555863 research-article2014

JIVXXX10.1177/0886260514555863Journal of Interpersonal ViolenceEarnest and Brady

Article

Dating Violence Victimization Among High School Students in Minnesota: Associations With Family Violence, Unsafe Schools, and Resources for Support

Journal of Interpersonal Violence 1­–24 © The Author(s) 2014 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0886260514555863 jiv.sagepub.com

Alicia A. Earnest, MPH1 and Sonya S. Brady, PhD1

Abstract The present study examines whether being a victim of violence by an adult in the household, witnessing intra-familial physical violence, and feeling unsafe at school are associated with physical dating violence victimization. It also examines whether extracurricular activity involvement and perceived care by parents, teachers, and friends attenuate those relationships, consistent with a stress-buffering model. Participants were 75,590 ninth-and twelfthgrade students (51% female, 77% White, 24% receiving free/reduced price lunch) who completed the 2010 Minnesota Student Survey. Overall, 8.5% of students reported being victims of dating violence. Significant differences were found by gender, grade, ethnicity, and free/reduced price lunch status. Logistic regression analyses demonstrated that being a victim of violence by an adult in the household, witnessing intra-familial physical violence, feeling unsafe at school, and low perceived care by parents were strongly associated with dating violence victimization. Associations of moderate 1University

of Minnesota School of Public Health, Minneapolis, USA

Corresponding Author: Sonya S. Brady, Division of Epidemiology & Community Health, University of Minnesota School of Public Health, 1300 S. 2nd Street, Suite 300, Minneapolis, MN 55454, USA. Email: [email protected]

2

Journal of Interpersonal Violence 

strength were found for low perceived care by teachers and friends. Little to no extracurricular activity involvement was weakly associated with dating violence victimization. Attenuating effects of perceived care and extracurricular activity involvement on associations between risk factors (victimization by a family adult, witnessing intra-familial violence, feeling unsafe at school) and dating violence victimization were smaller in magnitude than main effects. Findings are thus more consistent with an additive model of risk and protective factors in relation to dating violence victimization than a stress-buffering model. Health promotion efforts should attempt to minimize family violence exposure, create safer school environments, and encourage parental involvement and support. Keywords dating violence, adolescents, victimization, social support, school safety Nearly 10% of adolescents in the United States are victims of physical dating violence (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2012). Physical dating violence victimization encompasses non-sexual bodily harm from a romantic partner such as hitting, pushing, kicking, or slapping (Teten, Ball, Valle, Noonan, & Rosenbluth, 2009). An ecological systems perspective suggests that an adolescent’s risk for dating violence victimization is a function of risk and protective factors that surround the adolescent and that may be proximal or distal; factors include family structure and processes; peer and partner characteristics; neighborhood, school, and community characteristics; societal norms conveyed through media; and broader cultural norms and practices (Connolly, Friedlander, Pepler, Craig, & Laporte, 2010; Jain, Buka, Subramanian, & Molnar, 2010). While all sources of influence are important, experiences in the home and school may be particularly likely to shape young people’s attitudes about the acceptability of violence (Chiodo, Wolfe, Crooks, Hughes, & Jaffe, 2009; Foshee, Benefield, Ennett, Bauman, & Suchindran, 2004; Maas, Fleming, Herrenkohl, & Catalano, 2010; Malik, Sorenson, & Aneshensel, 1997). The present study examines risk and protective factors in the adolescent home and school environment in relationship to dating violence victimization. Experiences of violence in the home may predispose subsets of adolescents to dating violence victimization by modeling violence in relationships as normative behavior (Bandura, 1971). Bandura’s social learning theory has been the basis for subsequent theoretical work on intergenerational transmission of violence (e.g., Egeland, 1993; Kalmuss, 1984). Prospective studies (Foshee et al., 2004; Maas et al., 2010; Tyler, Brownridge, & Melander, 2011)

Earnest and Brady

3

and cross-sectional studies (Laporte, Jiang, Pepler, & Chamberland, 2011; Malik et al., 1997; E. Miller et al., 2011) have shown that adolescents who experience physical abuse by a parent or caregiver are more likely to be victimized by dating violence than those who do not experience this abuse. Research on dating violence victimization among adolescents who witness physical abuse between adults in the home is mixed. At least three studies have linked witnessing physical abuse between adults in the home to adolescent dating violence victimization (Maas et al., 2010; Malik et al., 1997; E. Miller et al., 2011); in contrast, at least two studies have found no relationship (Foshee et al., 2004; Gagne, Lavoie, & Hebert, 2005). Adolescents may also experience violence and threats to their safety at school. Studies have not examined whether perceived school safety is linked to dating violence victimization. Some research has examined links between perceived school safety and harassment, another form of relationship violence. Students who report feeling unsafe at school are more likely to report being sexually harassed by another teen or classmate(s) (Chiodo et al., 2009) and being bullied by other students at school (Beran & Tutty, 2002; Glew, Fan, Katon, & Rivara, 2008). These studies were cross-sectional; while it is likely that being bullied or harassed makes students feel unsafe at school, it is also possible that unsafe school environments normalize and facilitate further bullying or harassment, leading to greater incidence of victimization among students. Research has also demonstrated links between being victimized by bullying or sexual harassment and being victimized by dating violence victimization (Chiodo et al., 2009; Espelage & Holt, 2007; Gagne et al., 2005). Chiodo et al. (2009) found that students who were victims of sexual harassment in Grade 9 were more likely to report physical dating violence victimization 2 years later. In their cross-sectional study, Gagne et al. (2005) explicitly excluded dating partners from assessments of sexual harassment and bullying by peers when assessing links to dating violence victimization. This is important because it strengthens the interpretation that one type of violence inflicted by peers (i.e., sexual harassment or bullying) may make adolescents more vulnerable to dating violence victimization. These studies also support the idea that unsafe school environments can normalize violence and lead to greater likelihood of victimization by dating violence.

