J Youth Adolescence (2015) 44:696–707 DOI 10.1007/s10964-014-0181-0

EMPIRICAL RESEARCH

Stressful Life Events and the Perpetration of Adolescent Dating Abuse May S. Chen • Vangie A. Foshee

Received: 16 June 2014 / Accepted: 25 August 2014 / Published online: 5 September 2014 Ó Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Abstract Theoretical and empirical evidence suggests that stressful life events are associated with the perpetration of intimate partner violence among adults, but little attention has been given to the relationship between stressful life events and adolescent dating abuse, a prevalent form of violence that results in serious and long-lasting consequences. The current study addresses this gap by examining associations between family-, peer-, school-, and health-related stressful life events and the perpetration of both psychological and physical forms of dating abuse in a sample of 1,125 adolescents (54.6 % female, 18 % Black), and determining whether these associations are moderated by attributes of the family (closeness to parent) and the adolescent (sex and self-esteem). The total number of stressful events and school-related events were positively associated with the perpetration of psychological dating abuse and family-related events were related to the perpetration of psychological dating abuse for boys, but not girls. Closeness to parent buffered the effect of stressful health-related events on the perpetration of physical dating abuse, but exacerbated the effect of stressful family-related events on the perpetration of physical dating abuse. Healthrelated events were associated with physical perpetration for those with high, but not low self-esteem. Finally, the total number of stressful events and family-related events were related to the perpetration of physical dating abuse by boys, but not by girls. Taken together, these findings suggest that stressful life events play an important role in adolescent dating abuse, and should be taken into

M. S. Chen (&)
V. A. Foshee Department of Health Behavior, Rosenau Hall CB#7440, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7440, USA e-mail: [email protected]

123

consideration when developing adolescent dating abuse prevention programs. Keywords Adolescent dating abuse
Perpetration
Stressful life events
Self-esteem
Sex differences
Closeness to parent

Introduction Exposure to stressful life events has been associated with crime and violence among adults (Broidy 2001; Eitle and Turner 2003; Straus 1980), and delinquency and violence against peers among adolescents (Baker et al. 2010; Morash and Moon 2007; Ngo and Le 2007; Youngstrom et al. 2003). A number of studies have also found a link between life stressors and the perpetration of intimate partner violence in adulthood (Cano and Vivian 2001; Mason and Smithey 2012; Roberts et al. 2011). Very little research, however, has been conducted to determine if exposure to stressful life events increases adolescent risk for dating abuse, a prevalent form of adolescent violence (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC] 2014) that results in serious and long-lasting consequences to the victim (Exner-Cortens et al. 2013; Foshee et al. 2013). This gap in the literature is surprising given that adolescent dating abuse is a precursor to the use of violence against partners in adulthood (Go´mez 2011), which has been linked to stress. The current study aims to examine the association between stressful life events and the perpetration of dating abuse among adolescents, and moderators of the relationship. The latter aim is motivated by the observation that, although experiencing stressful life events can increase the likelihood of aggressive behavior, not everyone who experiences such events becomes aggressive (Agnew 2001,

J Youth Adolescence (2015) 44:696–707

2012). In studies of adolescents, reactivity to stress has been found to vary by the sex of the adolescent (Hampel and Petermann 2006), degree of the adolescent’s closeness to parents (Raffaelli et al. 2013), and self-esteem of the adolescent (Dumont and Provost 1999). Thus, this study determines if the association between exposure to stressful life events and dating abuse perpetration is moderated by the sex of the adolescent, and if the negative effects of exposure to stressful life events on the perpetration of dating abuse is buffered by the adolescent’s closeness to their parent and the adolescent’s self-esteem. Identifying potential buffers of risk has been acknowledged as an important ‘‘next step’’ for adolescent dating abuse research (Vagi et al. 2013). This study addresses important gaps in the study of adolescent dating abuse that can inform future dating abuse prevention efforts. If exposure to life stressors is associated with the perpetration of adolescent dating abuse, stress management strategies may be appropriate skills to incorporate into dating abuse prevention interventions; learning such skills during adolescence may also prevent the use of violence against partners in times of stress during adulthood. Identifying moderators can direct prevention efforts toward strategies for attenuating the negative impact of exposure to stressful life events on the perpetration of dating abuse. Stressful Life Events and Aggression Expectations that exposure to stressful life events increases risk for the perpetration of violence against significant others is grounded in both sociological (e.g., general strain theory; Agnew 2001; Froggio 2007) and psychological theory (e.g., frustration-aggression hypothesis; Berkowitz 1989). From the perspective of general strain theory, exposure to stressful life events may produce negative emotions such as anger that disrupt one’s ability to successfully resolve conflicts or express grievances, and promote delinquent or violent behaviors (Agnew 2001, 2007; Aseltine et al. 2000). Likewise, the frustration-aggression hypothesis posits that exposure to stressful events, particularly ones that cannot be controlled or are perceived as illegitimate, produces negative affect that increases the likelihood of aggressive acts (Berkowitz 1989; Felson 1992). These include goal-oriented aggressive behaviors, as well as displaced aggression directed toward significant others when stressful events cannot be blamed on anyone in particular (Berkowitz 1989; Felson 1992). Finkel and colleagues further elaborate the theoretical bases for the relationship between stressful life events and violence perpetration in the I3 theory. Specifically, the I3 theory suggests that common stressful events deplete an individual’s self-regulatory resources, thereby reducing one’s ability to refrain from violent impulses when triggered (Finkel 2007; Finkel et al. 2012).

697

The association between life stressors and perpetration of dating abuse may be particularly relevant for adolescents. Neurocognitive studies demonstrate that the capacity for inhibitory control and emotional regulation is still developing during adolescence (Cohen-Gilbert and Thomas 2013; Silvers et al. 2012) and, therefore, based on the self-regulatory framework, the potential impact of stressful life events on the perpetration of violence may be particularly salient among teens. A small handful of studies has examined whether traumatic life events in childhood are associated with increased perpetration of adolescent dating abuse (Duke et al. 2010; Miller et al. 2011). However, some evidence suggests that common stressful life events may be more predictive than major traumatic events of adolescent psychological disturbances (Compas et al. 1989; Rosenfield et al. 2013). To our knowledge, only one other study has examined whether common life stressors are associated with the perpetration of adolescent dating abuse. Rosenfield et al. (2013) recently found that common stressors from friend relationships had a cumulative effect on the degree of dating violence perpetrated by adolescents, and that the association did not vary by the sex of the adolescent. This study contributes to our understanding of stressful life events and dating abuse among adolescents. However, the assessment of common stressors was limited to relationship stress with friends and ignores stressors from numerous other contexts that may have a differential effect on the likelihood of perpetrating dating abuse. In addition, only the perpetration of physical dating abuse was examined, neglecting potential associations between exposure to common stressful life events and emotionally and psychologically coercive and aggressive behaviors that commonly occur in adolescent dating relationships. Examining the association between common stressful life events and these forms of dating abuse is particularly important given the number of studies finding that emotional and psychological abuse can have damaging psychological effects on the victims (Cornelius and Resseguie 2007). Finally, it is unclear whether these findings are generalizable to adolescents in other settings, since their study sample consisted of only adolescents involved with the juvenile justice system. Moderators of the Effects of Stressful Life Events Sex as a Moderator of the Effects of Stress Although Rosenfield et al. (2013) found no sex differences in associations between stressful life events and the degree of dating abuse perpetrated by adolescents, a re-assessment of potential sex differences is warranted given the limitations described above. Sex differences have been observed

