Play Context, Commitment, and Dating Violence

González-Méndez, Rosaura; Hernández‐Cabrera, Juan Andrés

doi:10.1177/0886260508323666

Cited by 17 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In sum, these findings add evidence showing that physical and sexual aggression peak around the ages of 16 and 17 years, and this peak may be related to specific aspects of the developmental stage. First, some authors have suggested that patterns of partner violence are different during adolescence than in adulthood, and they could reflect a more “normative” interactional style related to rudimentary means of communication to signal intimacy and resolve conflicts (González-Méndez & Hernández-Cabrera, 2009; Wekerle & Wolfe, 1999). Consequently, in the absence of other resources, aggressive behaviors become a “tool” for resolving conflicts and emotionally approaching the dating partner.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Age-Related Changes in Dating Aggression in Spanish High School Students

Fernández‐González

O’Leary

Muñoz-Rivas

2013

J Interpers Violence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Prevention programs for dating partner aggression should be based on knowledge about when such aggression starts and how it changes. Given the very few studies regarding such trends, changes in physical, psychological, and sexual aggression against dating partners were examined in 14- to 20-year-old Spanish high school students (N = 2,016). Overall, psychological aggression increased linearly, whereas physical aggression had a negative quadratic association, peaking at 16 to 17 years for males and females. Sexual aggression was infrequent, but it spiked at age 16 for males. Although physical aggression diminished in late adolescence, injuries as a consequence of such aggression increased linearly for females, and they were also significantly higher for females (14.9%) than for males (3%) at ages 18 to 20 years. The findings support the hypothesis that dating physical aggression for males and females peaks during middle-to-late adolescence and shows a similar developmental pattern to other antisocial and criminal behaviors. Prevention of dating aggression, escalation of such aggression, and prevention of injury should consider developmental trends in dating aggression.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Age-Related Changes in Dating Aggression in Spanish High School Students

Fernández‐González

O’Leary

Muñoz-Rivas

2013

J Interpers Violence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Also, the location of “on purpose” made it unclear if it was referring to “physically hurt” or to all the types of aggression included in the question. As a result, this item may have also captured play-fighting or “horseplay,” which has been shown to be common among adolescent dating partners 16,17 ; researchers have pointed out that the boundaries between play-fighting/flirting and actual aggression in adolescence are not always clear. 18–20 The previous question also only asked about violence perpetrated by a “boyfriend or girlfriend,” which may have inadvertently included only serious relationships and excluded more casual dating relationships.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Teen Dating Violence (Physical and Sexual) Among US High School Students

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IMPORTANCE National estimates of teen dating violence (TDV) reveal high rates of victimization among high school populations. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s national Youth Risk Behavior Survey has provided often-cited estimates of physical TDV since 1999. In 2013, revisions were made to the physical TDV question to capture more serious forms of physical TDV and to screen out students who did not date. An additional question was added to assess sexual TDV. OBJECTIVES To describe the content of new physical and sexual TDV victimization questions first administered in the 2013 national Youth Risk Behavior Survey, to share data on the prevalence and frequency of TDV (including the first-ever published overall “both physical and sexual TDV” and “any TDV” national estimates using these new questions), and to assess associations of TDV experience with health-risk behaviors. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Secondary data analysis of a cross-sectional survey of 9900 students who dated, from a nationally representative sample of US high school students, using the 2013 national Youth Risk Behavior Survey. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Two survey questions separately assessed physical and sexual TDV; this analysis combined them to create a 4-level TDV measure and a 2-level TDV measure. The 4-level TDV measure includes “physical TDV only,” “sexual TDV only,” “both physical and sexual TDV,” and “none.” The 2-level TDV measure includes “any TDV” (either or both physical and sexual TDV) and “none.” Sex-stratified bivariate and multivariable analyses assessed associations between TDV and health-risk behaviors. RESULTS In 2013, among students who dated, 20.9% of female students (95% CI, 19.0%–23.0%) and 10.4% of male students (95% CI, 9.0%–11.7%) experienced some form of TDV during the 12 months before the survey. Female students had a higher prevalence than male students of physical TDV only, sexual TDV only, both physical and sexual TDV, and any TDV. All health-risk behaviors were most prevalent among students who experienced both forms of TDV and were least prevalent among students who experienced none (all P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE The 2013 TDV questions allowed for new prevalence estimates of TDV to be established that represent a more complete measure of TDV and are useful in determining associations with health-risk behaviors among youth exposed to these different forms of TDV.

show abstract

“…The gendered nature of IPV has important, and complicated, implications for prevention and intervention. Prevention programs must tread a line between equating all acts of violence, which rings false, and only taking male violence seriously, which denies women’s capacity for meaningful violence and potentially contributes to a double standard that may ultimately put women at greater risk (Gonzalez-Mendez & Hernandez-Cabrera, 2009). Intervention programs for victims and abusers must consider the meanings and impact of behaviors for the parties involved.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Qualitative Investigation of the Role of Gender in Young Women’s Dating Violence in the United States

Lehrner

Allen

2018

Violence Against Women

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The relevance of gender has been a central debate in the intimate partner violence (IPV) literature. The current qualitative study explored the role of gender in shaping the social context, meaning, and reception of young women's IPV in the United States. A total of 36 undergraduate women were recruited from a larger sample for in-depth interviews. Emergent themes suggest that women's violence was construed as nonequivalent to men's violence, including the perceived triviality of women's violence, contingencies under which women's violence is deemed acceptable, and the status of male IPV as unacceptable. Gender was important for participants and bystanders in determining whether they interpreted behaviors as meaningful acts of violence.

show abstract

Play Context, Commitment, and Dating Violence

Cited by 17 publications

References 27 publications

Age-Related Changes in Dating Aggression in Spanish High School Students

Age-Related Changes in Dating Aggression in Spanish High School Students

Teen Dating Violence (Physical and Sexual) Among US High School Students

A Qualitative Investigation of the Role of Gender in Young Women’s Dating Violence in the United States

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About