Resources for Resilience in the Context of Risk Not all adolescents who are exposed to violence in the home or school become involved in violent dating relationships. The stress-buffering hypothesis suggests that social support can minimize the negative impact of stressful

4

Journal of Interpersonal Violence 

life experiences on health outcomes by providing psychological and material resources to cope with stress (Cohen & Wills, 1985). Applying this hypothesis to dating violence, adolescents who experience violence in the home or school may be less likely to form violent relationships or to tolerate violence in dating relationships if they have resources for social support. At least two studies have examined whether social support and family violence exposure interact to influence dating violence victimization. In a cross-sectional survey of college students, L. G. Simons, Simons, Lei, Hancock, and Fincham (2012) examined the potential interaction between maternal and/or paternal hostility, defined by experiences of parental verbal or emotional abuse, and maternal and/or paternal warmth in relation to dating violence victimization. Findings demonstrated that maternal warmth interacted with maternal hostility such that the association between maternal hostility and dating violence victimization was stronger in the presence of maternal warmth. The same was true for the interaction between paternal warmth and paternal hostility. These results were significant for female but not male students. L. G. Simons et al. (2012) also found that interparental warmth amplified the effect of witnessing interparental hostility (defined as verbal and/or physical abuse between parents) on male and female adolescent dating violence victimization. Findings of this study contradict the stressbuffering hypothesis; instead of attenuating the relationship between family hostility and dating violence victimization, perceptions of warmth actually exacerbated the relationship. L. G. Simons et al. (2012) posited that parental demonstration of both hostility and warmth within their romantic relationship led the child to conclude that aggression is a normal part of romantic relationships. L. G. Simons et al. (2012) did not examine whether maternal and/or paternal warmth directed toward the adolescent moderated the effect of interparental hostility on dating violence victimization. In the second study, Levendosky, Huth-Bocks, and Semel (2002) found that greater social support from friends was associated with less abuse from dating partners among adolescents whose mothers reported low amounts of domestic violence (defined as being physically harmed or threatened by her intimate partner). In contrast, greater social support from friends was associated with greater abuse from dating partners among adolescents whose mothers reported high amounts of domestic violence. The authors posited that adolescents exposed to high amounts of domestic violence were surrounded by more violent peer networks in which violent relationships were seen as the norm; social support may have made adolescents more receptive to this norm. Levendosky et al. did not examine whether domestic violence exposure was associated with dating partner abuse within groups of adolescents reporting low or high social support from friends. This approach is of interest because

Earnest and Brady

5

it would test whether a resource for resilience (social support from friends) appeared to attenuate the impact of a risk factor (domestic violence exposure) on dating violence victimization. In addition to the L. G. Simons et al. (2012) and Levendosky et al. (2002) studies, Tyler et al. (2011) found independent effects of physical abuse by a parent or caregiver and low adolescent-perceived parental warmth on dating violence victimization in a longitudinal study of middle and high school adolescents. However, Tyler and colleagues (2011) did not test for an interaction between physical abuse and parental warmth in relation to dating violence victimization. Tajima, Herrenkohl, Moylan, and Derr (2011) found support for the stressbuffering hypothesis with respect to negative adolescent outcomes other than dating violence victimization. In a longitudinal sample of adolescents, positive youth perceptions of parents’ responsiveness and attentiveness to emotional needs attenuated the effect of witnessing interparental physical violence on both running away from home and teenage pregnancy. In addition, peer communication and peer trust attenuated the effect of witnessing interparental physical violence on running away from home, dropping out of high school, and depression. In addition to direct support from others, participation in extracurricular activities may conceivably act as a buffer for adolescents who are exposed to violence at home or school. This conceptualization is consistent with the idea that opportunities for social support are enhanced through increasing the size of one’s social network (Cohen & Wills, 1985). No studies have examined whether extracurricular activity involvement is directly associated with dating violence victimization, nor whether it moderates associations between violence in the home or perceptions of school safety and dating violence victimization. Research has demonstrated that adolescents’ involvement in extracurricular activities can reduce the likelihood of engaging in a variety of risk behaviors, including tobacco and other drug use, skipping school, dropping out of school, and sexual risk-taking (Cooley, Henriksen, Van Nelson, & Thompson, 1995; Eccles & Barber, 1999; Eccles, Barber, Stone, & Hunt, 2003; Mahoney & Cairns, 1997; Mahoney & Stattin, 2000; McNeal, 1995; K. E. Miller, Sabo, Farrell, Barnes, & Melnick, 1999; Youniss, Yates, & Su, 1997). In addition, adolescents’ involvement in extracurricular activities has been associated with positive outcomes such as high self-esteem, emotion regulation, mental health, and healthy relationships (Barber, Eccles, & Stone, 2001; Fredricks & Eccles, 2006; Larson, Hansen, & Moneta, 2006; Marsh & Kleitman, 2003). The number of different activities in which an adolescent participates has been associated with positive academic and behavioral outcomes such as higher grades and years of schooling, civic engagement, and lower marijuana use (Fredricks & Eccles, 2006). Thus, research has

6

Journal of Interpersonal Violence 

demonstrated that extracurricular activity involvement is directly associated with lower behavioral risk and positive characteristics that may serve as resources in the context of risk. It remains to be seen whether extracurricular activity involvement attenuates the relationship between violence in the home or school and dating violence victimization. It is also important to note that extracurricular activities could conceivably enhance a relationship between violence in the home or school and dating violence victimization. Characteristics of peer networks that are accessed through extracurricular activity involvement can vary. Social support from a new network may be “packaged” with negative peer characteristics, such as tolerance or acceptance of violence; this could potentially enhance risk for dating violence victimization, consistent with the findings of Levendosky et al. (2002). In the absence of an interaction between stressors and social support, it is possible that each factor may exert independent risk and protective effects on dating violence victimization, respectively. Such an additive model of risk and protection would be consistent with the manner in which most social ecological determinants of health among youth are examined in the literature (e.g., Masten, Cutuli, Herbers, & Reed, 2009; Masten & Powell, 2003; Pollard, Hawkins, & Arthur, 1999).