123

698

in the degree of stress perceived from life change, and in the ability to cope with stressful life events. Several studies have suggested that girls as compared to boys judge negative events to be more stressful (e.g., Hampel and Petermann 2006; Sontag and Graber 2010). Even so, studies suggest that girls may be more resilient than boys to the negative effects of stressful life events (Kumpfer 1999). Moreover, social norms may dictate that physical aggression and acting out are more appropriate outlets for boys than girls to negative life events (Bussey and Bandura 1999). Finally, given that numerous studies report that the perpetration of dating abuse is prevalent among girls and boys (Foshee and Reyes 2011), it is important to examine risk factors among both groups and determine if these risk factors vary by sex. Closeness to Parent as a Buffer Against the Negative Effects of Stress Research that has examined associations between exposure to stressful life events and other adolescent risks has found that risk due to exposure to stressful life events can be buffered by attributes of the family and the adolescent. This buffering model posits that the negative effect of stressful events is diminished under certain conditions. Consistent with research on the stress-buffering hypothesis (Cobb 1976; Cohen and Wills 1985), a substantial body of evidence suggests that family social support serves as a buffer against the effects of stressful life events among adolescents. In particular, self-reported closeness to their parents has been linked to higher optimism and better coping skills (Herman-Stahl and Petersen 1996) and greater emotional well-being (Gore and Aseltine 1995) when confronted with stressful events. For example, studies report that closeness to parent moderates the relationship between life stressors and subsequent depressive and anxiety symptoms, such that exposure to stressful life events is associated with fewer symptoms among adolescents with high, as compared to low, levels of parental support (Hammack et al. 2004; Raffaelli et al. 2013). Similarly, high parental support has been found to significantly reduce the positive relationship between stressful life events and substance use among adolescents (Wills et al. 1992). Youth from more, as compared to less, cohesive families have been found to exhibit fewer externalizing problems when faced with school (Plybon and Kliewer 2001) or neighborhood stressors (Weist et al. 1995). Given the many protective benefits of closeness to parents, it is likely that being close to parents also buffers the negative effects of stress on the perpetration of dating abuse by providing adolescents with the emotional support they need to cope with stressful events.

123

J Youth Adolescence (2015) 44:696–707

Self-Esteem as a Buffer of the Negative Effects of Stress Self-esteem is an attribute of the adolescent that may buffer against the effects of stressful life events on the perpetration of dating abuse. Several studies suggest that selfesteem is a key contributor of adolescent resilience and psychological functioning, and serves as a protective factor against stressful life events (Dumont and Provost 1999; Johnson et al. 2011). Moreover, there is some evidence that high self-esteem diminishes the negative effects of stress on emotional well-being (Kliewer and Sandler 1992; Moksnes et al. 2010), and enables individuals to maintain functioning in the face of stress (Baumeister et al. 2003). Likewise, high self-esteem has been found to reduce the association between stressful life events and substance use among adolescents (Fergus and Zimmerman 2005). To date, no study has examined whether the effects of stressful life events on the perpetration of dating abuse can be buffered by attributes of the family and adolescent.

The Current Study The current study addresses the existing gaps in the literature by examining stressful life events from multiple sources including family, friends, school, and the adolescent’s health, by assessing their relationship with perpetration of both psychological and physical forms of dating abuse, and by determining if the associations vary by sex, closeness to parent, and self-esteem of the adolescent. Based on previous research finding sex differences in perceived stress and coping styles in response to stressful events, we hypothesize that sex will moderate the positive relationship between stressful life events and the perpetration of dating abuse, such that the relationship will be stronger for males than females. Likewise, given previous research demonstrating that closeness to parent and selfesteem buffer the effects of stressful life events on other adolescent risks, we hypothesize that self-esteem and closeness to parent will buffer the effects of stressful life events on the perpetration of dating abuse, such that the relationship between common stressors and the perpetration of dating abuse will be attenuated among those with high as compared to low self-esteem and among those with greater as compared to lesser closeness to parent. All hypotheses are tested considering the cumulative number of stressful life events, as well as when considering domain-specific (family, friends, school, and health) life events, and when examining the perpetration of both psychological and physical dating abuse. Examining hypotheses separately for each domain-specific life event will allow for determining whether some types of stressful life events are more strongly related to the perpetration of

J Youth Adolescence (2015) 44:696–707

dating abuse and can have their effects moderated than other types of events.

699

Measures Stressful Life Events

Methods Study Design and Sample The data are from a randomized trial evaluating the effects of a dating abuse prevention program (Foshee et al. 1996). Adolescents were eligible for the trial if they were enrolled in 8th (Cohort 1) or 9th grade (Cohort 2) in one of the 14 public schools in a primarily rural county in North Carolina. Prior to the program’s implementation, baseline data (Wave 1) were collected in schools with self-report questionnaires. Parental consent was obtained for 84 % of all eligible adolescents, and baseline data were collected from 96 % of those adolescents. Follow-up data were collected 7 months later (Wave 2), then yearly thereafter until the 8th grade cohort reached 12th grade 4 years later (Waves 3 through 6). In this article, we use cross-sectional data from Wave 5 (n = 1,138) when the adolescents were in 11th and 12th grade because that is the only wave when stressful life events was measured in both cohorts. The current sample represents 60.34 % of the original cohort of students at baseline. All analyses in this study control for treatment condition. The study methodology was approved by the University of North Carolina School of Public Health Institutional Review Board on Research Involving Human Subjects. Analytic Sample Of the 1,138 adolescents who completed Wave 5 questionnaires, 13 participants did not complete the dating abuse questions, resulting in a final analytic sample of 1,125. Of this sample, 54.6 % are female, 21.2 % are nonWhite (18 % identified as Black), 37.9 % report that the highest education that their mother (or female caregiver) or their father (or male caregiver) was high-school or less, and 91 % report having ever dated. Logistic regression was used to examine predictors of study drop-out by Wave 5 of the study. Drop-out from baseline to Wave 5 was significantly more likely among males (b = .37, p \ .001), older participants (b = .45, p \ .001), those who had parents with lower education levels (b = .22, p \ .001), those with lower self-esteem (b = .24, p \ .05), and those who had perpetrated psychological dating abuse at baseline (b = .48, p \ .05). Drop-out from the study was not associated with the baseline perpetration of physical dating abuse or with any other variables in this study.

