against their partner. Approximately 85% of males and 88% of females reported that they were the recipients of at least one act of psychological aggression in the past year. The most common behaviors reported by males and females were sulking/refusing to talk. Also as revealed in Table 2, 24% of currently dating males said they had used at least one physically aggressive tactic toward their dating partners, whereas 31% of the males reported that their partners physically aggressed against them. As reflected in Table 3, 40% of the currently dating females indicated that they physically aggressed against their boyfriends, whereas 30% of the females reported that their partners physically aggressed against them. Both of these within gender comparisons were significant. We then compared perpetration and victimization rates for each of the CTS psychological and physical aggression items for the currently dating partners. Males reported that their partners were more likely to engage in aggression than they on the following behaviors: threatened to hit/throw at partner; threw, hit, kicked something; threw something at partner; pushed, grabbed, or shoved; slapped; and kicked,
476
K.D. O’Leary et al. / Journal of Adolescent Health 42 (2008) 473– 479 Table 2 Reports of perpetration and victimization by currently dating males (n ⫽ 543)
Psychological aggression Insulted/swore Sulked/refused to talk Stomped out of room Did/said something to spite Threatened to hit/throw at partner Threw, hit, kicked something Any psychological Physical aggression Threw something at partner Physically restrained Pushed, grabbed, or shoved Slapped Kicked, bit, or hit Choked Beat up Threatened with knife or gun Any physical
2
Perpetration
Victimization
n (%)
n (%)
266 (50) 362 (67) 208 (39) 283 (53) 61 (11) 220 (41) 462 (85)
271 (51) 385 (72) 221 (41) 282 (52) 113 (21) 176 (33) 458 (85)
ns ns ns ns 18.51*** 7.70* ns
30 (6) 88 (16) 77 (14) 29 (5) 31 (6) 15 (3) 7 (1) 5 (1) 131 (24)
81 (15) 71 (13) 114 (21) 99 (18) 86 (16) 20 (4) 14 (3) 12 (2) 168 (31)
26.10*** ns 8.70** 43.40*** 28.98*** ns ns ns 6.31**
* p ⬍ .05; ** p ⬍ .01; *** p ⬍ .001.
bit or hit. In no case did a significantly higher percentage of males report that they engaged in a physically aggressive behavior than their partner. Females reported that they more likely perpetrated aggression than were victimized for the following behaviors: insulted or swore; sulk/refused to talk; stomped out of the room; did/said something to spite; threatened to hit/throw at partner; threw something at partner; pushed, grabbed, or shoved; slapped; and kicked, bit or hit. In no case did a significantly higher percentage of females
report that their partners engaged in significantly more aggression than they did. When examining the extent of physical aggression (1 ⫽ never to 5 ⫽ very often) perpetration and victimization for currently dating partners, we found that females reported that they engaged in more physical aggression (mean ⫽ 1.20) than their partners engaged in against them (mean ⫽ 1.15), t (698) ⫽ 5.81, p ⬍ .001. In addition, males reported that their partners engaged in more physical
Table 3 Reports of perpetration and victimization by currently dating females (n ⫽ 706)
Psychological aggression Insulted/swore Sulked/refused to talk Stomped out of room Did/said something to spite Threatened to hit/throw at partner Threw, hit, kicked something Any psychological Physical aggression Threw something at partner Physically restrained Pushed, grabbed or shoved Slapped Kicked, bit, or hit Choked Beat up Threatened with knife or gun Any physical * p ⬍ .05; ** p ⬍ .01; *** p ⬍ .001.