Demographic Factors Linked With Dating Violence Victimization Along with family violence, unsafe schools, and resources for resilience, it is important to consider several demographic characteristics that increase risk for dating violence victimization, including older age (Malik et al., 1997; Spriggs, Halpern, Herring, & Schoenbach, 2009), African American, Latino, or Native American heritage (Halpern, Spriggs, Martin, & Kupper, 2009; Malik et al., 1997; Spriggs et al., 2009), socioeconomic disadvantage (Aldarondo & Sugarman, 1996; Breiding, Black, & Ryan, 2008; Cunradi, Caetano, & Schafer, 2002; Foshee et al., 2004; O’Keefe & Treister, 1998; Spriggs et al., 2009; Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000), and gender (Field & Caetano, 2005; Foshee et al., 2004; Halpern et al., 2009; Maas et al., 2010; Malik et al., 1997; O’Keefe & Treister, 1998; O’Leary, Smith Slep, Avery-Leaf, & Cascardi, 2008; Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000; Windle & Mrug, 2009). Some studies report that the prevalence of dating violence victimization is higher among male than female adolescents (Malik et al., 1997; O’Keefe & Treister, 1998), while others report the opposite (Halpern et al., 2009; Maas et al., 2010). Females tend to suffer more severe violence than males (Field & Caetano, 2005; Foshee et al., 2004; O’Keefe & Treister, 1998; Tjaden &

Earnest and Brady

7

Thoennes, 2000), but more often perpetrate milder forms of violence against male partners (O’Leary et al., 2008; Windle & Mrug, 2009).

Hypotheses The present study examines how risk and protective factors in the home and school may be linked to dating violence victimization. Each risk factor (witnessing intra-familial physical violence, being a victim of physical violence by an adult in the family, feeling unsafe at school) was hypothesized to increase risk for dating violence victimization independent of gender, grade, race, and free or reduced price lunch status. It was hypothesized that social support from different sources (parents, friends, and teachers) and high levels of extracurricular activity involvement would have direct protective effects against dating violence victimization. Finally, it was hypothesized that associations between risk factors and dating violence victimization would be attenuated by social support and by level of participation in extracurricular activities, consistent with a stress-buffering model.

Method Procedure This research utilizes cross-sectional, de-identified data from the 2010 Minnesota Student Survey and was therefore deemed exempt from review by the authors’ Institutional Review Board. Data were collected through a collaboration between Minnesota schools and several state departments. Respondents in 2010 included 6th-, 9th-, and 12th-grade students in public schools, including charter and tribal schools. Questions on the survey assessed student demographics and health-related experiences, perceptions, and behaviors. The survey was administered in English during one class period and consisted of a self-administered paper-and-pencil scan sheet with a separate packet of questions. Student participation was voluntary; all participating students provided assent. The parental consent procedure varied by school district, with most using opt-out, passive consent. All surveys were anonymous. While all public school districts in Minnesota were invited to participate, administrative leadership from 295 out of 335 school districts (88%) elected to participate. The present study only includes 9th- and 12thgrade students, who were asked questions about dating violence exposure. Participation rates varied by grade (9th grade, 75%; 12th grade, 59%). It is not known whether students who did and did not participate differed on any of the variables examined.

8

Journal of Interpersonal Violence 

Participants Students who did not answer all questions of interest for the study (10%) were excluded, yielding a final N of 75,590. Table 1 presents the composition of the study sample with respect to demographics.

Measures Outcome.  Dating violence victimization was assessed by the yes/no question, “Has someone you were going out with ever hit you, hurt you, threatened you or made you feel afraid?” Risk factors.  Feeling unsafe at school was assessed by a single question: “I feel safe at school.” Responses options were “strongly agree,” “agree,” “disagree,” and “strongly disagree.” Responses of strongly agree and agree were combined to indicate a perceived safe school environment. Responses of strongly disagree and disagree were combined to indicate a perceived unsafe school environment. Physical violence victimization by an adult in the home was assessed by the yes/no question, “Has any adult in your household ever hit you so hard or so often that you had marks or were afraid of that person?” Witness to intra-familial physical violence was assessed by the yes/no question, “Has anyone else in your family ever hit anyone else in the family so hard or so often that they had marks or were afraid of that person?” Protective factors.  Students were asked “How much do you feel . . . (a) friends care about you? (b) teachers/other adults at school care about you? (c) your parents care about you?” Response options were “very much,” “quite a bit,” “some,” “a little,” and “not at all.” Each source of perceived care was assessed separately. Students who felt that the potential source of support cared about them “very much” or “quite a bit” were considered to have high perceived care; those who felt the potential source of support cared about them “some,” “a little,” or “not at all” were considered to have low perceived care. Students were asked how often they participated in eight different extracurricular activities: fine arts, club/community sports teams, school sports teams, community clubs/programs, mentoring programs, religious activities, service learning programs, and tutoring/other academic programs. Responses were coded as follows: “not available in my community” and “never” were coded as 0; “less than monthly” was coded as 0.01; “monthly” was coded as 0.03; “1-2 times per week” was coded as 1.5; “3-4 times per week” was coded as 3.5; and a response of “every day” was coded as 5. Students’ answers were then summed across all eight activities to determine how many activity

9

Earnest and Brady Table 1.  Distributions of Study Variables and Prevalence of Dating Violence Victimization (N = 75,590).