Stressful life events were assessed with the Life Events Scale developed by Pryor-Brown and Cowen (1989). Respondents were asked to endorse whether any of a list of 21 stressful events had happened to them in the past year. The scale was developed for youth and therefore included events that are specifically relevant for youth (school stressors, friend stressors, etc.) Following Pryor-Brown and Cowen’s (1989) original scoring convention, a total life events composite score was created by summing the number of events the adolescent experienced in the past year. The observed range for the total life events score was 0–16. In addition, four domain-specific stressful life events variables were created—family-, friend-, school-, and health-related life events—by summing the number of lifeevents experienced within each domain. The observed ranges were 0–9 for family-related life events, 0–3 for friend-related events, 0–3 for school-related events, and 0–2 for health-related events. Physical Dating Abuse Perpetration The perpetration of physical dating abuse was measured using the Safe Dates Physical Dating Abuse Scale (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2006; Foshee et al. 1996). Participants were asked to indicate if they had ever been on a date, which was defined as any informal activity, such as meeting at the mall, a park, or a sporting event, as well as more formal activity. Dating status was 1 if they had ever been on a date and 0 if not. Participants who endorsed having ever been on a date were then asked ‘‘During the last year, how often have you done the following things to a person you had a date with? Only include when you did it to him/her first. In other words, don’t count it if you did it in self-defense.’’ Eighteen acts that ranged in severity from scratched, slapped, kicked, and bit, to burned, beat up, and assaulted the person they dated with a knife or gun were listed. Two of the 18 acts tapped perpetration of sexual dating abuse. Response options were 0 = never, 1 = 1 to 3 times, 2 = 4 to 9 times, to 3 = ten or more times. Responses to the 18 items were summed and averaged, with higher scores indicating greater physical dating abuse perpetration. Participants who had never been on a date were assigned a score of zero on the physical dating abuse measure. The Safe Dates Physical Dating Abuse Scale has high internal consistency (a = .94) and is widely used for assessing dating abuse among adolescents (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2006).

123

700

Psychological Dating Abuse Perpetration The perpetration of psychological dating abuse was measured using the Safe Dates Psychological Dating Abuse Scale (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2006; Foshee et al. 1996). Participants were asked: ‘‘During the last year, how often have you done the following things to someone you had a date with?’’ Fourteen psychologically abusive acts, such as damaging something that belonged to them or insulting them in front of others, were listed. Respondents rated each of these acts on a four-point scale with 0 = never, 1 = seldom, 2 = sometimes, to 3 = very often. Responses to the 14 items were summed and averaged, with higher scores indicating greater psychological dating abuse perpetration. Like the Safe Dates Physical Dating Abuse Scale, participants only filled out the questionnaire if they endorsed having ever been on a date and non-daters were assigned a value of zero on the psychological dating abuse perpetration measure. Similarly, the Safe Dates Psychological Abuse Scale has high internal consistency (a = .92) and is also widely used for assessing dating abuse among adolescents (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2006). Self-Esteem Self-esteem, a proposed moderator, was assessed with the Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale (Rosenberg 1965), a ten-item scale that measures global self-worth by examining both positive and negative feeling about the self. These items include statements such as ‘‘I feel that I am a person of worth, at least on an equal with others,’’ ‘‘At times I think that I am no good at all,’’ and ‘‘I take a positive attitude toward myself.’’ Respondents rated each statement on a four-point scale ranging from 0 = strongly disagree to 3 = strongly agree. Items related to negative feelings about the self were reverse-coded, and then all items were averaged to obtain a single score, with higher scores indicating greater self-esteem. The Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale is one of the most commonly used measures of selfesteem (Johnson et al. 2011) and has demonstrated good internal consistency across various samples (a = .77–.88; Blascovich and Tomaka 1993). Analysis with the current sample also indicated high internal consistency for this measure (a = .86). Closeness to Parent Closeness to parent, a proposed moderator, was assessed using two items that asked participants to rate how close they felt to their mother and their father on a 4-point scale ordered as follows: 1 = not close at all, 2 = not very close, 3 = somewhat close, and 4 = very close. We used

123

J Youth Adolescence (2015) 44:696–707

the higher of the two scores from two-parent households; for single-parent households, we used the score related to the single parent. Sex of the Adolescent Sex was conceptualized as a moderator and coded such that 0 = girls and 1 = boys. Analytic Strategy Although there was not a large amount of missing data in our analytic sample (\5 % for all variables), multiple imputation procedures were used on the independent variables to avoid any systematic biases (Rubin 1987). Following standard recommendations, the imputation equation included all independent variables in the model, including interaction terms, and the two dependent dating abuse perpetration variables (Allison 2001). However, imputed dependent dating abuse perpetration variables were not used in analyses (von Hippel 2007). Twenty sets of missing values were imputed using multiple chain Marcov Chain Monte Carlo methods with SAS PROC MI (SAS Institute 2011). Models were fit to each of the twenty imputed datasets and parameter estimates and standard errors were combined using SAS PROC MIANALYZE (SAS Institute 2011). After conducting descriptive and bivariate analyses, we conducted a series of linear regression models to test study hypotheses, first considering the total life events score and then considering the four stressful life events subscales. All models controlled for treatment condition, age, race, parental education level, and dating status. We first estimated a full model for each outcome (psychological and physical dating abuse) that included the control variables, the total stressful life events score, the three moderators (sex, self-esteem, and closeness to parent) and the three two-way interactions between the total stressful life events score and each moderator. Interactions that were not significant were dropped and those that were significant were retained to produce the final total stressful life events models. Next, we tested hypotheses when considering the four stressful life event subscales. To do so, we first estimated a full model for each outcome (psychological and physical dating abuse) that included all control variables, the four stressful life events subscales, the three moderators and all possible two-way interactions between each subscale and each moderator. Sets of interactions grouped by the moderators were systematically tested and dropped if they did not contribute significantly to the model (i.e., if DR2 was not significant). When a set of interactions significantly contributed to the model, we retained the individual significant interaction(s) and dropped the

