Elsevier

Journal of Criminal Justice

Volume 32, Issue 2, March–April 2004, Pages 171-180
Journal of Criminal Justice

Risky lifestyles and dating violence: A theoretical test of violent victimization

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2003.12.007Get rights and content

Abstract

Research consistently indicates that there are numerous risk factors associated with dating violence. Few studies, however, developed theoretical explanations for the prevalence of dating victimization. In this study victimization theories were tested that suggested risk-taking behaviors (i.e., drug abuse, alcohol abuse, driving under the influence, and sexual promiscuity) mediated the effects of social ties and emotional states on the likelihood of violent victimization in adolescent dating relationships. This model was tested using a representative sample of public high school students in South Carolina. The results confirm theoretical predictions and indicate the effects of social ties on dating victimization occur indirectly, through their antecedent influence on risk taking. These findings, therefore, lend support for a lifestyles theory explanation of violent victimization in adolescent dating relationships. The implications of this research for theory and social policy are discussed.

Introduction

During the past two decades, dating violence in teen relationships has become an issue of growing concern to the academic and policy communities. Some research suggested that dating violence links child maltreatment experienced in the family of origin to violence encountered in later domestic relationships Bernard & Bernard, 1983, Makepeace, 1981, Malik et al., 1997. Research also suggests the majority of adolescents experience their first dating relationship during high school Jackson et al., 2000, Kreiter et al., 1999. In fact, many adolescents experience an episode of dating violence by the age of fifteen (Henton, Cate, Koval, Lloyd, & Christopher, 1983). The high dating violence victimization rates for adolescents suggest that this topic is a serious social issue Chase et al., 2002, Coker et al., 2000, Hird, 2000, Jackson, 1999, Jackson et al., 2000, Lewis & Fremouw, 2000, Reitzel-Jaffe & Wolfe, 2001, Silverman et al., 2001. Research also consistently indicates that violence is associated with numerous negative social and psychological outcomes Campbell & Lewandowski, 1997, Harned, 2001.

Theoretical research advanced the understanding of social and psychological factors that contribute to the perpetration of violence in intimate relationships Dutton, 1999, Moffitt et al., 2000. Less research, however, specifically focused on developing theoretical explanations for the prevalence of dating victimization (Lewis & Fremouw, 2000). Intimate violence research also was criticized for not comprehensively focusing on factors that increased one's risk of victimization (Gelles, 1998). The majority of research on dating violence and victimization used convenience samples that generally underrepresent minority groups Jackson, 1999, Sugarman & Hotaling, 1989.

The present study contributed to the dating violence literature by synthesizing existing theoretical perspectives including: social psychological, lifestyles, and social control approaches to explain violent victimization in dating relationships. These theoretical perspectives were used to explain the relationships between risk-taking behaviors, indicators of psychological adjustment, measures of social ties, and self-reported dating violence victimization among a representative cross-section of public high school students in the state of South Carolina.

Section snippets

Prior literature on dating violence

Researchers estimate that between 9 and 46 percent of high school students are involved in dating violence (Watson, Cascardi, Avery-Leaf, & O'Leary, 2001). There are several methodological reasons why estimates of dating violence among adolescents vary to such a large degree. First, measures of dating violence may include threats of violence, verbal abuse, emotional/psychological abuse, sexual abuse, and physical abuse. While there is no uniform definition of dating violence, researchers

Present study

The literature on risk factors associated with dating violence and victimization produced an increased understanding of the phenomenon. Absent from this risk factor literature, however, is a theoretical specification for why these risk factors are important. In addition, the majority of theoretical work on dating violence focused on explanations for offender perpetration (Jackson, 1999). Few studies proposed models for understanding the social and psychological processes that explain the

Theoretical model

Theoretical developments in social psychology and criminology provide the nexus for understanding why certain individual traits and lifestyles place specific adolescents at a greater risk of being victims of dating violence. These theoretical perspectives provide a victimization explanation of dating violence.

