0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Article |

Relationship Violence Among Female and Male College Undergraduate Students FREE

Christine M. Forke, MSN, CRNP; Rachel K. Myers, BA; Marina Catallozzi, MD; Donald F. Schwarz, MD, MPH
[+] Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Craig-Dalsimer Division of Adolescent Medicine, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (Mss Forke and Myers and Dr Schwarz); School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia (Ms Forke and Dr Schwarz); and Campus Violence Task Force, Institute for Safe Families (Mss Forke and Myers and Dr Catallozzi), Philadelphia; and College of Physicians and Surgeons and Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York (Dr Catallozzi). Dr Schwarz is now with the City of Philadelphia.


Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2008;162(7):634-641. doi:10.1001/archpedi.162.7.634.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Objectives  To assess prevalence of victimization and perpetration of relationship violence before and during college, to explore variations by gender, and to examine differences by relationship type.

Design  Anonymously surveyed students in 67 randomly chosen classes.

Setting  Three urban college campuses.

Participants  Nine hundred ten undergraduate college students aged 17 to 22 years.

Main Outcome Measures  Self-reported victimization and perpetration of physical, emotional, and sexual violence; relationship to the victim or perpetrator.

Results  Most (57.1%) students were female, and 58.7% were white, 16.4% black, and 15.1% Asian. Of 910 participants, 407 (44.7%) experienced partner or nonpartner violence: 383 (42.1%) reported victimization and 156 (17.1%) reported perpetration. All victimization and perpetration rates were highest before college. Emotional violence was most common before college (21.1%); during college, sexual and emotional violence were equally common (12.0% and 11.8%, respectively). Women reported more victimization than men, but male victimization was considerable (27.2%). More men perpetrated sexual violence; more women perpetrated physical violence. More than half (130 of 227) of the violence experienced during college was partner related. Students experiencing partner violence during college were more likely to experience physical and emotional violence and were less likely to experience sexual violence.

Conclusions  Relationship violence is prevalent among college students and frequently occurs before college. Emotional violence was most frequent before college; sexual and emotional violence were equally common during college. Women reported more victimization than men, but male victimization was common. Men perpetrated more sexual violence; women perpetrated more physical violence. Physical violence and emotional violence were most often committed by partners, while sexual violence was less likely to be partner related.

Figures in this Article

Relationship violence among adolescents is concerning and can happen in a broad range of relationships, including those with friends, acquaintances, strangers, and partners.1,2 The existing relationship violence literature is largely limited to partner violence, which is most prevalent among women 24 years and younger.3,4 Extensive literature explores female partner victimization for women of college age.1,520 These investigations have generally included convenience samples of students in introductory psychology or sociology classes,1,5,8,10,11,15,16,18,19 limiting the generalizability of the findings. These students may have a heightened sense of awareness of violence related to course content, or they may have selected the class because of prior personal experience. National studies13,14,17,21 about relationship violence among college-age students have restricted the assessment of violence exposure to the past 12 to 18 months, potentially underestimating exposure to violence during adolescence.

When perpetration has been studied, it has focused on violence with partners,1012,1518,20,2229 with few studies10,16,17,29 exploring perpetration other than physical. In light of data suggesting that male partner victimization is common,1320,26,30 further exploration of gender differences for victimization and perpetration of physical, sexual, and emotional violence is a logical next step. Recent studies exploring gender symmetry have used convenience samples of students in social science classes15,16,18,19,24,25,27,28 and have limited reporting periods.13,15,17,20,27,28

Most studies of adolescent relationship violence have focused solely on partner violence, not the broader range of relationships that develop in college (with friends, acquaintances, and partners) in which violence may occur. Transitioning to college may influence adolescents' vulnerability to involvement in violent relationships, as adolescents in an unknown environment may experience isolation as they leave social supports from home. Research suggests that less parental monitoring and the perception of low parental and social support (such as that experienced in the transition to the college environment) are associated with increased violence involvement.31,32 In addition, a strong desire for peer acceptance may influence relationship behaviors, making teens more vulnerable to violence.23,3335 It is unclear whether experiences with certain types of violence (ie, physical, sexual, and emotional) during college are associated with the nature of the relationship between victims and perpetrators.

We are unaware of any existing studies that explore past and current physical, sexual, and emotional victimization and perpetration among adolescent men and women in a broad range of college relationships within the same sample. By including randomly selected classes from 3 diverse college campuses, the present study expands on the literature by providing a more comprehensive examination of rates of violence among male and female undergraduate students. We examined physical, sexual, and emotional victimization and perpetration occurring before and during college and in a range of relationships, including (but not limited to) partner violence. The primary objectives of the study were (1) to examine victimization and perpetration experienced before and during college among undergraduate students aged 17 to 22 years, (2) to compare victimization and perpetration rates for men and women, and (3) to explore differences between the type of violence experienced and the relationship between victims and perpetrators.

DESIGN

Self-administered surveys were used to obtain prevalence estimates of relationship violence among urban college students. Three colleges were chosen to provide a demographically diverse sample of students. These included a nonresidential community college offering associate degrees in many fields, a large Ivy League university, and a private mid-sized Catholic university. Both universities offer undergraduate and professional degrees. Institutional review board approval was granted by each participating site and by The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia.

PARTICIPANTS

Using current online course rosters from each college, a random list of day classes was generated. Research staff (R.K.M.) contacted professors for the selected classes by e-mail and asked permission to administer a survey on relationship violence at the end of their class. All students attending class on the day of survey administration were eligible to participate. This analysis explores responses from undergraduate students aged 17 to 22 years.