Variable

n

Victim of dating violence 6,426 Gender  Female 38,907  Male 36,683 Grade  12 33,410  9 42,180 Ethnicityb  White 58,251   American Indian 807   Black, African, or African 3,342 American   Hispanic or Latino 2,773   Asian American or Pacific 3,988 Islander   More than one race or 4,745 ethnicity   I do not know/no answer 1,684 Free or reduced price lunch  Yes 18,282  No 57,308 Feels unsafe at school  Yes 4,622  No 70,977 Victim of physical violence by adult in home  Yes 6,834  No 68,756 Witness to intra-familial physical violence  Yes 7,991  No 67,599 Perceived care from parents  Low 7,231  High 68,359 Perceived care from teachers  Low 40,727  High 34,863

Percentage of Sample

Proportion Reporting Dating Violence Victimizationa

8.50

—

51.47 48.53

.11 .06

44.20 55.80

.11 .07

77.06 1.07 4.42

.08 .15 .10

3.67 5.28

.11 .08

6.28

.14

2.23

.14

24.19 75.81

.11 .08

6.10 93.90

.24 .08

9.04 90.96

.27 .07

10.57 89.43

.23 .07

9.57 90.43

.21 .07

53.88 46.12

.11 .06 (continued)

10

Journal of Interpersonal Violence 

Table 1. (continued)

Variable

n

Perceived care from friends  Low 17,450  High 58,140 Involvement in extracurricular activities   Very high 19,228  High 23,439  Low-moderate 17,221   Little to none 15,702

Percentage of Sample

Proportion Reporting Dating Violence Victimizationa

23.09 76.91

.13 .07

25.44 31.01 22.78 20.77

.07 .07 .09 .12

aChi-square

tests were performed on counts. p < .0001 for all tests due to very large sample size. bIn subsequent regression models, the ethnicity variable was treated as dichotomous. “I don’t know/No answer” was treated as missing. The White category was assigned the value of 0, and all other groups were assigned the value of 1.

events they attended in a given week. The sample distribution was examined, and four evenly distributed categories were created. Less than one activity event per school week indicated little or no involvement, 1 to 5 activity events indicated low to moderate involvement, more than 5 and up to 10 activity events indicated high involvement, more than 10 activity events indicated very high involvement.

Data Analyses Preliminary analyses examined differences between the study sample and those excluded due to missing data, distributions of all study variables within the study sample, and differences in dating violence prevalence by demographics and other study variables. Logistic regression analyses were used to test all study hypotheses. Gender, grade, ethnicity, and free or reduced price lunch status were included as covariates in all models. Basic assumptions for logistic regression were verified, including absence of multicollinearity, independence of errors, and sufficient case to variable ratio; linearity in the logit and check for influential outliers did not apply due to the categorical nature of all independent variables. Main effects were first examined adjusting only for covariates. Next, a fully adjusted model (i.e., additive model) included all variables to examine

Earnest and Brady

11

potentially independent effects of different risk and protective factors on the likelihood of dating violence victimization. The stress-buffering hypothesis was tested by conducting a series of regression analyses in which a single interaction term between a specific risk factor and protective factor was entered into each model.

Results Chi-square analyses showed that there were significant differences on all demographic variables between the study sample and those excluded from the study due to any missing variable (n = 8,531). Excluded students had a higher proportion of males than the study sample (60% vs. 49%), were more likely to be in the 9th grade (61% vs. 56%), were more likely to report a nonWhite ethnicity (37% vs. 29%), and were more likely to receive free or reduced price lunch (38% vs. 24%). Among the excluded students who answered the dating violence victimization question (n = 4,494), more than 11% reported victimization compared with 8.5% of students who answered all study questions.

Variable Distributions and Differences in Dating Violence Prevalence The overall prevalence of ever having been a victim of dating violence was 8.5% (see Table 1). The majority of students reported that they felt safe at school (94% vs. 6%). Nine percent of students reported having been a victim of physical violence by an adult in their home, and more than 10% reported having witnessed intra-familial physical violence. In all, 90%, 46%, and 77% reported high perceived care from parents, teachers, and friends, respectively. By design, the distribution of extracurricular activity involvement was fairly even across the four groups. Table 1 also shows differences in prevalence of dating violence victimization by study variables. Differences were the most pronounced for students who felt unsafe at school, experienced violence in the home, or perceived low care from parents. Students who reported feeling unsafe at school had a higher prevalence than those who reported feeling safe (24% vs. 8%). Similar results were found for students who had been physically abused by an adult in the family (27% vs. 7%) and for students who had witnessed intra-familial physical violence (23% vs. 7%). In general, prevalence of dating violence victimization was higher among the low perceived care groups and among those who reported less involvement in extracurricular activities. The

12

Journal of Interpersonal Violence 

difference by perceived care from parents was the most pronounced (21% vs. 7% for low and high perceived care, respectively).

Main Effects of Study Variables on Dating Violence Victimization When adjusted only for demographic variables, being a victim of physical violence by an adult in the family had the strongest effect on dating violence victimization (OR = 4.87; see Table 2), followed by feeling unsafe at school (OR = 4.06) and witnessing intra-familial physical violence (OR = 3.84). Low perceived care from parents also had a strong effect on dating violence victimization (OR = 3.50). Weaker effects were found for low perceived care from teachers (OR = 2.09) and friends (OR = 2.06). Little or no (OR = 1.70) and low-moderate (OR = 1.19) extracurricular activity involvement presented a small risk for dating violence victimization compared with very high involvement, while high involvement was weakly protective (OR = 0.92). In the fully adjusted model, these main effects were still present. Feeling unsafe at school had the strongest effect on dating violence victimization (OR = 2.53; see Table 2), closely followed by being a victim of physical violence by an adult in the family (OR = 2.48). The effects for witnessing intra-familial physical violence (OR = 1.86), low perceived care from parents (OR = 1.68), low perceived care from teachers (OR = 1.44), and low perceived care from friends (OR = 1.23) were weaker. Little or no extracurricular activity involvement (OR = 1.28) presented a small risk for dating violence victimization when compared with very high involvement, while high involvement (OR = 0.89) was weakly protective. Low-moderate extracurricular activity involvement was not significantly different from very high involvement with respect to likelihood of dating violence victimization.