J Youth Adolescence (2015) 44:696–707

701

Table 1 Prevalence of stressful life events and dating abuse perpetration Event

Total (%) n = 1,125

Family-related events A new baby brother or sister was born A relative moved into the home Parents got divorced

33 (2.9 %) 114 (10.1 %) 32 (2.8 %)

Parents got remarried

44 (3.9 %)

A parent died

22 (2 %)

A family friend moved into the home

44 (3.9 %)

Parents separated

47 (4.2 %)

Older brother or sister left home

182 (16.2 %)

Parent lost job

110 (9.8 %)

Father has a job in another city

101 (9 %)

Parents were not home much

205 (18.2 %)

A relative, not a parent, died

454 (40.4 %)

A parent had a serious accident

55 (4.9 %)

School-related events Sent to the school principal

226 (20.1 %)

Suspended from school

151 (13.4 %)

Got a bad grade on a test Friend-related events

949 (84.4 %)

Best friend moved

225 (20 %)

Had a change in schools

67 (6 %)

Family moved to a new place

58 (5.2 %)

Health-related events Was sick and hospitalized

92 (8.2 %)

Had an operation

98 (8.7 %)

Dating abuse perpetration Psychological

526 (46.9 %)

Physical

240 (21.3 %)

non-significant interactions in the set to produce a final reduced model for each outcome. Post-hoc analyses were conducted on all significant interactions to determine if the nature of the interactions were as hypothesized.

Results Descriptive Statistics Table 1 presents the prevalence of each stressful life event and perpetration of dating abuse, dichotomized to present or absent. Table 2 presents bivariate correlations between all key study variables. The total stressful life event score was significantly and positively associated with both psychological and physical dating abuse perpetration. In addition, each of the four stressful life event subscale scores was significantly and positively associated with both

perpetration of psychological and physical dating abuse. Self-esteem and closeness to parent were significantly negatively related to both types of perpetration. Associations Between Total Stressful Life Events and Perpetration of Dating Abuse The final reduced model examining associations between the total stressful life events score and psychological and physical dating abuse perpetration are presented in Table 3. None of the interactions between number of stressful life events and sex, self-esteem and closeness to parent were significant in the psychological dating abuse model. However, total number of stressful life events was significantly and positively associated with psychological dating abuse perpetration. The association between total stressful life events and physical dating abuse perpetration varied by sex, such that total stressful life events was positively associated with dating abuse perpetration for boys (b = .02, p \ .001) but not girls (p = 0.22). Associations Between Stressful Life Events Subscales and Perpetration of Dating Abuse The final reduced model when considering the four stressful life events subscales are presented in Table 4. In the psychological dating abuse model, there was a significant interaction between stressful family-related events and sex, such that stressful family-related events were significantly associated with greater psychological dating abuse perpetration for boys (b = .04, p \ .001), but not for girls (p = .61). Additionally, school-related events was significantly and positively associated with psychological dating abuse perpetration. The positive association between health-related events and psychological dating abuse perpetration was marginally significant (p = .054). Friendrelated stressful events was not associated with psychological dating abuse perpetration. In the physical dating abuse model, there were significant interactions between stressful health-related events and sex, closeness to parent and self-esteem. Post-hoc analyses indicated that, as hypothesized, the positive relationship between health-related events and dating abuse perpetration was significant for boys (b = .11, p \ .001) but not girls, and those with low (b = .03, p \ .05) but not higher levels of closeness to parent. However, the positive relationship between health-related events and physical dating abuse perpetration was significant for those with high (b = .06, p \ .05), but not lower self-esteem (p = .15) which was the opposite of what was proposed. In the physical dating abuse model, there was also a significant interaction between stressful family events and closeness to parent, and it too was the opposite of what was

123

702

J Youth Adolescence (2015) 44:696–707

Table 2 Correlations between stressful life events scales, self-esteem, parent closeness and dating abuse perpetration 1 1. Total life events

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

2. Family-related events

.855**

3. School-related events

.555**

1 .199**

4. Friend-related events

.55**

.32**

.125**

5. Health related events

.43**

.216**

.111**

6. Self-esteem

-.18**

-.146**

-.058

-.135**

-.130**

7. Closeness with parent

-.115

-.075*

-.126**

-.039

-.044

1 1 .130**

1 1 .138**

1

8. Psychological perpetration

.193**

.148**

.116**

.114**

.109**

-.207**

-.1**

9. Physical perpetration

.154**

.122**

.077**

.073*

.123**

-.124**

-.073*

1 .687**

1

* p \ .05; ** p \ .01 (2-tailed) Table 3 Regression models examining associations between total stressful life events and adolescent dating abuse perpetration Independent variables

Psychological perpetration B

SE

Physical perpetration p

B

SE

p

-.124

.126

.322

.006

.005

.208

Step 1 Intercept

-.537

.206

.009*

.027

.005

.000**

Stressful life events (SLE) Sex

.030

.022

.180

.015

.014

.271

Self-esteem

-.117

.020

.000**

-.038

.013

.003*

Parent closeness

-.041

.041**

-.018

.012

.131

SLE 9 sex

–

.013

.006

.048*

.020 –

–

All analyses control for age, race, treatment condition, parent education, and dating status * p \ .05; ** p \ .001

hypothesized. The positive relationship between familyrelated events and physical dating abuse perpetration was stronger as closeness to parent increased. Post-hoc analyses indicated that the positive relationship was significant at higher levels of closeness to parent (b = .02, p \ .01), but it was not significant at lower levels of closeness to parent (p = .59). School- and friend- related stressful events were not associated with physical dating abuse perpetration.