DATA COLLECTION

The anonymous pencil-and-paper survey, consisting of 45 questions, was administered by a research assistant (R.K.M.) during the last 10 minutes of class. A brief introduction instructed students not to recomplete the survey if they had previously participated. Students could leave questions unanswered or return blank surveys if they chose not to participate. When students returned a survey, they were given wallet-sized resource guides listing campus and local area services.

The survey included demographic questions about gender, age, race, and length of time in school. Validated scales exist to measure relationship violence; however, they are time intensive and ask far more questions than could be answered in the time allotted. In addition, they focus on partner violence, not a broader range of relationships. Constructs from existing scales were used to shape our questions,36,37 which are similar to those used by others.1,6,14,21,35Physical violence was defined as pushing, grabbing, slapping, choking, or hitting. Emotional violence was defined as being put down, made to feel bad about oneself, being isolated from friends and family, or acting in a possessive manner. Sexual violence was defined as being pressured, coerced, or forced into having sexual contact.

Students were asked whether they had experienced physical, emotional, and/or sexual violence in a relationship before coming to college and during college and whether they had been a victim and/or perpetrator of each form of relationship violence. The age at first experience was asked for violence occurring before college only. For violence during college, victims were asked the gender of and the relationship to the perpetrator. Relationship options included casual acquaintance, friend, partner, stranger, or other, for which the students wrote in a response. Similar questions were asked of perpetrators about their victims. Because violence can occur in relationships before they become sexual, we intentionally surveyed participants irrespective of sexual activity within their relationships.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The analyses explored students' precollege and college experiences with physical, emotional, and sexual violence. For each form of violence, victimization and perpetration rates per 100 students (percentages) were calculated before college and during college. Participants first victimized during college did not provide the age at first victimization. In this case, we assumed the age at first victimization to be the current age. For example, a 21-year-old woman in the fourth year of college identified becoming a victim during college. She was assigned age 21 years as her age at first victimization, although she may have been victimized as young as age 18 years, her first year in college.

Victimization and perpetration rates for each type of violence were compared separately for women and men using the χ2, Fisher exact, and t tests. Specific analyses compared students who experienced partner violence during college with students who experienced nonpartner violence during college. Data were analyzed using commercially available statistical software (SPSS version 10.0; SPSS Inc, Chicago, Illinois).38P ≤ .05 denoted statistical significance.

A total of 298 classes were selected; we received responses from 128 classes, obtained permission to survey 106 classes, and surveyed 67 classes (Table 1). A broad diversity of classes was selected across disciplines. There were no differences between professors who responded and those who did not (P > .99), those who agreed vs those who refused (P =.21), and those who were surveyed vs those who were not (P =.31) by discipline. However, more professors at 1 school did not respond, which we attribute largely to limited use of e-mail (P < .001).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Description of Courses Selected, Responded, and Surveyed

Students returned 910 completed surveys, representing about 70% of students enrolled in participating classes. Many classes at 1 college had far fewer attendees present for survey administration than were enrolled in the class, substantially decreasing the participation rate. We estimate that 2% to 3% of students who had attended class during survey administration left before receiving a survey or indicated that they had previously participated. Demographic characteristics of participants at each college (Table 2) match campus demographics at each school.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Participants' Demographic Information

Of 910 participants, 44.7% (n = 407) experienced relationship violence; 27.7% (n = 252) experienced emotional violence, 24.9% (n = 227) sexual violence, and 20.9% (n = 190) physical violence. Of 407 students who experienced relationship violence, 51.8% (n = 211) experienced 1 type of violence, 31.9% (n = 130) experienced 2 types, and 16.2% (n = 66) experienced all 3 types. Fifteen percent (n = 132) of participants identified being both a victim and a perpetrator of at least 1 form of relationship violence. Thirty-five percent (n = 322) of participants reported experiencing relationship violence before coming to college, and 24.9% (n = 227) reported experiencing relationship violence during college.

Year in school was not associated with experiencing violence during college regardless of prior experience with violence (P =.06). However, victims during college who also experienced victimization before college were more likely to be in their third or fourth year of school (P =.005). If the risk of victimization during college was solely attributable to time on campus, we would expect those without relationship violence before college to show the same trend; this is not the case.

VICTIMIZATION

Victimization was reported by 42.1% (383 of 910) of the students. Among 910 participants, 26.2% (n = 238) experienced emotional victimization, 22.9% (n = 208) sexual, and 17.1% physical (n = 156). Among 383 victims, 57.2% (n = 219) reported victimization of 1 type of violence only, 28.5% (n = 109) of 2 types of violence, and 14.4% (n = 55) of 3 types of violence.

Figure 1 shows reported prevalence of victimization by age. Incidence can be inferred at each age by subtracting the rate for the previous age. It is unclear how participants reporting victimization before age 12 years interpreted the questions. We assume that this childhood relationship violence includes child abuse, bullying, and fighting among friends or siblings. None of the victimization reported before age 12 years was related to sexual violence. Rates of victimization began to rise at age 13 years, about the time adolescent dating relationships begin. Rates rose sharply between ages 15 and 17 years (during high school) and continued to rise between ages 18 and 22 years (during college).

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 1.

Prevalence of violence victimization by age. Forty-eight victims before college who did not provide an age at first victimization are excluded. *Assumed child abuse, bullying, sibling violence, and others.