Stress-Buffering Effects of Perceived Care and Extracurricular Activity Involvement Tests of moderation by perceived care from parents, teachers, and friends on the associations between risk variables and dating violence victimization were performed (data not shown). Tests were statistically significant with two exceptions: the interaction between perceived care from friends and being a victim of physical violence by an adult in the family, and the interaction between perceived care from friends and witnessing intra-familial physical violence. All significant interactions were plotted using predicted

13

Earnest and Brady Table 2.  Logistic Regression of Dating Violence Victimization on Risk and Protective Factors. Dating Violence Victimization

   

Adjusted for Base Model Variables Only Odds Ratioa

Base model   Female gender 2.18   Grade 12 1.77   Ethnic minority 1.30   Free or reduced price 1.42 lunch Model 1   Feels unsafe at school 4.06 Model 2 4.87   Victim of physical violence by adult in family Model 3   Witness to intra-familial 3.84 physical violence Model 4   Low perceived care 3.50 from parents Model 5   Low perceived care 2.09 from teachers Model 6   Low perceived care 2.06 from friends Model 7   Involvement in extracurricular activities   Very high 1.00   High 0.92   Low-moderate 1.19    Little to none 1.70

Fully Adjusted Additive Model

[95% CI]

Odds Ratiob

[95% CI]

[2.06, 2.30] [1.68, 1.86] [1.22, 1.39] [1.34, 1.52]

2.27 1.93 1.07 1.10

[2.14, 2.40] [1.83, 2.04] [0.99, 1.14] [1.03, 1.17]

[3.76, 4.39]

2.53

[2.32, 2.75]

[4.56, 5.19]

2.48

[2.29, 2.70]

[3.61, 4.10]

1.86

[1.72, 2.02]

[3.28, 3.74]

1.68

[1.56, 1.81]

[1.97, 2.21]

1.44

[1.36, 1.54]

[1.95, 2.19]

1.23

[1.15, 1.32]

[0.85, 0.99] [1.10, 1.29] [1.57, 1.83]

1.00 0.89 1.03 1.28

  [0.82, 0.96] [0.95, 1.12] [1.18, 1.39]

Note. Odds ratios are presented from logistic regressions of dating violence victimization on predictors. CI = confidence interval. ap < .05 for all tests. bp < .05 for all tests with the exceptions of ethnic minority status and low-moderate involvement in extracurricular activities.

probabilities from each model. Figure 1 shows an example. Feeling unsafe at school had a strong effect on dating violence victimization among groups

14

Journal of Interpersonal Violence 

Figure 1.  Perceived care by parents attenuates the association between feeling unsafe at school and dating violence victimization. Attenuation is modest compared with the relatively strong main effect of feeling unsafe at school.

of adolescents who were high or low in perceived care from parents (represented by the dashed and solid lines, respectively). The magnitude of the effect was somewhat stronger for those who reported low perceived care from parents compared with those who reported high perceived care from parents; however, the difference between groups was small (note that the lines in Figure 1 are nearly parallel). In other words, the stress-buffering effect of perceived care was small in magnitude given the strong main effect of feeling unsafe at school. All other plots of significant interactions involving perceived care were similar to Figure 1 (not shown). Tests of moderation by extracurricular activity involvement on the associations between risk variables and dating violence victimization were performed (data not shown). All interactions were statistically significant and were plotted using predicted probabilities from each model. Figure 2 shows the stress-buffering effect of extracurricular activity involvement on the

Earnest and Brady

15

Figure 2.  In all groups, being a victim of physical violence by an adult in the home is associated with greater likelihood of experiencing dating violence victimization. Low to moderate and high extracurricular activity involvement have modest attenuating effects.

relationship between physical violence victimization by an adult in the home and dating violence victimization. Those who reported physical violence victimization by an adult in the home had a higher probability of experiencing dating violence victimization than those who had not reported physical violence victimization by an adult in the home. This relationship slightly differed by level of extracurricular activity involvement; among adolescents with little to no extracurricular activity involvement or very high involvement, physical violence victimization by an adult in the home had a more pronounced association with dating violence victimization. However, the stress-buffering effect of extracurricular activity involvement was small in magnitude given the strong main effect of being a victim of physical violence by an adult in the home. This was true for all tests of moderation involving extracurricular activity involvement.

16

Journal of Interpersonal Violence 

Discussion Consistent with theories that emphasize modeling of behavior (Bandura, 1971; Egeland, 1993; Kalmuss, 1984) and previous research (Foshee et al., 2004; Laporte et al., 2011; Maas et al., 2010; Malik et al., 1997; K. E. Miller et al., 2011; Tyler et al., 2011), being a victim of physical violence in the home was strongly associated with adolescent dating violence victimization. In addition, witnessing intra-familial physical violence was associated with dating violence victimization; this, too, is consistent with theory and previous research (Maas et al., 2010; Malik et al., 1997; E. Miller et al., 2011). Novel findings from the present study demonstrate that feeling unsafe at school is strongly associated with adolescent dating violence victimization. Inferences of causality are difficult to make with respect to this association. Adolescents who experience dating violence may feel unsafe at school because of the potential presence of their abusive dating partner, who may be perpetrating abuse while at school. Alternatively, students may feel unsafe at school due to norms that facilitate victimization by peers, which may in turn increase the likelihood of experiencing dating violence. Prospective research should examine mechanisms that may link perceived school safety and dating violence victimization. To a lesser extent than family violence exposure and perceived lack of school safety, lack of resources for social support was associated with dating violence victimization. In particular, students who perceived low care from their parents were at greater risk for dating violence victimization than students who perceived high care. Parents are an important source of care, protection, and affirmation, helping to nurture adolescents’ sense of self-worth and control over their lives (Viner et al., 2012). Adolescents who receive low levels of support from parents are prone to negative health outcomes, including involvement in dating violence (S. Miller, Gorman-Smith, Sullivan, Orpinas, & Simon, 2009; R. L. Simons, Lin, & Gordon, 1998; Viner et al., 2012). Future research should examine potential mechanisms linking low parental support to dating violence. For example, adolescents who perceive low care from their parents may seek care from another source, including a dating partner. If adolescents have not had a strong example of love from their parents, they may be more likely to initially accept and continue to tolerate a violent partner. Associations between low perceived care from teachers or friends and dating violence victimization were moderate in strength; in comparison, participation in extracurricular activities was only weakly protective against dating violence victimization. While enhancing the ability of teachers to support adolescents, fostering the development of healthy friendships, and increasing