Discussion Theory and empirical findings suggest that exposure to stressful life events can increase risk for using violence against others (Agnew 2001, 2007; Berkowitz 1989; Finkel et al. 2012). Although exposure to stressful life events has been associated with the perpetration of peer violence by adolescents and with the perpetration of intimate partner violence by adults, little attention has been given to the

123

relationship between stressful life events and dating abuse among adolescents. Given recent evidence that lack of emotional self-regulation is associated with partner violence (Finkel et al. 2012), that inhibitory control and regulation are still maturing during adolescence (CohenGilbert and Thomas 2013; Silvers et al. 2012), and that the propensity for impulsivity is greater among adolescents than older individuals (Steinberg 2007), the effect of stressful life events may be especially relevant for adolescents. The goals of this study were to examine whether common stressful life events are associated with the perpetration of adolescent psychological and physical dating abuse and to determine if associations between stressful life events and dating abuse were conditioned by adolescent sex, self-esteem, and closeness to parent. We found partial support for our first hypothesis that the associations between stressful life events and the perpetration of dating abuse would be stronger for boys than girls, in that in all instances when associations were moderated by sex, the associations were stronger for boys than girls. The positive association between total stressful life events and the perpetration of physical dating abuse was significant for boys, but not for girls. When broken down by life events subscales, the positive association between family-related events and the perpetration of psychological dating abuse, and between stressful healthrelated events and the perpetration of physical dating abuse were also significant for boys, but not for girls. Based on the self-regulatory framework (Finkel 2007; Finkel et al. 2012), these findings suggest that boys may experience greater depletion of self-regulatory resources when faced with health- or family-related life stressors and, as a result, may be more likely to act on violent impulses. Although many studies have examined sex differences in perceptions of stress and coping (e.g., Broidy and Agnew 1997; Kumpfer 1999), few studies of adolescents have examined interactions between sex and various types of stressful life

J Youth Adolescence (2015) 44:696–707

703

Table 4 Regression models examining associations between life events subscales and adolescent dating abuse perpetration Independent variables

Psychological perpetration B

SE

Physical perpetration p

B

SE

p

Step 1 Intercept

-.529

.207

.011*

-.113

.126

.368

.024

.009

.007*

.012

.005

.022*

Family-related events (FaRE) School-related events(SRE)

.033

.015

.028*

.010

.009

.273

Friend-related events (FrRE)

.020

.021

.323

.004

.012

.768

Health-related events (HRE)

.047

.025

.054

.045

.015

.003*

Sex Self-esteem

.029 -.117

.023 .021

.207 .000**

.017 -.036

.014 .013

.221 .005*

Parent closeness

-.040

.020

.047*

-.018

.012

.129

.022*

–

Step 2 FaRE 9 sex

.037

.016

–

–

FaRE 9 parent closeness

–

–

–

.016

.008

.041*

HRE 9 sex

–

–

–

.097

.030

.001**

HRE 9 self-esteem

–

–

–

.085

.026

.001**

HRE 9 parent closeness

–

–

–

-.059

.027

.030*

All analyses control for age, race, treatment condition, parent education, and dating status * p \ .05; ** p \ .001

events on adolescent problem behaviors. However, our findings are consistent with studies that have examined sex differences in associations between family-related stress and problematic outcomes. Specifically, our findings are consistent with studies demonstrating that family conflict, a type of family-related stress, and divorce are associated with more externalizing problems, such as poor impulse control and aggression, in boys than in girls (Block et al. 1986; Grych and Fincham 1990). Likewise, our finding that stressful health-related events were associating with the perpetration of physical dating abuse for boys, but not for girls, is consistent with studies finding that male adolescents with chronic illness show higher levels of externalizing problems than their female counterparts (Pinquart and Shen 2011), although there is very little research in this area. Contrary to our predictions, sex did not moderate the effect of school- or friend-related events on either the perpetration of psychological or physical dating abuse. Consistent with our second hypothesis that the effects of stressful life events on dating abuse would be buffered by closeness to parent, we found that the relationship between health-related stressful events and the perpetration of physical dating abuse was moderated by closeness to parent, such that the relationship was positive and significant at low levels of closeness to parent, but non-significant at high levels of closeness to parent. Thus, closeness to parent buffered the effects of stressful health-related events on the perpetration of physical dating abuse. This finding is consistent with research demonstrating that social support

buffers the negative effects of stress from chronic illness in adults (e.g., Penninx et al. 1997). Closeness to parent also moderated the relationship between stressful family-related events and the perpetration of physical dating abuse, but not in the hypothesized direction. Rather, the relationship between stressful family-related events and physical dating abuse was significant for those who report high levels of closeness to parent only. It is possible that being close with parents heightens the impact of stressful events that occur in the family context, further depleting resources for selfregulation and increasing the likelihood of perpetrating dating abuse. Additional research is needed to further elucidate whether social support that comes from the same context in which stressful events are occurring can still serve as an effective buffer of that stress. Closeness to parent did not moderate any of the relationships between the stress variables and psychological dating abuse. However, consistent with previous research on the role of parental support in dating abuse (Chase et al. 2002; Cleveland et al. 2003), we found a significant negative main effect of closeness to parent on the perpetration of psychological dating abuse, indicating that closeness to parent may be a protective factor against perpetrating psychological dating abuse. It is likely that closeness to parents provides adolescents with a greater sense of support, security and control, reducing the likelihood that the adolescent would be involved in an abusive relationship. Closeness to parent may also reflect a greater degree of parental monitoring, which has been negatively associated

123

704

with dating abuse perpetration among adolescents (Chapple 2003). We did not find any support for the hypothesis that adolescent self-esteem would buffer the associations between life event stress and the perpetration of dating abuse. In fact, when considering health-related stressful events, we found evidence of the opposite, that self-esteem exacerbated the association between health-related stress and the perpetration of dating abuse. Specifically, the relationship between health-related events and the perpetration of physical dating abuse was positive and significant at high levels of self-esteem but not significant at low levels of self-esteem. Rather than diminish the relationship between stress and dating abuse, having high self-esteem actually exacerbated the effect of health-related stressors on the perpetration of dating abuse. Drawing from the work of Baumeister et al. (1996), we speculate that health-related events may be perceived as personal affronts that are threatening to one’s ego. Because of this, individuals with high self-esteem may find the experience of stressful health-related events to be more depleting than those with low self-esteem. Baumeister et al. (1996) further suggest that individuals with high self-esteem who are experiencing fluctuations in self-appraisal may be particularly volatile and may react strongly to perceived threats to their ego. It is possible that adolescents with high self-esteem who experience recent stressful health-related events may be more sensitive to feedback or criticism than those with low self-esteem, and are more likely to respond defensively or with violence. Self-esteem did not moderate any of the associations between stressful events and the perpetration of psychological dating abuse, but a main effect of selfesteem was found such that self-esteem was negatively associated with psychological dating abuse, which is consistent with prior research demonstrating a negative association between self-esteem and the perpetration of dating abuse (Cornelius and Resseguie 2007). In addition to the above findings that demonstrated that the effects of stressful life events on dating abuse perpetration are conditioned by other factors, we found two significant and one marginally significant main effect of stressful events on the perpetration of dating abuse, all when predicting psychological dating abuse. Total stressful life events and school-related events were positively associated with the perpetration of psychological dating abuse and health-related stressful events was marginally (p = .054) associated with psychological dating abuse. Overall, more of the associations between stressful life events and physical dating abuse perpetration were conditioned by other factors than were the associations between stressful life events and psychological dating abuse perpetration. Because physical abuse is a more extreme response than psychological abuse, the threshold