Graphic Jump Location

Reported victimization rates were higher before college for each form of relationship violence. Of 383 victims, 46.2% (n = 177) were victims before college only, 31.3% (n = 120) were victims before and during college, and 22.5% (n = 86) were victims during college only. Before college, emotional victimization was reported most often, followed by sexual and physical victimization (Table 3). During college, sexual victimization and emotional victimization were reported most often, followed by physical victimization.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3. Victimization and Perpetration Rates Before and During College for Each Type of Violence With Comparisons by Gender

Fifty-three percent (277 of 520) of women and 27.2% (106 of 390) of men reported victimization. Women were more likely than men to report being victims of all forms of relationship violence before and during college (Table 3). Although women were more likely to report victimization, the rate of male victimization in our sample was high, with emotional victimization being highest.

PERPETRATION

Perpetration was reported by 17.1% (156 of 910) of the students. Among 910 participants, 11.4% (n = 104) perpetrated physical relationship violence, 6.3% (n = 57) emotional relationship violence, and 4.1% (n = 37) sexual relationship violence. Among 156 perpetrators, 76.3% (n = 119) reported perpetrating 1 type of relationship violence only, 20.5% (n = 32) 2 types, and 3.2% (n = 5) 3 types.

Similar to victimization rates, perpetration rates were higher before college than during college for all forms of relationship violence. Among 156 students reporting perpetration, 56.4% (n = 88) reported perpetrating before college, 21.2% (n = 33) reported perpetrating both before and during college, and 22.4% (n = 35) reported perpetrating during college only. Before and during college, physical perpetration was reported most often, followed by emotional perpetration and sexual perpetration (Table 3). Almost 1 in 10 students surveyed said they perpetrated physical relationship violence before college, while half as many reported perpetrating physical relationship violence during college. Emotional perpetration rates were more similar before and during college, and few students admitted perpetrating sexual relationship violence before or during college.

Nineteen percent (99 of 520) of women and 14.6% (57 of 390) of men reported perpetrating relationship violence. Before and during college, men were more likely than women to report perpetrating sexual violence, and women were more likely than men to report perpetrating physical violence (P < .001 for both). There were no differences in emotional perpetration by gender before or during college.

RELATIONSHIP TO THE VICTIM OR PERPETRATOR

Figure 2 shows the relationship between victims and perpetrators for each type of victimization during college. Victims reported that partners perpetrated most physical and emotional violence, followed by friends or acquaintances and strangers. Sexual victims reported that partners, friends, and acquaintances equally perpetrated violence against them. There were no differences between male and female victims' reports of partner perpetration for any type of violence.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 2.

Relationship between victims and perpetrators for each type of violence. The number of responses for the victim's description of the perpetrators for physical was 64, for emotional 107, and for sexual 109. The number of responses for the perpetrators' descriptions of victims for physical was 45, for emotional 28, and for sexual 15.

Graphic Jump Location

Most perpetrators identified their partner as the victim for each type of violence. Compared with physical and emotional perpetrators, more sexual perpetrators reported victimizing friends and acquaintances. During college, more women (85.4% [41 of 48]) than men (55.0% [11 of 20]) reported perpetrating against a partner (P < .01), but there were no gender differences when exploring specific types of violence.

Table 4 compares students who experienced partner violence vs those who experienced violence in another (ie, nonpartner) relationship during college. Experiencing partner violence during college was associated with being older, female, a physical victim before and during college, an emotional victim before and during college, a physical perpetrator before and during college, and an emotional perpetrator during college (P < .03). In contrast, experiencing nonpartner violence during college was more likely to be associated with sexual victimization during college (P < .001). Although those experiencing partner violence during college were older and in a higher grade, this does not necessarily indicate that partner violence begins later in college. Because we did not capture the age at victimization for college violence, we cannot determine the timing of partner violence relative to other relationship violence. Furthermore, there are no differences in the type of violence experienced by age or by age at first victimization for those with exposure before college.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 4. Comparison of Respondents Who Experienced Partner vs Nonpartner Violence During College

Twenty students (10 female and 10 male) in our sample reported having same-gender partners during college. No men reported being victims or perpetrators of violence with a male partner. However, 4 women reported being victims of or perpetrators against their female partners.

In our diverse sample of college-age students, we found that relationship violence is a prevalent issue, affecting almost half of the students. Victimization often began before college, with high rates between age 15 and 17 years. Emotional violence was most common before and during college, and sexual violence, while reported before college, increased during college. Although women were more likely to report being victims of violence, male victimization was common. In our sample, men reported more sexual perpetration, while women reported more physical perpetration. During college, partner violence was common. Those experiencing partner violence were more likely to be older and to have experienced physical or emotional violence.

Our rates of partner-specific victimization are similar to those reported in other samples of partner violence among adolescents and young adults.1,4,12,13 Almost half of the students surveyed in this study reported experience with at least 1 form of relationship violence as a victim, perpetrator, or both. Women 24 years and younger have been identified as being at highest risk for violence, particularly partner violence.3,4,30 Our data suggest that adolescent relationship violence frequently happens in earlier adolescence and that education regarding the development of healthy relationships should occur well before college and possibly before high school.

Much attention has focused on issues surrounding physical and sexual victimization of young women; however, emotional violence was the most common form of victimization among men and women in our sample. Emotional violence could be a precursor to other relationship violence.39,40 Because psychological consequences of violence continue throughout young adulthood,4143 further studies are needed that explore emotional violence, particularly its relationship to future violence.

During college, sexual violence and emotional violence were equally common. Separation from existing social supports (such as that which occurs in the transition to college) affords many young adults their first opportunity to begin making independent choices without guidance from parents. Because sexuality progresses as adolescents mature,44 college relationships may be the first sexual experiences for many students. This, combined with logistic differences (private living space and no adult supervision), may place adolescents in a vulnerable situation in which they can be victimized more easily.