2
Perpetration
Victimization
n (%)
n (%)
461 (66) 519 (74) 376 (54) 439 (63) 199 (28) 298 (43) 643 (92)
403 (58) 471 (67) 307 (44) 402 (58) 124 (18) 303 (43) 618 (88)
10.03** 7.79** 13.50*** 4.02* 22.58*** ns 4.63*
114 (16) 92 (13) 203 (29) 135 (19) 118 (17) 16 (2) 27 (4) 14 (2) 278 (40)
80 (11) 109 (16) 154 (22) 57 (8) 75 (11) 22 (3) 18 (3) 10 (1) 213 (30)
6.91* ns 9.01** 36.67*** 11.10** ns ns ns 13.19**
K.D. O’Leary et al. / Journal of Adolescent Health 42 (2008) 473– 479
aggression against them (mean ⫽ 1.19) than they engaged in against their partners (mean ⫽ 1.10), t (538) ⫽ 6.29, p ⬍ .001). Considering all dating males (n ⫽ 1060) and females (n ⫽ 1052) (current and recent daters), and using Spearman’s rank order correlation, reports of victimization were correlated with reports of perpetration for both males (r ⫽ .79, p ⬍ .001) and females (r ⫽ .76, p ⬍ .001). Similarly, using dichotomous measures of victimization and perpetration, the correlations were .74 (p ⬍ .001) for males and .70 (p ⬍ .001) for females. Thus, using either a continuous or a dichotomous measure of physical aggression, there was a very large association between one’s reports of perpetration and victimization. Approximately 94% of males and females reported that the psychological aggression was mutual, and approximately two-thirds of both males and females involved in physically aggressive relationships reported that there was mutual physical aggression (65% for females and 66% for males). However, there was a marked gender difference for the two unilateral categories, namely, exclusive aggression and exclusive victimization. Twenty-eight percent of females reported that they were the exclusive perpetrators, whereas only 5% of males reported such, 2 (1) ⫽ 26.71, p ⬍ .001. Only 5% of females reported that they were exclusively victimized whereas 27% of males reported such, 2 (1) ⫽ 32.05, p ⬍ .001. Ethnicity There were no differences between currently dating and recently dating individuals in self-reported rates of physical aggression against a partner or in self-reported rates of victimization for males or females. Thus, we used both currently and recently dating individuals to evaluate whether there were differences in the percentages of perpetration of physical aggression by ethnic group. Fewer male Asian students reported engaging in any physical aggression than the other groups, 2 (1) ⫽ 4.51, p ⬍ .05. More specifically, 3% of the dating Asian males reported that they engaged in physical aggression against their partners, whereas the overall percentage of dating aggression by non-Asian males was 23%. Fewer Asian males reported that they engaged in physical aggression than Whites, 2 (1) ⫽ 5.08, p ⬍ .05, Blacks, 2 (1) ⫽ 7.92, p ⬍ .01, Hispanics, 2 (1) ⫽ 7.50, p ⬍ .01, mixed ethnic, 2 (1) ⫽ 8.45, p ⬍ .01, and other, 2 (1) ⫽ 5.15, p ⬍ .05. For females, there were no overall differences in the percentages of perpetration of physical aggression by ethnic group, 2 (5) ⫽ 6.90, p ⬎ .05. The Asian women had rates of perpetrating physical aggression that were only slightly lower (32%) than the overall percentage of dating aggression for non-Asian females (38%). For victimization, there were no differences across ethnic groups for males or females. Inspection of the rates across the ethnic groups did not suggest any differences
477
among any of the groups except that Asian males dated fewer partners on average than did the other males, t (1051) ⫽ 2.86, p ⬍ .005. Type of relationship and aggression For currently dating individuals, physical aggression differed by type of relationship, with the highest probability of perpetrating physical aggression in engaged relationships, that is, males, 37%; females, 58%. There was a significant association of type of relationship with physical aggression for both males and females. A Spearman correlation showed that as the relationships moved from new to engaged, for females, the self-reported extent of perpetration (r ⫽ .14, p ⬍ .001) and victimization increased (r ⫽ .11, p ⬍ .003). Similarly, for males, the self-reported extent of perpetration (r ⫽ .09, p ⬍ .05) and victimization increased (r ⫽ .11, p ⬍ .004). Injuries and likelihood of breakup Of the dating females in aggressive relationships, 26% reported that they had been injured by their partners, and 33% reported that they injured their partners, 2 (1) ⫽ 5.82, p ⬍ .025. Of the males in aggressive relationships, 30% reported that they had been injured, and 22% reported that they injured their partners, 2 (1) ⫽ 5.35, p ⬍. 