123

J Youth Adolescence (2015) 44:696–707

for acting on impulses for physical abuse is likely higher than the threshold for psychological abuse. It is possible that, when an individual experiences stressful life events, the reduction in self-regulatory resources is enough to make the perpetration of psychological abuse more likely, but not enough to make the perpetration of physical abuse more likely unless certain additional conditions are in place. Contrary to our expectations, although friend-related stressful life events were related to the perpetration of psychological and physical dating abuse in bivariate analyses, they were not associated with dating abuse in multivariate analyses. This is surprising given earlier findings that common friend-related stressful events were associated with the perpetration of dating abuse (Rosenfield et al. 2013). However, it should be noted that our assessment of friend-related stressful events more closely examines interruptions in friendships (e.g., ‘‘Best friend moved,’’ ‘‘Had a change in schools’’) whereas Rosenfield et al. (2013) measure is an assessment of relationship quality and stressors in the peer environment (e.g., ‘‘A friend I trusted let me down,’’ ‘‘My friends left me out of an activity’’). Therefore, it is possible that our results are not inconsistent with prior research, but merely explore a different dimension of friend-related stressful life events. Future research should continue to examine the role of friend-related stressors on the perpetration of dating abuse, with a particular emphasis on distinguishing between the different dimensions of this source of stress. The current study did not assess the association between stressful life events and dating abuse victimization because our primary theoretical premise, that stress depletes resources to override impulses to act violently, applies to behaviors that are under volitional control, like perpetration, and not to those that are not under volitional control, such as victimization. However, stress may relate to dating abuse victimization through other mechanisms that need to be examined in future studies. For example, victims experiencing stressful life events may lack a sense of stability and, as a result, may be more likely to stay in abusive relationships that they are financially or emotionally dependent upon. The investment model (Bell and Naugle 2006) suggests that victims use a risk versus benefits approach when responding to an abusive relationship. Experiencing stressful life events may amplify perceived risks to leaving an abusive relationship, thus reducing the likelihood of leaving the relationship. To our knowledge, only one study to date has examined whether stressful life events is associated with dating abuse victimization among adolescents (Wolitzky-Taylor et al. 2008). In that study, adolescents who experienced a stressful life event in the past year were more likely to be a victim of dating violence than individuals who had not experienced a stressful life

J Youth Adolescence (2015) 44:696–707

event. No study to date has examined potential moderators of the relationship between stressful life events and being a victim of adolescent dating abuse. This study has several limitations. First, we use crosssectional data and therefore the temporality of the relationships is non-discernable. However, with the exception of events related to the adolescent’s health and some school-related events (i.e., getting sent to the principal or school suspension), it is unlikely that physical or psychological dating abuse involvement would cause the stressful life events included in the scale. Second, all of our measures are self-report, which may be subject to social desirability bias though it could also be argued that adolescents are the best source of information on life stress and their dating abuse involvement. Prior research indicates that self-reports of intimate partner abuse generally demonstrate strong inter-partner agreement (i.e., perpetrators and victims typically agree on abuse that transpired), suggesting that self-report of perpetration is a reliable measure of partner abuse (Moffitt et al. 1997). Finally, the generalizability of our findings may be limited by two factors. One is that the sample consists of a predominantly rural population, and, thus, it is unknown whether our findings would generalize to adolescents living in more urban settings. The second is that those who dropped out of the study by Wave 5 were possibly a higher risk group as indicated by being older and male, having lower self-esteem and parents with lower education, and already perpetrating psychological dating abuse, which could also influence the generalizability of findings; this pattern of drop-out, however, should not influence the internal validity of the study, or in other words, our ability to detect associations between constructs (Campbell and Stanley 1966). It should also be noted that our sample was drawn from a general population rather than from a high-risk sample such as those in contact with the juvenile justice system or those in medical clinics, making our findings more generalizable in other respects. The study has a number of strengths. To our knowledge, this is the first article to examine associations between multiple types of stressful life events and the perpetration of psychological and physical dating abuse among adolescents. It is also the first to examine potential moderators of these associations. Our measure of dating abuse perpetration, which was designed specifically for adolescents, covers a comprehensive range of abusive behaviors, and eliminates the perpetration of physical violence that occurred in self-defense. Also, we used a stressful life events scale that was developed specifically for children and adolescents and has been used widely in studies of behavioral problems and emotional difficulties.

705

Conclusion This study addresses an important gap in the existing literature on adolescent dating abuse by examining whether stress is associated with the perpetration of physical and psychological dating abuse and whether these associations are conditioned by attributes of the family and the adolescent. Previous theoretical work suggests that stressful life events increase the risk of perpetrating violence by reducing one’s resources for inhibiting violent impulses and ability to regulate emotions (Agnew 2001, 2007; Berkowitz 1989; Finkel et al. 2012); this association may be particularly important to assess among adolescents since the capacity for emotion regulation and inhibitory control are still in development during this period (Cohen-Gilbert and Thomas 2013; Silvers et al. 2012). Our findings indicate that stressful life events play an important role in the perpetration of adolescent dating abuse, and suggest that practitioners should take the effect of these life events into account when developing interventions for preventing dating abuse. For example, prevention programs may benefit from incorporating emotion regulation strategies and stress management skills that help adolescents cope with common life stressors, especially in programs targeted at boys. In addition, when developing dating abuse prevention programs, it is important to recognize that there are factors that can buffer or exacerbate associations between stressful life events and dating abuse. Acknowledgments This study was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Cooperative Agreement Number U81/ CCU409964. Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest. Author contributions MC and VF conceived of the study, drafted the manuscript, and participated in the design and interpretation of the data; MC performed the statistical analyses. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

References Agnew, R. (2001). Building on the foundation of general strain theory: Specifying the types of strain most likely to lead to crime and delinquency. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 38(4), 319–361. Agnew, R. (2007). Pressured into crime: An overview of general strain theory. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Agnew, R. (2012). Reflection on ‘‘A revised strain theory of delinquency’’. Social Forces, 91(1), 33–38. Allison, P. D. (2001). Missing data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc. Aseltine, R. H., Gore, S., & Gordon, J. (2000). Life stress, anger and anxiety, and delinquency: an empirical test of general strain theory. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 41(3), 256–275.