Female students in our sample were more likely to report being a victim of all forms of relationship violence assessed; however, mounting data, including ours, indicate that male victimization is common.1320,26,30 Because men may underreport victimization because of shame, embarrassment, and fear that their masculinity may be questioned,4547 rates reported herein may underestimate male victimization. The noted prevalence of male victimization suggests a need for male-friendly or male-specific resources.

Far fewer students in our study reported perpetration of relationship violence compared with victimization. Female and male students seemed to be perpetrating relationship violence at similar rates. Gender differences emerged when comparing specific types of relationship violence, with women more likely to perpetrate physical violence and with men more likely to perpetrate sexual violence. In addition, women were more likely than men to perpetrate partner violence during college. It is unclear whether female perpetration is reflective of women initiating violence within a relationship, female-female violence within same-gender relationships, self-defense, or retaliation for past abuse. Because women typically inflict fewer injuries than men,26,4850 they may have less fear of punishment or stigma and consequently may be more comfortable reporting perpetration than men.11,14,18

While victims of sexual violence during college most often identified their perpetrators as acquaintances or friends, sexual perpetrators most often identified their victims as partners. There are several possible explanations. First, although few perpetrators self-identified, more sexual perpetrators were men, and more sexual victims were women. Gender differences surrounding relationship perception may exist. For example, women typically define dating relationships relative to intimacy, while men identify them more casually.5153 Second, coping strategies may allow sexual perpetrators to feel less guilt or shame if their victims are partners or individuals with whom they have had sexual relations.54 Third, a prior study9 found that young women who experienced sexual coercion were more likely to be victimized by older partners. Perhaps male college students were more likely to victimize non–college-aged partners. High rates of sexual perpetration by friends, acquaintances, and partners on college campuses speak directly to the need for education and resources related to sexual violence.

There are several important limitations to this study. First, rates of victimization and perpetration were likely underreported because of stigma and fear of punishment.5557 It is unclear whether men and women reported differently. Second, student survey involvement was dependent on professor approval. In 1 college, e-mail was used infrequently, resulting in a high nonresponse rate. Third, we did not survey evening classes. Students enrolled in evening classes only may have different rates of violence involvement. However, some students participated in both day and evening classes, and while not surveyed in their evening class, they may have been surveyed in their day class. Although there is potential for selection bias, we had a good balance of surveys at each college across year and course type, and racial demographics of our sample were similar to overall campus demographics. Fourth, the age at first victimization for students was obtained before college only. For those first victimized during college, we used the current age as the age at first victimization. Therefore, the actual age at first victimization during college may be younger than reported herein. Fifth, our subsample of participants in same-gender relationships was small, limiting our ability to perform detailed analyses; future work is needed in this area.

In conclusion, all forms of relationship violence are prevalent among male and female college students; almost half of the students had experienced relationship violence at some point in their lives, more than one-third had experienced violence before college, and one-quarter had experienced violence during college. High rates of victimization and perpetration among men and women in midadolescence suggest a need to assess the availability of high school and college resources for relationship violence prevention and treatment. Emotional abuse was the most frequently reported form of violence experienced by male and female students before and during college. While emotional abuse frequently is not a focus of violence prevention, it can cause poor outcomes and may predispose victims to other forms of violence. Therefore, educational efforts focusing on healthy relationships should begin during childhood.

Although women reported more victimization than men, male victimization was common. More men perpetrated sexual violence, but more women perpetrated physical violence and partner violence. Future studies should explore the needs of male victims, specifically related to the desire for gender-specific services for relationship and partner violence. While most physical and emotional violence occurred in partner relationships, sexual violence was committed in the context of nonpartner relationships such as those with friends and acquaintances. Further research must explore whether this finding is confounded by gender or age and whether different educational campaigns or resources are required to address violence committed by acquaintances and partners.

Correspondence: Christine M. Forke, MSN, CRNP, Craig-Dalsimer Division of Adolescent Medicine, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Ninth Floor, Main Bldg, Room 9416A, 34th and Civic Center Boulevard, Philadelphia, PA 19104 (forke@email.chop.edu).

Accepted for Publication: December 18, 2007.

Author Contributions: Mss Forke and Myers had full access to all the data in this study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Study concept and design: Forke, Myers, and Catallozzi. Acquisition of data: Myers. Analysis and interpretation of data: Forke, Myers, Catallozzi, and Schwarz. Drafting of the manuscript: Forke, Myers, and Catallozzi. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Forke, Myers, Catallozzi, and Schwarz. Obtained funding: Forke, Myers, and Schwarz. Administrative, technical, and material support: Forke, Myers, Catallozzi, and Schwarz. Study supervision: Forke, Myers, and Catallozzi.

Financial Disclosure: None reported.

Funding/Support: This study was supported by the Claneil Foundation, Valentine Foundation, Craig-Dalsimer Fund, Mary D. Ames Chair for Child Advocacy, and Institute for Safe Families.

Additional Contributions: The following members of the Campus Violence Task Force, Institute for Safe Families, assisted with conceptualizing the study, gathering community support, serving as counselors during data collection, and securing funding: Sandra H. Dempsey, MSS, MLSP; Marcia Witherspoon, MSW, LSW; Janice B. Asher, MD; Eileen R. Giardino, PhD, CRNP; Claire A. Washington, MSN, CRNP; and Bettsy McCoubrey, PhD. The Institute for Safe Families forged community partnerships and provided resource cards for participants. Janice Asher donated study incentives. Melissa E. Glassman, MD, MPH, and Lisa K. Tuchman, MD, reviewed and critiqued the manuscript. We thank the professors who allowed us to survey their students and the students who took the time to participate in this study.