025. Most of the injuries were minor. More specifically, for females, the injuries received were as follows: minor cuts/bruises, 24%; severe cuts/bruises; 3%; black eye/broken nose, 1%; needed treatment from doctor, 3%. For males, the rates of injuries received were as follows: minor cuts/bruises, 26%; severe cuts/bruises; 3%; black eye/broken nose, 2%; needed treatment from doctor, 3%. If individuals reported that they were the victims of physical aggression by their partners, females and males reported a greater likelihood that they or their partner would end the relationship than remain together, 2 (1) ⫽ 6.54, df ⫽ 1, p ⬍ .025, and 2 (1) ⫽ 4.29, df ⫽ 1, p ⬍ .05. However, even in relationships characterized by victimization, only 14% of females and 23% of males reported that they would break up at some point in the future. Discussion The scope and significance of partner aggression in high school is underscored by three results herein: (1) approximately 30% males and 30% of females reported that they were the targets of physical aggression by their partners; (2) approximately one-quarter of the males and females who reported that their partners aggressed against them reported that they had minor cuts or bruises as a result; and (3) 3% of the females and males who reported being injured indicated that they were injured enough to receive medical attention. In accord with our predictions, a greater percentage of females reported perpetrating physical partner aggression
478
K.D. O’Leary et al. / Journal of Adolescent Health 42 (2008) 473– 479
than being the recipients of physical partner aggression. Our prediction was based on findings of more accepting attitudes regarding use of physical aggression by females [5,6]; and that attitudes accepting of use of physical aggression were associated with use of physical aggression in this sample [5]. Similar to our results herein, an examination of the data in a Spanish survey [18] showed a higher rate of aggression by females than victimization. We believe that these withingender comparisons are much more important than crossgender comparisons because females in high school often date older males, whereas the opposite is true for males. Second, given that a greater percentage of females reported that they aggressed against their partners than they reported that they were aggressed against seems more meaningful than crossgender of reporter comparisons. The overall results from our study and the Malik et al study [9] suggest that pushing and slapping, the most common types of aggression by females, are a common style of relating to male partners when the females get mad. This pattern of pushing and shoving does not appear to be a method aimed at resolving a conflict. For example, when college females were asked why they engaged in physical aggression against their partners, the top four reasons given were anger, verbal argument that escalated, frustrations, and feelings hurt [19]. In a representative sample of parents of young children, women reported that verbal aggression of their husbands was the most common precipitant of women’s physical aggression [20]. It would be important to replicate the results regarding aggression in Asian and non-Asian groups because the number of Asians in this sample was relatively small. However, the results herein are consistent with those of Malik et al [9]. It is unclear why the rates of aggression by Asian males were lower than those for other ethnic groups, but the difference may have been due, in part, to Asian males reporting having dated fewer partners compared to other males because fewer partners was correlated with less physical aggression for males (r ⫽ .12, p ⬍ .001). Physical aggression differed across types of dating relationships with perpetration being most likely in engaged relationships for both males (37%) and females (58%). Although the engaged group was only 4% of the overall sample of high school males and females, the relationships of engaged males and females appear to be at particularly high risk for partner aggression. Certain limitations of this study should be noted. Our reports are based on one partner, with many of our participants not dating each other, thereby precluding couplelevel data analyses. Studies of representative samples of high school-age dating couples could provide useful information on partner agreement and disagreement about the presence and extent of physical aggression, as well as perception of the context of the physical aggression. The high rates of both female and male aggression, as well the extent of mutual aggression, suggest that preven-
tion programs need to target both male and female aggression. This is consistent with others’ recommendations [9]. Given the very significant stability of physical aggression for male and female daters in relationships of at least a few months’ duration in high school [2], it also seems that prevention programs may need to start earlier than high school. Finally, given the strong association between psychological and physical aggression in numerous studies, it is also important to address psychological aggression if one wishes to prevent physical aggression in dating relationships.