Earnest and Brady

17

adolescents’ participation in extracurricular activities may offer some protection against experiences of dating violence, the present findings suggest that these are not the most influential targets for prevention and intervention programs designed to curb dating violence. Safety in the home and school and perceived care from parents are likely to be more influential targets.

Stress-Buffering Versus an Additive Model of Risk and Protection The present study examined whether perceived care and extracurricular activity involvement attenuated (weakened) the effects of family violence and perceived school safety on dating violence victimization. While the hypothesis was confirmed and attenuating effects were found for most interaction tests, attenuating effects were modest compared with observed main effects, which were comparatively strong in magnitude. Regardless of resources for support, stressors such as feeling unsafe at school, being a victim of physical violence by an adult in the home, and witnessing intra-familial physical violence were strongly associated with likelihood of being victimized by dating violence. The resources for support examined in this study did not offer a stress-buffering benefit to the extent that they could “take away” or greatly reduce the risk conferred by stressor exposure. The large sample size helped detect relatively modest stress-buffering effects. One potential reason for smaller than expected stress-buffering effects is the manner in which social support was measured. Extracurricular activity involvement may have indicated an adolescent’s level of social connectedness as opposed to the extent to which specific individuals served as a resource for support, particularly with respect to navigating dating relationships. Cohen and Wills (1985) have argued that structural measures of support that assess the existence of relationships, but do not delve further into the qualities of those relationships, are less likely to demonstrate stress-buffering effects compared with measures that assess specific qualities of a supportive relationship that may be advantageous in the presence of a stressor. Extracurricular involvement is a structural measure of support. Perceived care, which is an important component of emotional support, may not be particularly advantageous in ameliorating the impact of domestic violence exposure or attending an unsafe school on dating violence victimization. Informational support (e.g., assistance in defining healthy relationships) and appraisal support (e.g., assistance in identifying unhealthy relationships) may be more likely than emotional support to buffer the impact of stressor exposure on dating violence victimization. It is also possible that parents and other individuals can care for

18

Journal of Interpersonal Violence 

adolescents while still establishing and reinforcing unhealthy norms with respect to intimate partner relationships. Indeed, L. G. Simons et al. (2012) found that adolescents’ perceptions of parental warmth exacerbated—not attenuated—adolescents’ vulnerability to dating violence victimization in the presence of family dysfunction. Future research should investigate whether adolescents who perceive high care from their parents and who have also experienced violence in the home may perceive abuse in a relationship as part of caring. Adolescents in this circumstance may learn to make excuses for their partner and give “second chances,” complicating their views of what constitutes a healthy relationship or a healthy expression of care. While perceived care and extracurricular activity involvement only modestly attenuated links between risk factors and dating violence victimization, it is important to note that these resources for support had direct protective effects on the likelihood of dating violence victimization. These direct protective effects were still present when adjusted for exposure to unsafe schools and family violence in an additive model of dating violence victimization. Feeling cared for by parents was especially advantageous for adolescents. The present set of findings is thus more consistent with an additive model of risk and protection rather than a stress-buffering model in which specific protective factors can eliminate or greatly reduce the risks associated with stressors.

Strengths and Limitations The large statewide sample utilized in the present study is a strength, as it afforded high power to detect small differences between groups. A second strength is the broad definition of violence in the home, which included witnessed abuse perpetrated on anyone in the home. This definition is not limited to acts of violence between parent(s) and their partners, and thus allows for diversity in the composition of families. Much of the literature focuses on intimate partner violence and may miss other types of violence occurring in the home. Limitations of the present study include the cross-sectional survey design, which prevents inferences about causality, reliance on self-report, and lack of assessment with respect to dating history of participants or frequency of different types of violence exposure. In addition, the present study used single items to assess each construct rather than established scales with demonstrated reliability; however, items have strong face validity. There were significant differences on most study variables between those students excluded from the study for having incomplete data and those included in the study. A greater percentage of those excluded from the study had reported dating violence victimization and risk factors associated with

Earnest and Brady

19

dating violence victimization in comparison with the study sample; this may have led to an underestimate of effect sizes. While the current sample is most likely representative of public high school students in the Midwest, consistency of findings with other research suggests that the associations described in this study would be generalizable across the United States.