Gross  AMWinslett  ARoberts  MGohm  CL An examination of sexual violence against college women. Violence Against Women 2006;12 (3) 288- 300
PubMed Link to Article
Tjaden  PThoennes  N Full Report of the Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Violence Against Women: Findings From the National Violence Against Women Survey: Research Report.  Washington, DC National Institute of Justice, US Dept of Justice November2000;Report NCJ 183781
Rennison  CM Intimate Partner Violence and Age of Victim, 1993-99.  Washington, DC Bureau of Justice Statistics, US Dept of Justice2001;Report NCJ 187635
Thompson  RSBonomi  AEAnderson  M  et al.  Intimate partner violence: prevalence, types, and chronicity in adult women. Am J Prev Med 2006;30 (6) 447- 457
PubMed Link to Article
Makepeace  JM Courtship violence among college students. Fam Relat 1981;30 (1) 97- 102
Link to Article
Smith  PHWhite  JWHolland  LJ A longitudinal perspective on dating violence among adolescent and college-age women. Am J Public Health 2003;93 (7) 1104- 1109
PubMed Link to Article
Amar  AFGennaro  S Dating violence in college women: associated physical injury, healthcare usage, and mental health symptoms. Nurs Res 2005;54 (4) 235- 242
PubMed Link to Article
Banyard  VLArnold  SSmith  J Childhood sexual abuse and dating experiences of undergraduate women. Child Maltreat 2000;5 (1) 39- 48
PubMed Link to Article
Rickert  VIWiemann  CVaughan  RWhite  J Rates and risk factors for sexual violence among an ethnically diverse sample of adolescents. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2004;158 (12) 1132- 1139
PubMed Link to Article
Orcutt  HKGarcia  MPickett  S Female-perpetrated intimate partner violence and romantic attachment style in a college student sample. Violence Vict 2005;20 (3) 287- 302
PubMed Link to Article
Lewis  SFTravea  LFremouw  W Characteristics of female perpetrators and victims of dating violence. Violence Vict 2002;17 (5) 593- 606
PubMed Link to Article
DuRant  RChampion  HWolfson  M  et al.  Date fighting experiences among college students: are they associated with other health-risk behaviors? J Am Coll Health 2007;55 (5) 291- 296
PubMed Link to Article
Halpern  CTOslak  SGYoung  MLMartin  SLKupper  LL Partner violence among adolescents in opposite-sex romantic relationships: findings from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. Am J Public Health 2001;91 (10) 1679- 1685
PubMed Link to Article
Whitaker  DJHaileyesus  TSwahn  MSaltzman  LS Differences in frequency of violence and reported injury between relationships with reciprocal and nonreciprocal intimate partner violence. Am J Public Health 2007;97 (5) 941- 947
PubMed Link to Article
Straus  MARamirez  IL Gender symmetry in prevalence, severity, and chronicity of physical aggression against dating partners by university students in Mexico and USA. Aggress Behav 2007;33 (4) 281- 290
PubMed Link to Article
Cercone  JJBeach  SArias  I Gender symmetry in dating intimate partner violence: does similar behavior imply similar constructs? Violence Vict 2005;20 (2) 207- 218
PubMed Link to Article
White  JWKoss  M Courtship violence: incidence in a national sample of higher education students. Violence Vict 1991;6 (4) 247- 256
PubMed
Arias  ISamios  MO’Leary  KD Prevalence and correlates of physical aggression during courtship. J Interpers Violence 1987;2 (1) 82- 90
Link to Article
Waldner-Haugrud  LKMagruder  B Male and female sexual victimization in dating relationships: gender differences in coercion techniques and outcomes. Violence Vict 1995;10 (3) 203- 215
PubMed
Harned  MS Abused women or abused men? an examination of the context and outcomes of dating violence. Violence Vict 2001;16 (3) 269- 285
PubMed
American College Health Association, American College Health Association National College Health Assessment Spring 2006 Reference Group data report (abridged). J Am Coll Health 2007;55 (4) 195- 206
PubMed Link to Article
Fiebert  MSGonzalez  DM College women who initiate assaults on their male partners and the reasons offered for such behavior. Psychol Rep 1997;80 (2) 583- 590
PubMed Link to Article
Tontodonato  PCrew  B Dating violence, social learning theory, and gender: a multivariate analysis. Violence Vict 1992;7 (1) 3- 14
PubMed
Marshall  LLRose  P Family of origin violence and courtship abuse. J Couns Dev 1988;66 (9) 414- 418
Link to Article
Follingstad  DRBradley  RGLaughlin  JEBurke  L Risk factors and correlates of dating violence: the relevance of examining frequency and severity levels in a college sample. Violence Vict 1999;14 (4) 365- 380
PubMed
Makepeace  JM Gender differences in courtship violence victimization. Fam Relat 1986;35 (3) 383- 388
Link to Article
Luthra  RGidycz  CA Dating violence among college men and women: evaluation of a theoretical model. J Interpers Violence 2006;21 (6) 717- 731
PubMed Link to Article
Riggs  DSO’Leary  KDBreslin  FC Multiple correlates of physical aggression in dating couples. J Interpers Violence 1990;5 (1) 61- 73
Link to Article
Lundeberg  KStith  SMPenn  CEWard  DB A comparison of nonviolent, psychologically violent, and physically violent male college daters. J Interpers Violence 2004;19 (10) 1191- 1200
PubMed Link to Article