Acknowledgments Support for this research came from NIMH Grants 47801 and 57985. Dr. Avery-Leaf is now in private practice in Durham, NH, and Dr. Cascardi lives in Glen Ridge, NJ. Thanks is due Susan O’Leary, who provided significant editorial feedback.
References [1] Silverman JG, Raj A, Mucci LA, et al. Dating violence against adolescent girls and associated substance use, unhealthy weight control, sexual risk behavior, pregnancy, and suicidality. JAMA 2001; 28:572–9. [2] O’Leary KD, Slep AMS. A dyadic longitudinal model of adolescent dating aggression. J Child Adolesc Psychol 2003;32:314 –27. [3] CDC. Physical dating violence among high school students—United States, 2003. MMWR 2006;532–5. [4] Wolfe DA, Scott K, Wekerle C, et al. Child maltreatment: risk of adjustment problems and dating violence in adolescence. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychol 2001;40:282–9. [5] Slep AMS, Cascardi M, Avery-Leaf S, et al. Two new measures of attitudes about the acceptability of teen dating aggression. Psychol Assess 2001;13:306 –18. [6] Schwartz M, O’Leary SG, Kendziora KT. Dating aggression among high school students. Viol Victims 1997;12:295–305. [7] Riggs DS, O’Leary KD. Aggression between heterosexual dating partners: an examination of a causal model of courtship aggression. J Interpers Viol 1996;11:519 – 40. [8] Straus MA, Ramirez IL. Gender symmetry in prevalence, severity and chronicity of physical aggression against dating partners by university students in Mexico and USA. Aggress Behav 2007;33:281–90. [9] Malik S, Sorensen S, Aneshensel C. Community and dating violence among adolescents: perpetration and victimization. J Adolesc Health 1997;21:291–302. [10] Tjaden P, Thoennes N. Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Violence Against Women: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 2000. [11] Bramlett MD, Mosher WD. First Marriage Dissolution, Divorce, and Remarriage: United States, Advance Data, Vol. 323. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention—National Center for Health Statistics, 2001:1–9. [12] Straus MA. Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: the conflict tactics (CT) scales. J Marr Fam 1979;41:75– 86. [13] Cascardi M, Avery-Leaf S, O’Leary KD, et al. Factor structure and convergent validity of the Conflict Tactics Scale in high school students. Psychol Assess 1999;11:546 –55.
K.D. O’Leary et al. / Journal of Adolescent Health 42 (2008) 473– 479 [14] O’Leary KD. Are women really more aggressive than men in intimate relationships? Comment on Archer (2000). Psychol Bull 2000;126: 685–9. [15] Moffit TE, Caspi A, Kreuger RF, et al. Do partners agree about abuse in their relationship? A psychometric evaluation of inter-partner agreement. Psychol Assess 1997;9:47–56. [16] Heyman RE, Schlee KA. Toward a better estimate of the prevalence of partner abuse. adjusting rates based on the sensitivity of the Conflict Tactics Scale. J Fam Psychol 1997;11:331–338.
479
[17] O’Leary KD, Williams MC. Agreement about acts of aggression in marriage. J Fam Psychol 2006;20:656 – 62. [18] Munoz-Rivas MJ, Grana JL, O’Leary KD, et al. Aggression in adolescent dating relationships: prevalence, justification, and health consequences. J Adolesc Health 2007;40:298 –304. [19] Hettrick EL, O’Leary KD. Females’ reasons for their aggression in dating relationships. J Interpers Viol (in press). [20] O’Leary SG, Slep AMS. Precipitants of partner aggression. J Fam Psychol 2006;20:344 –7.