Clearly, individual traits are important antecedents to risky lifestyles. Research, for example, by Schreck, Wright, and Miller (2002) suggests that individual traits related to

Data and method

The data used in this study came from the 1997 South Carolina Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS).1 The YRBS used a three-stage, stratified cluster sampling design that, when weighted, represented

Dependent variable

Violent dating victimization was measured using a single question modified from the Conflict Tactics Scale (Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996): (1) “Being physically beaten up (like hitting, kicking, or throwing someone down) can sometimes happen with the person your are dating or going out with. During the past twelve months, how many times were you physically beaten up by the person you date or go out with?” Self-reported dating victimization occurred in only 8 percent of

Sample description

Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics for the dependent and independent variables, taking into account the multistage complex survey design. These data indicated that an estimated 8 percent of youth in public high schools were violently abused by their boyfriend or girlfriend in the preceding year. This prevalence estimate fell within the lower range of other studies and might reflect that the current study focused on only physical abuse and did not include measures of threat or

Discussion

The findings reveal that emotional factors, in addition to risky lifestyles, are associated with dating violence among adolescents and that victimization theories are useful for explaining these results. The results are consistent with the literature indicating that health-related risk-taking behaviors are associated with the likelihood of being a victim of violence. South Carolina high school students who reported engaging in risky lifestyles were at increased risks of being victims of dating

Conclusions

The purpose of this study was to examine, using a population-based sample of adolescents, a theoretical model of violent victimization in dating relationships. Given the limitations of these data, caution should be exercised in interpreting these findings. These data were originally collected for the purposes of public health research and therefore had numerous criminological limitations. The data were cross-sectional and therefore limited the interpretation of causation that was increasingly

References (62)

  • C.L Baeir et al.

    If you love me, keep my commandments: A meta-analysis of the effect of religion on crime

    Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency

    (2001)
  • D Baumrind

    A developmental perspective on adolescent risk taking in contemporary America

  • L Bergman

    Dating violence among high school students

    Social Work

    (1992)
  • M.L Bernard et al.

    Violent intimacy: The family as model for love relationships

    Family Relations

    (1983)
  • D.A Binder

    On the variances of asymptotically normal estimators from complex surveys

    International Statistical Review

    (1983)
  • N.D Brener et al.

    Reliability of the Youth Risk Behavior Survey questionnaire

    American Journal of Epidemiology

    (1995)
  • P Burke et al.

    Gender identity, self-esteem and physical and sexual abuse in dating relationships

    Social Psychology Quarterly

    (1988)
  • K.A Chase et al.

    Characteristics of high-risk adolescents' dating violence

    Journal of Interpersonal Violence

    (2002)
  • L.E Cohen et al.

    Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach

    American Sociological Review

    (1979)
  • L.E Cohen et al.

    Social inequality and predatory criminal victimization: An exposition and test of a formal theory

    American Sociological Review

    (1981)
  • J.L Eltinge et al.

    Linear, logistic, and probit regressions for survey data

    Stata Technical Bulletin

    (1996)
  • B.R Flay

    Positive youth development requires comprehensive health promotion programs

    American Journal of Health Behavior

    (2002)
  • V.M Follette et al.

    Dating violence—current and historical correlates

    Behavioral Assessment

    (1992)
  • D.R Follingstad et al.

    Risk factors and correlates of dating violence: The relevance of examining the frequency and severity levels in a college sample

    Violence and Victims

    (1999)
  • R.J Gelles

    Family violence

  • M Gottfredson et al.

    A general theory of crime

    (1990)
  • J Hagan et al.

    Youth violence and the end of adolescence

    American Sociological Review

    (2001)
  • M.S Harned

    Abused women or abused men? An examination of the context and outcomes of dating violence

    Violence and Victims

    (2001)
  • J Henton et al.

    Romance and violence in dating relationships

    Journal of Family Issues

    (1983)
  • M.S Hindelang et al.

    Victims of personal crime

    (1978)
  • G.H Holmbeck

    Toward terminological, conceptual, and statistical clarity in the study of mediators and moderators: Examples from the child-clinical and pediatric psychology literatures

    Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology

    (1997)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text