Catalano  S Intimate partner violence in the United States. 2006;http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/intimate/ipv.htm. Accessed November 9, 2007
Banyard  VLCross  CModecki  KL Interpersonal violence in adolescence: ecological correlates of self-reported perpetration. J Interpers Violence 2006;21 (10) 1314- 1332
PubMed Link to Article
Howard  DQui  YBoekeloo  B Personal and social contextual correlates of adolescent dating violence. J Adolesc Health 2003;33 (1) 9- 17
PubMed Link to Article
Arriaga  XBFoshee  VA Adolescent dating violence: do adolescents follow in their friends’, or their parents’, footsteps? J Interpers Violence 2004;19 (2) 162- 184
PubMed Link to Article
Foshee  VABenefield  TSEnnett  STBauman  KESuchindran  C Longitudinal predictors of serious physical and sexual dating violence victimization during adolescence. Prev Med 2004;39 (5) 1007- 1016
PubMed Link to Article
Sears  HAByers  ESPrice  EL The co-occurrence of adolescent boys' and girls' use of psychologically, physically, and sexually abusive behaviours in their dating relationships. J Adolesc 2007;30 (3) 487- 504
PubMed Link to Article
Straus  MAHamby  SLBoney-McCoy  SSugarman  DB The revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2): development and preliminary psychometric data. J Fam Issues 1996;17 (3) 283- 316
Link to Article
Wolfe  DAScott  KReitzel-Jaffe  DWekerle  CGrasley  CStraatman  AL Development and validation of the Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory. Psychol Assess 2001;13 (2) 277- 293
PubMed Link to Article
SPSS Inc, SPSS for Windows 10.0.  Chicago, IL SPSS Inc1999;
Murphy  CMO’Leary  KD Psychological aggression predicts physical aggression in early marriage. J Consult Clin Psychol 1989;57 (5) 579- 582
PubMed Link to Article
Follingstad  DRRutledge  LLBerg  BJHause  ESPolek  DS The role of emotional abuse in physically abusive relationships. J Fam Violence 1990;5 (2) 107- 120
Link to Article
Ackard  DMNeumark-Sztainer  D Date violence and date rape among adolescents: associations with disordered eating behaviors and psychological health. Child Abuse Negl 2002;26 (5) 455- 473
PubMed Link to Article
Olshen  E McVeigh  KHWunsch-Hitzig  RARickert  VI Dating violence, sexual assault, and suicide attempts among urban teenagers. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2007;161 (6) 539- 545
PubMed Link to Article
Silverman  JGRaj  AMucci  LAHathaway  JE Dating violence against adolescent girls and associated substance use, unhealthy weight control, sexual risk behavior, pregnancy, and suicidality. JAMA 2001;286 (5) 572- 579
PubMed Link to Article
Eaton  DKKann  LKinchen  S  et al.  Youth risk behavior surveillance–United States, 2005. MMWR Surveill Summ 2006;55 (5) 1- 108
PubMed
Sable  MRDanis  FMauzy  DLGallagher  SK Barriers to reporting sexual assault for women and men: perspectives of college students. J Am Coll Health 2006;55 (3) 157- 162
PubMed Link to Article
Sears  HAByers  ESWhelan  JJSaint-Pierre  M “If it hurts you, then it is not a joke”: adolescents' ideas about girls' and boys' use and experience of abusive behavior in dating relationships. J Interpers Violence 2006;21 (9) 1191- 1207
PubMed Link to Article
Hamby  SL Measuring gender differences in partner violence: implications from research on other forms of violent and socially undesirable behavior. Sex Roles 2005;52 (11-12) 725- 742
Link to Article
Arias  ICorso  P Average cost per person victimized by an intimate partner of the opposite gender: a comparison of men and women. Violence Vict 2005;20 (4) 379- 391
PubMed Link to Article
Stets  JEStraus  MA Gender differences in reporting marital violence and its medical and psychological consequences. Straus  MAGelles  RJPhysical Violence in American Families Risk Factors and Adaptations to Violence in 8,145 Families. New Brunswick, NJ Transaction Publishers1992;151- 165
Tjaden  PThoennes  N Prevalence and consequences of male-to-female and female-to-male intimate partner violence as measured by the National Violence Against Women Survey. Violence Against Women 2000;6 (2) 142- 161
Link to Article
Feiring  C Concepts of romance in 15-year-old adolescents. J Res Adolesc 1996;6 (2) 181- 200
Pines  AM A prospective study of personality and gender differences in romantic attraction. Pers Individ Dif 1998;25 (1) 147- 157
Link to Article
Shulman  SScharf  M Adolescent romantic behaviors and perceptions: age- and gender-related differences, and links with family and peer relationships. J Res Adolesc 2000;10 (1) 99- 118
Link to Article
Silverman  JGDecker  MRReed  E  et al.  Social norms and beliefs regarding sexual risk and pregnancy involvement among adolescent males treated for dating violence perpetration. J Urban Health 2006;83 (4) 723- 735
PubMed Link to Article
Archer  J Assessment of the reliability of the Conflict Tactics Scales: a meta-analytic review. J Interpers Violence 1999;14 (12) 1263- 1289
Link to Article
Sugarman  DBHotaling  GT Intimate violence and social desirability: a meta-analytic review. J Interpers Violence 1997;12 (2) 275- 290
Link to Article
Riggs  DSMurphy  CMO’Leary  KD Intentional falsification in reports of interpartner aggression. J Interpers Violence 1989;4 (2) 220- 232
Link to Article