Conclusion Experience of violence in the home, perceived lack of safety at school, and low perceived care from parents were strongly associated with dating violence victimization among adolescents. This is gravely concerning from a youth development perspective, as 9% of adolescents reported being a victim of physical violence by an adult in the home, 11% reported witnessing intrafamilial physical violence, 6% reported feeling unsafe at school, and 10% reported low perceived care from parents. Perceived care and extracurricular activity involvement appear to only have modest buffering effects on the relationships between violence in the home or perceived lack of safety at school and dating violence victimization. The results of this research are most consistent with an additive model of risk and protective factors in relationship to dating violence victimization rather than a stress-buffering model. Further research on the stress-buffering hypothesis, including measurement of different types of support (e.g., informational support, appraisal support), is recommended. Family violence and sources of social support are two of many dynamic factors that may contribute to risk of or protection from adolescent dating violence. Forces broader than the home and school settings, including culture, media, and poverty, also influence attitudes toward and experience of violence (Connolly et al., 2010; Jain et al., 2010). Family and school environments encompass the settings in which adolescents are likely to spend most of their time, thus making these environments prime targets for prevention and intervention. Health promotion efforts to prevent dating violence victimization among adolescents should target the individual risk and protective factors examined. Schools should focus on creating environments where all students feel safe. Health professionals should continue efforts to end violence in the home, as this may have the greatest effect in reducing dating violence victimization. For adolescents who have already experienced violence in the home, efforts to prevent dating violence should focus on increasing resources for support and changing norms that support acceptance or tolerance of violence. Parents should be encouraged and assisted in their efforts to be supportive and engaged in the lives of their adolescents.

20

Journal of Interpersonal Violence 

Research efforts should attempt to understand the mechanisms by which a violent home or an unsafe school environment contribute to risk of dating violence victimization, the specific aspects of social support that protect against dating violence victimization, and the qualitative characteristics of extracurricular activities that are likely to prevent dating violence. Prospective research studies, which are currently few in number in the dating violence literature, would aid in this endeavor and inform future prevention efforts. Acknowledgments The first author thanks J. Michael Oakes, PhD, for his advice regarding methodological decisions, and Diann Ackard, PhD, for her support and introduction to the realm of adolescent dating violence prevention. The authors acknowledge Ann Kinney, PhD, Minnesota Center for Health Statistics, Minnesota Department of Health, for her assistance in procuring the data set and answering questions regarding data collection and cleaning procedures.

Authors’ Contributions Alicia A. Earnest conceived of the study, designed the study, performed the data analysis, and drafted the manuscript. Sonya S. Brady contributed to the study design, data interpretation, and editing of the manuscript. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References Aldarondo, E., & Sugarman, D. B. (1996). Risk marker analysis of the cessation and persistence of wife assault. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64, 1010-1019. Bandura, A. (1971). Social learning theory. New York, NY: General Learning Press. Barber, B. L., Eccles, J. S., & Stone, M. R. (2001). Whatever happened to the jock, the brain, and the princess? Young adult pathways linked to adolescent activity involvement and social identity. Journal of Adolescent Research, 16, 429-455. Beran, T. N., & Tutty, L. (2002). Children’s reports of bullying and safety at school. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 17, 1-14.

Earnest and Brady

21

Breiding, M. J., Black, M. C., & Ryan, G. W. (2008). Prevalence and risk factors of intimate partner violence in eighteen U.S. states/territories, 2005. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 34, 112-118. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2012). Youth risk behavior surveillance—United States, 2011. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 61(SS-4), 1-162. Chiodo, D., Wolfe, D. A., Crooks, C., Hughes, R., & Jaffe, P. (2009). Impact of sexual harassment victimization by peers on subsequent adolescent victimization and adjustment: A longitudinal study. Journal of Adolescent Health, 45, 246-252. Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 310-357. Connolly, J., Friedlander, L., Pepler, D., Craig, W., & Laporte, L. (2010) The ecology of adolescent dating aggression: Attitudes, relationships, media use, and sociodemographic risk factors. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 19, 469-491. Cooley, V. E., Henriksen, L. W., Van Nelson, C., & Thompson, J. C. (1995). A study to determine the effect of extracurricular participation on student alcohol and drug use in secondary schools. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, 40, 71-87. Cunradi, C. B., Caetano, R., & Schafer, J. (2002). Socioeconomic predictors of intimate partner violence among White, Black, and Hispanic couples in the United States. Journal of Family Violence, 17, 377-389. Eccles, J. S., & Barber, B. L. (1999). Student council, volunteering, basketball, or marching band: What kinds of extracurricular involvement matters? Journal of Adolescent Research, 14, 10-43. Eccles, J. S., Barber, B. L., Stone, M., & Hunt, J. (2003). Extracurricular activities and adolescent development. Journal of Social Issues, 59, 865-889. Egeland, B. (1993). A history of abuse is a major risk factor for abusing the next generation. In R. J. Gelles & D. R. Loseke (Eds.), Current controversies on family violence (pp. 197-208). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Espelage, D. L., & Holt, M. K. (2007). Dating violence & sexual harassment across the bully-victim continuum among middle and high school students. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36, 799-811. Field, C. A., & Caetano, R. (2005). Intimate partner violence in the US general population: Progress and future directions. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20, 463-469. Foshee, V. A., Benefield, T. S., Ennett, S. T., Bauman, K. E., & Suchindran, C. (2004). Longitudinal predictors of series physical and sexual dating violence victimization during adolescence. Preventative Medicine, 39, 1007-1016. Fredricks, J. A., & Eccles, J. S. (2006). Is extracurricular participation associated with beneficial outcomes? Concurrent and longitudinal relations. Developmental Psychology, 42, 698-713. Gagne, M. H., Lavoie, F., & Hebert, M. (2005). Victimization during childhood and revictimization in dating relationships in adolescent girls. Child Abuse & Neglect, 29, 1155-1172.