123

706 Baker, C. K., Hishinuma, E. S., Chang, J. Y., & Nixon, D. C. (2010). The relationship among exposure to stressful life events, drug use, and violence perpetration in a sample of native Hawaiian, Samoan, and Filipino adolescents. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25(3), 379–399. Baumeister, R. F., Campbell, J. D., Krueger, J. I., & Vohs, K. D. (2003). Does high self-esteem cause better performance, interpersonal success, happiness, or healthier lifestyles? Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 4(1), 1–44. Baumeister, R. F., Smart, L., & Boden, J. M. (1996). Relation of threatened egotism to violence and aggression: the dark side of high self-esteem. Psychological Review, 103(1), 5–33. Bell, K. M., & Naugle, A. E. (2006). Understanding stay/leave decisions in violent relationships: A behavior analytic approach. Behavior and Social Issues, 14(1), 21–45. Berkowitz, L. (1989). Frustration-aggression hypothesis: Examination and reformulation. Psychological Bulletin, 106(1), 59–73. Blascovich, J., & Tomaka, J. (1993). Measure of self-esteem. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (3rd ed., pp. 115–160). Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research. Block, J. H., Block, J., & Gjerde, P. F. (1986). The personality of children prior to divorce: A prospective study. Child Development, 57(4), 827–840. Broidy, L. (2001). A test of general strain theory. Criminology, 39(1), 9–36. Broidy, L., & Agnew, R. (1997). Gender and crime: A general strain theory perspective. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 34(3), 275–306. Bussey, K., & Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory of gender development and differentiation. Psychological Review, 106, 676–713. Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1966). Experimental and quasiexperimental designs for research. Chicago, Illinois: Rand McNally. Cano, A., & Vivian, D. (2001). Life stressors and husband-to-wife violence. Aggression and violent behavior, 6, 459–480. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2006). Measuring intimate partner violence victimization and perpetration: A compendium of assessment tools. http://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/ 11402/. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2014). Surveillance summaries. MMWR morbidity and mortality. Weekly report 63(4). http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/ss/ss6304.pdf. Chapple, C. L. (2003). Examining intergenerational violence: Violent role modeling or weak parental controls? Violence and Victims, 18, 143–162. Chase, K. A., Treboux, D., & O’Leary, K. D. (2002). Characteristics of high-risk adolescents’ dating violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17, 33–49. Cleveland, H. H., Herrera, V. M., & Stuewig, J. (2003). Abusive males and abused females in adolescent relationships: Risk factor similarity and dissimilarity and the role of relationship seriousness. Journal of Family Violence, 18(6), 325–339. Cobb, S. (1976). Social support as a moderator of life stress. Psychosomatic Medicine, 38(5), 300–314. Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 98(2), 310–357. Cohen-Gilbert, J. E., & Thomas, K. M. (2013). Inhibitory control during emotional distraction across adolescence and early adulthood. Child Development, 84(6), 1954–1966. Compas, B. E., Howell, D. C., Phares, V., Williams, R. A., & Giunta, C. T. (1989). Risk factors for emotional/behavioral problems in young adolescents: a prospective analysis of adolescent and parental stress and symptoms. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57(6), 732–740.

123

J Youth Adolescence (2015) 44:696–707 Cornelius, T. L., & Resseguie, N. (2007). Primary and secondary prevention programs for dating violence: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12(3), 364–375. Duke, N. N., Pettingell, S. L., McMorris, B. J., & Borowsky, I. W. (2010). Adolescent violence perpetration: Associations with multiple types of adverse childhood experiences. Pediatrics, 125(4), e778–e786. Dumont, M., & Provost, M. A. (1999). Resilience in adolescents: Protective role of social support, coping strategies, self-esteem, and social activities on experience of stress and depression. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 28(3), 343–363. Eitle, D., & Turner, R. J. (2003). Stress exposure, race, and young adult male crime. Sociological Quarterly, 44(2), 243–269. Exner-Cortens, D., Eckenrode, J., & Rothman, E. (2013). Longitudinal associations between teen dating violence victimization and adverse health outcomes. Pediatrics, 131(1), 71–78. Felson, R. B. (1992). ‘‘Kick ‘em When They’re Down’’: Explanations of the relationship between stress and interpersonal aggression and violence. Sociological Quarterly, 33(1), 1–16. Fergus, S., & Zimmerman, M. A. (2005). Adolescent resilience: A framework for understanding healthy development in the face of risk. Annual Review Public Health, 26, 399–419. Finkel, E. J. (2007). Impelling and inhibiting forces in the perpetration of intimate partner violence. Review of General Psychology, 11(2), 193–207. Finkel, E. J., DeWall, C. N., Slotter, E. B., McNulty, J. K., Pond, R. S., & Atkins, D. C. (2012). Using I3 theory to clarify when dispositional aggressiveness predicts intimate partner violence perpetration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(3), 533–549. Foshee, V. A., Linder, G. F., Bauman, K. E., Langwick, S. A., Arriaga, X. B., Heath, J. L., et al. (1996). The safe dates project: Theoretical basis, evaluation design, and selected baseline findings. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 12(5), 37–39. Foshee, V. A., & Reyes, H. L. M. (2011). Dating abuse: Prevalence, consequences, and predictors. In R. J. Levesque (Ed.), Encyclopedia of adolescence (pp. 602–615). New York: Spring Publishers. Foshee, V. A., Reyes, H. L. M., Gottfredson, N. C., Chang, L.-Y., & Ennett, S. T. (2013). A longitudinal examination of psychological, behavioral, academic, and relationship consequences of dating abuse victimization among a primarily rural sample of adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 53(6), 723–729. Froggio, G. (2007). Strain and juvenile delinquency: A critical review of Agnew’s general strain theory. Journal of Loss and Trauma, 12(4), 383–418. Go´mez, A. M. (2011). Testing the cycle of violence hypothesis: child abuse and adolescent dating violence as predictors of intimate partner violence in young adulthood. Youth and Society, 43, 171–192. Gore, S., & Aseltine, R. H. (1995). Protective processes in adolescence: matching stressors with social resources. American Journal of Community Psychology, 23(3), 301–327. Grych, J. H., & Fincham, F. D. (1990). Marital conflict and children’s adjustment: A cognitive-contextual framework. Psychological Bulletin, 108(2), 267–290. Hammack, P. L., Richards, M. H., Luo, Z., Edlynn, E. S., Roy, K., Hammack, P. L., et al. (2004). Social support factors as moderators of community violence exposure among inner-city African American young adolescents. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 33(3), 450–462. Hampel, P., & Petermann, F. (2006). Perceived stress, coping, and adjustment in adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 38(4), 409–415. Herman-Stahl, M., & Petersen, A. C. (1996). The protective role of coping and social resources for depressive symptoms among young adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 25(6), 733–753.