Figures

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 1.

Prevalence of violence victimization by age. Forty-eight victims before college who did not provide an age at first victimization are excluded. *Assumed child abuse, bullying, sibling violence, and others.

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 2.

Relationship between victims and perpetrators for each type of violence. The number of responses for the victim's description of the perpetrators for physical was 64, for emotional 107, and for sexual 109. The number of responses for the perpetrators' descriptions of victims for physical was 45, for emotional 28, and for sexual 15.

Graphic Jump Location

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Description of Courses Selected, Responded, and Surveyed
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Participants' Demographic Information
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3. Victimization and Perpetration Rates Before and During College for Each Type of Violence With Comparisons by Gender
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 4. Comparison of Respondents Who Experienced Partner vs Nonpartner Violence During College

References

Gross  AMWinslett  ARoberts  MGohm  CL An examination of sexual violence against college women. Violence Against Women 2006;12 (3) 288- 300
PubMed Link to Article
Tjaden  PThoennes  N Full Report of the Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Violence Against Women: Findings From the National Violence Against Women Survey: Research Report.  Washington, DC National Institute of Justice, US Dept of Justice November2000;Report NCJ 183781
Rennison  CM Intimate Partner Violence and Age of Victim, 1993-99.  Washington, DC Bureau of Justice Statistics, US Dept of Justice2001;Report NCJ 187635
Thompson  RSBonomi  AEAnderson  M  et al.  Intimate partner violence: prevalence, types, and chronicity in adult women. Am J Prev Med 2006;30 (6) 447- 457
PubMed Link to Article
Makepeace  JM Courtship violence among college students. Fam Relat 1981;30 (1) 97- 102
Link to Article
Smith  PHWhite  JWHolland  LJ A longitudinal perspective on dating violence among adolescent and college-age women. Am J Public Health 2003;93 (7) 1104- 1109
PubMed Link to Article
Amar  AFGennaro  S Dating violence in college women: associated physical injury, healthcare usage, and mental health symptoms. Nurs Res 2005;54 (4) 235- 242
PubMed Link to Article
Banyard  VLArnold  SSmith  J Childhood sexual abuse and dating experiences of undergraduate women. Child Maltreat 2000;5 (1) 39- 48
PubMed Link to Article
Rickert  VIWiemann  CVaughan  RWhite  J Rates and risk factors for sexual violence among an ethnically diverse sample of adolescents. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2004;158 (12) 1132- 1139
PubMed Link to Article
Orcutt  HKGarcia  MPickett  S Female-perpetrated intimate partner violence and romantic attachment style in a college student sample. Violence Vict 2005;20 (3) 287- 302
PubMed Link to Article
Lewis  SFTravea  LFremouw  W Characteristics of female perpetrators and victims of dating violence. Violence Vict 2002;17 (5) 593- 606
PubMed Link to Article
DuRant  RChampion  HWolfson  M  et al.  Date fighting experiences among college students: are they associated with other health-risk behaviors? J Am Coll Health 2007;55 (5) 291- 296
PubMed Link to Article
Halpern  CTOslak  SGYoung  MLMartin  SLKupper  LL Partner violence among adolescents in opposite-sex romantic relationships: findings from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. Am J Public Health 2001;91 (10) 1679- 1685
PubMed Link to Article
Whitaker  DJHaileyesus  TSwahn  MSaltzman  LS Differences in frequency of violence and reported injury between relationships with reciprocal and nonreciprocal intimate partner violence. Am J Public Health 2007;97 (5) 941- 947
PubMed Link to Article
Straus  MARamirez  IL Gender symmetry in prevalence, severity, and chronicity of physical aggression against dating partners by university students in Mexico and USA. Aggress Behav 2007;33 (4) 281- 290
PubMed Link to Article
Cercone  JJBeach  SArias  I Gender symmetry in dating intimate partner violence: does similar behavior imply similar constructs? Violence Vict 2005;20 (2) 207- 218
PubMed Link to Article
White  JWKoss  M Courtship violence: incidence in a national sample of higher education students. Violence Vict 1991;6 (4) 247- 256
PubMed
Arias  ISamios  MO’Leary  KD Prevalence and correlates of physical aggression during courtship. J Interpers Violence 1987;2 (1) 82- 90
Link to Article
Waldner-Haugrud  LKMagruder  B Male and female sexual victimization in dating relationships: gender differences in coercion techniques and outcomes. Violence Vict 1995;10 (3) 203- 215
PubMed
Harned  MS Abused women or abused men? an examination of the context and outcomes of dating violence. Violence Vict 2001;16 (3) 269- 285
PubMed
American College Health Association, American College Health Association National College Health Assessment Spring 2006 Reference Group data report (abridged). J Am Coll Health 2007;55 (4) 195- 206
PubMed Link to Article
Fiebert  MSGonzalez  DM College women who initiate assaults on their male partners and the reasons offered for such behavior. Psychol Rep 1997;80 (2) 583- 590
PubMed Link to Article
Tontodonato  PCrew  B Dating violence, social learning theory, and gender: a multivariate analysis. Violence Vict 1992;7 (1) 3- 14
PubMed
Marshall  LLRose  P Family of origin violence and courtship abuse. J Couns Dev 1988;66 (9) 414- 418
Link to Article
Follingstad  DRBradley  RGLaughlin  JEBurke  L Risk factors and correlates of dating violence: the relevance of examining frequency and severity levels in a college sample. Violence Vict 1999;14 (4) 365- 380
PubMed
Makepeace  JM Gender differences in courtship violence victimization. Fam Relat 1986;35 (3) 383- 388
Link to Article