22

Journal of Interpersonal Violence 

Glew, G. M., Fan, M., Katon, W., & Rivara, F. P. (2008). Bullying and school safety. Journal of Pediatrics, 152, 123-128. Halpern, C. T., Spriggs, A. L., Martin, S. L., & Kupper, L. L. (2009). Patterns of intimate partner violence victimization from adolescence to young adulthood in a nationally representative sample. Journal of Adolescent Health, 45, 508-516. Jain, S., Buka, S., Subramanian, S. V., & Molnar, B. E. (2010). Neighborhood predictors of dating violence victimization and perpetration in young adulthood: A multilevel study. American Journal of Public Health, 100, 1737-1744. Kalmuss, D. (1984). The intergenerational transmission of marital aggression. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 46, 11-19. Laporte, L., Jiang, D., Pepler, D. J., & Chamberland, C. (2011). The relationship between adolescents’ experience of family violence and dating violence. Youth & Society, 43, 3-27. Larson, R. W., Hansen, D. M., & Moneta, G. (2006). Differing profiles of developmental experiences across types of organized youth activities. Developmental Psychology, 42, 849-863. Levendosky, A. A., Huth-Bocks, A., & Semel, M. A. (2002). Adolescent peer relationships and mental health functioning in families with domestic violence. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 31, 206-218. Maas, C. D., Fleming, C. B., Herrenkohl, T. I., & Catalano, R. F. (2010). Childhood predictors of teen dating violence victimization. Violence and Victims, 25, 131-149. Mahoney, J. L., & Cairns, R. B. (1997). Do extracurricular activities protect against early school dropout? Developmental Psychology, 33, 241-253. Mahoney, J. L., & Stattin, H. (2000). Leisure activities and adolescent antisocial behavior: The role of structure and social context. Journal of Adolescence, 23, 113-127. Malik, S., Sorenson, S. B., & Aneshensel, C. S. (1997). Community and dating violence among adolescents: Perpetration and victimization. Journal of Adolescent Health, 21, 291-302. Marsh, H. W., & Kleitman, S. (2003). School athletic participation: Mostly gain with little pain. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 25, 205-228. Masten, A. S., Cutuli, J. J., Herbers, J. E., & Reed, M. J. (2009). Resilience in development. In S. J. Lopez & C. R. Snyder (Eds.), Oxford handbook of positive psychology (2nd ed., pp. 117-131). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Masten, A. S., & Powell, J. L. (2003). A resilience framework for research, policy, and practice. In S. S. Luthar (Ed.), Resilience and vulnerability: Adaptation in the context of childhood adversities (pp. 1-26). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. McNeal, R. B. (1995). Extracurricular activities and high school dropouts. Sociology of Education, 68, 62-81. Miller, E., Breslau, J., Chung, W. J. J., Greif Green, J., McLaughlin, K. A., & Kessler, R. C. (2011). Adverse childhood experiences and risk of physical violence in adolescent dating relationships. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 65, 1006-1013.

Earnest and Brady

23

Miller, K. E., Sabo, D., Farrell, M. P., Barnes, G. M., & Melnick, M. J. (1999). Sports, sexual behavior, contraceptive use, and pregnancy among female and male high school students: Testing cultural resource theory. Sociology of Sport Journal, 16, 366-387. Miller, S., Gorman-Smith, D., Sullivan, T., Orpinas, P., & Simon, T. R. (2009). Parent and peer predictors of physical dating violence perpetration in early adolescence: Tests of moderation and gender differences. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 38, 538-550. O’Keefe, M., & Treister, L. (1998). Victims of dating violence among high school students. Are the predictors different for males and females? Violence Against Women, 4, 195-223. O’Leary, K. D., Smith Slep, A. M., Avery-Leaf, S. A., & Cascardi, M. (2008). Gender differences in dating aggression among multiethnic high school students. Journal of Adolescent Health, 42, 473-479. Pollard, J. A., Hawkins, J. D., & Arthur, M. W. (1999). Risk and protection: Are both necessary to understand diverse behavioral outcomes in adolescence? Social Work Research, 23, 145-158. Simons, L. G., Simons, R. L., Lei, M., Hancock, D. L., & Fincham, F. D. (2012). Parental warmth amplifies the negative effect of parental hostility on dating violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27, 2603-2626. Simons, R. L., Lin, K., & Gordon, L. C. (1998). Socialization in the family of origin and male dating violence: A prospective study. Journal of Marriage and Family, 60, 467-478. Spriggs, A. L., Halpern, C. T., Herring, A. H., & Schoenbach, V. J. (2009). Family and school socioeconomic disadvantage: Interactive influences on adolescent dating violence victimization. Social Science & Medicine, 68, 1956-1965. Tajima, E. A., Herrenkohl, T. I., Moylan, C. A., & Derr, A. S. (2011). Moderating the effects of childhood exposure to intimate partner violence: The roles of parenting characteristics and adolescent peer support. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21, 376-394. Teten, A. L., Ball, B., Valle, L. A., Noonan, R., & Rosenbluth, B. (2009). Considerations for the definition, measurement, consequences, and prevention of dating violence victimization among adolescent girls. Journal of Women’s Health, 18, 923-927. Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2000). Extent, nature, and consequences of intimate partner violence: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Tyler, K. A., Brownridge, D. A., & Melander, L. A. (2011). The effect of poor parenting on male and female dating violence perpetration and victimization. Violence and Victims, 26, 218-230. Viner, R. M., Ozer, E. M., Denny, S., Marmot, M., Resnick, M., Fatusi, A., & Currie, C. (2012). Adolescence and the social determinants of health. The Lancet, 379, 1641-1652.

24

Journal of Interpersonal Violence 

Windle, M., & Mrug, S. (2009). Cross-gender violence perpetration and victimization among early adolescents and associations with attitudes toward dating conflict. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 38, 429-439. Youniss, J., Yates, M., & Su, Y. (1997). Social integration: Community service and marijuana use in high school seniors. Journal of Adolescent Research, 12, 245-262.

Author Biographies Alicia A. Earnest, MPH, received her MPH in Maternal and Child Health from the University of Minnesota School of Public Health. Her primary academic interests include dating violence prevention, health disparities, social determinants of health, and the influence of culture on health. Sonya S. Brady, PhD, is an Associate Professor within the University of Minnesota School of Public Health, Division of Epidemiology and Community Health. Her research examines the influence of psychosocial factors on health behaviors among youth, including mechanisms that link stressful life circumstances to risk behavior and factors promoting resilience.