J Youth Adolescence (2015) 44:696–707 Institute, S. A. S. (2011). Statistical Analysis Software (Version 9.3). Cary, NC: SAS. Johnson, J., Wood, A. M., Gooding, P., Taylor, P. J., & Tarrier, N. (2011). Resilience to suicidality: the buffering hypothesis. Clinical Psychology Review, 31(4), 563–591. Jouriles, E. N., Garrido, E., Rosenfield, D., & McDonald, R. (2009). Experiences of psychological and physical aggression in adolescent romantic relationships: Links to psychological distress. Child Abuse and Neglect, 33(7), 451–460. Kliewer, W., & Sandler, I. N. (1992). Locus of control and selfesteem as moderators of stressor-symptom relations in children and adolescents. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 20(4), 393–413. Kumpfer, K. L. (1999). Factors and processes contributing to resilience: The resilience framework. In M. D. Glantz & J. L. Johnson (Eds.), Resilience and development: Positive life adaptions (pp. 179–224). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/ Plenum. Mason, B., & Smithey, M. (2012). The effects of academic and interpersonal stress on dating violence among college students a test of classical strain theory. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27(5), 974–986. Miller, E., Breslau, J., Chung, W.-J. J., Green, J. G., 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(11), 1006–1013. Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., Krueger, R. F., Magdol, L., Margolin, G., Silva, P. A., et al. (1997). Do Partners agree about abuse in their relationship? A psychometric evaluation of interpartner agreement. Psychological Assessment, 9(I), 47–56. Moksnes, U. K., Moljord, I. E. O., Espnes, G. A., & Byrne, D. G. (2010). The association between stress and emotional states in adolescents: The role of gender and self-esteem. Personality and Individual Differences, 49(5), 430–435. Morash, M., & Moon, B. (2007). Gender differences in the effects of strain on the delinquency of South Korean youth. Youth and Society, 38(3), 300–321. Muller, R. T., Goebel-Fabri, A. E., Diamond, T., & Dinklage, D. (2000). Social support and the relationship between family and community violence exposure and psychopathology among high risk adolescents. Child Abuse and Neglect, 24(4), 449–464. Ngo, H. M., & Le, T. N. (2007). Stressful life events, culture, and violence. Journal of Immigrant Health, 9, 75–84. Penninx, B. W., van Tilburg, T., Deeg, D. J., Kriegsman, D. M., Boeke, A. J., & van Eijk, J. T. (1997). Direct and buffer effects of social support and personal coping resources in individuals with arthritis. Social Science and Medicine, 44(3), 393–402. Pinquart, M., & Shen, Y. (2011). Behavior problems in children and adolescents with chronic physical illness: A meta-analysis. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 36(9), 1003–1016. Plybon, L. E., & Kliewer, W. (2001). Neighborhood types and externalizing behavior in urban school-age children: Tests of direct, mediated, and moderated effects. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 10(4), 419–437. Pryor-Brown, L., & Cowen, E. L. (1989). Stressful life events, support, and children’s school adjustment. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 18(3), 214–220. Raffaelli, M., Andrade, F. C. D., Wiley, A. R., Sanchez-Armass, O., Edwards, L. L., & Aradillas-Garcia, C. (2013). Stress, social support, and depression: A test of the stress-buffering hypothesis in a Mexican sample. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 23(2), 283–289. Roberts, A. L., McLaughlin, K. A., Conron, K. J., & Koenen, K. C. (2011). Adulthood stressors, history of childhood adversity, and

707 risk of perpetration of intimate partner violence. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 40(2), 128–138. Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Rosenfield, D., Jouriles, E. N., Mueller, V., & McDonald, R. (2013). When at-risk teens are violent toward romantic partners: The role of common stressors. Psychology of Violence, 3(3), 260–272. Rubin, D. B. (1987). Multiple imputation for non-response surveys. New York: Wiley Publishers. Silvers, J. A., McRae, K., Gabrieli, J. D. E., Gross, J. J., Remy, K. A., & Ochsner, K. N. (2012). Age-related differences in emotional reactivity, regulation, and rejection sensitivity in adolescence. Emotion, 12(6), 1235–1247. Sontag, L. M., & Graber, J. A. (2010). Coping with perceived peer stress: gender-specific and common pathways to symptoms of psychopathology. Developmental Psychology, 46(6), 1605–1620. Steinberg, L. (2007). Risk taking in adolescence: New perspectives from brain and behavioral science. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(2), 55–59. Straus, M. A. (1980). Social stress and marital violence in a national sample of American families. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 347, 229–250. Vagi, K. J., Rothman, E. F., Latzman, N. E., Tharp, A. T., Hall, D. M., & Breiding, M. J. (2013). Beyond correlates: A review of risk and protective factors for adolescent dating violence perpetration. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(4), 633–649. Von Hippel, P. T. (2007). Regression with Missing Ys: An improved strategy for analyzing multiply imputed data. Sociological Methodology, 37, 1–54. Weist, M. D., Freedman, A. H., Paskewitz, D. A., Proescher, E. J., & Flaherty, L. T. (1995). Urban youth under stress: Empirical identification of protective factors. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 24(6), 705–721. Wills, T. A., Vaccaro, D., & McNamara, G. (1992). The role of life events, family support, and competence in adolescent substance use: A test of vulnerability and protective factors. American Journal of Community Psychology, 20(3), 349–374. Wolitzky-Taylor, K. B., Ruggiero, K. J., Danielson, C. K., Resnick, H. S., Hanson, R. F., Smith, D. W., et al. (2008). Prevalence and correlates of dating violence in a national sample of adolescents. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 47(7), 755–762. Youngstrom, E., Weist, M. D., & Albus, K. E. (2003). Exploring violence exposure, stress, protective factors and behavioral problems among inner-city youth. American Journal of Community Psychology, 32(1–2), 115–129.

May S. Chen is a doctoral student in the Department of Health Behavior at UNC Chapel Hill. Her research focuses on the etiology of partner violence among adolescents, consequences of exposure to domestic violence, and how a better understanding of these mechanisms can be translated into policy and prevention efforts. Vangie A. Foshee is a Professor of Health Behavior at UNC Chapel Hill. Her research is on adolescent problem behaviors, with a specific focus on adolescent dating abuse. She uses longitudinal research designs to examine the etiology of adolescent dating abuse and other adolescent problem behaviors, including examining predictors from multiple levels of the ecological model on trajectories of those behaviors across adolescence. She also conducts randomized trials to evaluate the efficacy of programs that she and colleagues design for preventing adolescent problems behaviors.

123

Copyright of Journal of Youth & Adolescence is the property of Springer Science & Business Media B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.