Luthra  RGidycz  CA Dating violence among college men and women: evaluation of a theoretical model. J Interpers Violence 2006;21 (6) 717- 731
PubMed Link to Article
Riggs  DSO’Leary  KDBreslin  FC Multiple correlates of physical aggression in dating couples. J Interpers Violence 1990;5 (1) 61- 73
Link to Article
Lundeberg  KStith  SMPenn  CEWard  DB A comparison of nonviolent, psychologically violent, and physically violent male college daters. J Interpers Violence 2004;19 (10) 1191- 1200
PubMed Link to Article
Catalano  S Intimate partner violence in the United States. 2006;http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/intimate/ipv.htm. Accessed November 9, 2007
Banyard  VLCross  CModecki  KL Interpersonal violence in adolescence: ecological correlates of self-reported perpetration. J Interpers Violence 2006;21 (10) 1314- 1332
PubMed Link to Article
Howard  DQui  YBoekeloo  B Personal and social contextual correlates of adolescent dating violence. J Adolesc Health 2003;33 (1) 9- 17
PubMed Link to Article
Arriaga  XBFoshee  VA Adolescent dating violence: do adolescents follow in their friends’, or their parents’, footsteps? J Interpers Violence 2004;19 (2) 162- 184
PubMed Link to Article
Foshee  VABenefield  TSEnnett  STBauman  KESuchindran  C Longitudinal predictors of serious physical and sexual dating violence victimization during adolescence. Prev Med 2004;39 (5) 1007- 1016
PubMed Link to Article
Sears  HAByers  ESPrice  EL The co-occurrence of adolescent boys' and girls' use of psychologically, physically, and sexually abusive behaviours in their dating relationships. J Adolesc 2007;30 (3) 487- 504
PubMed Link to Article
Straus  MAHamby  SLBoney-McCoy  SSugarman  DB The revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2): development and preliminary psychometric data. J Fam Issues 1996;17 (3) 283- 316
Link to Article
Wolfe  DAScott  KReitzel-Jaffe  DWekerle  CGrasley  CStraatman  AL Development and validation of the Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory. Psychol Assess 2001;13 (2) 277- 293
PubMed Link to Article
SPSS Inc, SPSS for Windows 10.0.  Chicago, IL SPSS Inc1999;
Murphy  CMO’Leary  KD Psychological aggression predicts physical aggression in early marriage. J Consult Clin Psychol 1989;57 (5) 579- 582
PubMed Link to Article
Follingstad  DRRutledge  LLBerg  BJHause  ESPolek  DS The role of emotional abuse in physically abusive relationships. J Fam Violence 1990;5 (2) 107- 120
Link to Article
Ackard  DMNeumark-Sztainer  D Date violence and date rape among adolescents: associations with disordered eating behaviors and psychological health. Child Abuse Negl 2002;26 (5) 455- 473
PubMed Link to Article
Olshen  E McVeigh  KHWunsch-Hitzig  RARickert  VI Dating violence, sexual assault, and suicide attempts among urban teenagers. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2007;161 (6) 539- 545
PubMed Link to Article
Silverman  JGRaj  AMucci  LAHathaway  JE Dating violence against adolescent girls and associated substance use, unhealthy weight control, sexual risk behavior, pregnancy, and suicidality. JAMA 2001;286 (5) 572- 579
PubMed Link to Article
Eaton  DKKann  LKinchen  S  et al.  Youth risk behavior surveillance–United States, 2005. MMWR Surveill Summ 2006;55 (5) 1- 108
PubMed
Sable  MRDanis  FMauzy  DLGallagher  SK Barriers to reporting sexual assault for women and men: perspectives of college students. J Am Coll Health 2006;55 (3) 157- 162
PubMed Link to Article
Sears  HAByers  ESWhelan  JJSaint-Pierre  M “If it hurts you, then it is not a joke”: adolescents' ideas about girls' and boys' use and experience of abusive behavior in dating relationships. J Interpers Violence 2006;21 (9) 1191- 1207
PubMed Link to Article
Hamby  SL Measuring gender differences in partner violence: implications from research on other forms of violent and socially undesirable behavior. Sex Roles 2005;52 (11-12) 725- 742
Link to Article
Arias  ICorso  P Average cost per person victimized by an intimate partner of the opposite gender: a comparison of men and women. Violence Vict 2005;20 (4) 379- 391
PubMed Link to Article
Stets  JEStraus  MA Gender differences in reporting marital violence and its medical and psychological consequences. Straus  MAGelles  RJPhysical Violence in American Families Risk Factors and Adaptations to Violence in 8,145 Families. New Brunswick, NJ Transaction Publishers1992;151- 165
Tjaden  PThoennes  N Prevalence and consequences of male-to-female and female-to-male intimate partner violence as measured by the National Violence Against Women Survey. Violence Against Women 2000;6 (2) 142- 161
Link to Article
Feiring  C Concepts of romance in 15-year-old adolescents. J Res Adolesc 1996;6 (2) 181- 200
Pines  AM A prospective study of personality and gender differences in romantic attraction. Pers Individ Dif 1998;25 (1) 147- 157
Link to Article
Shulman  SScharf  M Adolescent romantic behaviors and perceptions: age- and gender-related differences, and links with family and peer relationships. J Res Adolesc 2000;10 (1) 99- 118
Link to Article
Silverman  JGDecker  MRReed  E  et al.  Social norms and beliefs regarding sexual risk and pregnancy involvement among adolescent males treated for dating violence perpetration. J Urban Health 2006;83 (4) 723- 735
PubMed Link to Article
Archer  J Assessment of the reliability of the Conflict Tactics Scales: a meta-analytic review. J Interpers Violence 1999;14 (12) 1263- 1289
Link to Article
Sugarman  DBHotaling  GT Intimate violence and social desirability: a meta-analytic review. J Interpers Violence 1997;12 (2) 275- 290
Link to Article
Riggs  DSMurphy  CMO’Leary  KD Intentional falsification in reports of interpartner aggression. J Interpers Violence 1989;4 (2) 220- 232
Link to Article

Correspondence

CME
Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Submit a Comment

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Web of Science® Times Cited: 16

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles