Aggression and Violent Behavior 40 (2018) 19–28

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Aggression and Violent Behavior

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/aggviobeh

The power of family and community factors in predicting dating violence: A T

meta-analysis
⁎
Sihyun Parka, Sin-Hyang Kimb,
a
Department of Nursing, Inha University, Incheon 22212, South Korea
b
Chung-Ang University, Seoul 06980, South Korea

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Dating violence (DV) has been well-documented as one of the serious public health problems leading various
Intimate partner violence negative health consequences, such as physical injury, posttraumatic stress disorder, depression, anxiety, sui-
Dating violence cidal ideation and so on. Many factors predicting DV have been already identified; however, few papers pre-
Perpetration sented the predicting power of those factors. Therefore, this study aims to identify the power of family- and
Victimization
community-related factors in predicting the perpetration and victimization of DV and to determine the strongest
Risk factor
risk factors using a meta-analysis. Through a rigorous search procedure, a total of 131 correlates of DV perpe-
Meta-analysis
trators and 139 correlates of DV victims were identified in 27 studies. The results showed that “having deviant
peers” was the strongest risk factor of DV perpetration, whereas “witnessing parental violence” was the strongest
risk factor of DV victimization. Also, we found that the risk factors were more powerful predictors of DV per-
petrators and victims than were the protective factors. Findings from this study provided valuable evidence to
identify DV victimization and perpetration, and to develop intervention strategies preventing DV.

1. Introduction Eshelman & Levendosky, 2012; Kamimura, Nourian, Assasnik, &

Dating violence (DV), also called “dating abuse” or “dating ag-
gression,” can be defined as aggression in a dating relationship, and
comprises various forms of violence, including physical/emotional
violence, sexual coercion, verbal abuse, stalking, or threatening beha-
viors. While the definition does not specify the age of those involved,
many researchers have focused on teens and young adults when ex-
amining DV and its related issues (Lewis & Fremouw, 2001). According
to data from 2013, about 10% of high school students in the US re-
ported experiencing physical violence, perpetrated by their dating
partner, in the last year, while another 10% had experienced sexual
violence (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2016).
Furthermore, more recent longitudinal research (Richards, Branch, &
Ray, 2014) showed that 22% of youth have engaged in physical vio-
lence towards their partners, whereas 16% reported being the victims of
such violence by their partners. Moreover, 34% of youth reported en-
gaging in emotional DV, and 39% reported being the victims of such
violence.
The evidence suggests that DV is a serious ongoing problem that can
have diverse, devastating results for victims, such as physical injury,
posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, anxiety, substance
abuse, and suicidal ideation (Ely, Nugent, Cerel, & Vimbba, 2011;
Franchek-Roa, 2016; Reidy et al., 2016; Swahn, Bossarte, & Sullivent
3rd., 2008). Moreover, DV during adolescence or young adulthood
might lead to engagement in intimate partner violence (IPV) or do-
mestic violence in adulthood (Furman, Brown, & Feiring, 1999).
Many researchers have tried to understand the various risk factors
associated with the perpetration and victimization of DV in order to
predict those most at risk of violence in intimate relationships and
thereby devise measures for preventing DV or minimizing its con-
sequences. The environment is a particularly important factor for one's
development, and many previous studies have focused on the en-
vironmental circumstances of perpetrators and victims during devel-
opment. The environmental factors most often considered are those
related to families and parents (Gover, Jennings, Tomsich, Park, &
Rennison, 2011; Maas, Fleming, Herrenkohl, & Catalano, 2010;
Madruga, Viana, Abdalla, Caetano, & Laranjeira, 2017), although some
studies have considered factors related to the communities to which
participants belonged (Giordano, Kaufman, Manning, & Longmore,
2015; Johnson, Parker, Rinehart, Nail, & Rothman, 2015). It seems
reasonable to suggest that both family and community constitute the
environment where individuals learn how to behave or interact with
others, and this assumption accords with the ecological model
(Bronfenbrenner, 1986, 1994). Bronfenbrenner (1986, 1994) referred

⁎
Corresponding author at: Red Cross College of Nursing, Chung-Ang University, 84 Heukseok-Ro, Dongjak-Gu, Building 103, Seoul 06974, South Korea.
E-mail addresses: spark@inha.ac.kr (S. Park), k.nurse000@gmail.com (S.-H. Kim).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2018.03.002
Received 24 July 2017; Received in revised form 28 February 2018; Accepted 5 March 2018
Available online 07 March 2018
1359-1789/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 S. Park, S.-H. Kim

Table 1
Included studies and quality appraisal.

Authors (year) Perpetrators/victims Target populations/mean age of the subjects Measurements Region of conducting study Quality appraisal

Banyard, Cross, and Modecki (2006) Perpetrators Teenagers/age range 11–19] Youth risk behavior survey USA 3
Chang et al. (2015) Perpetrators Teenagers/[grade between 8–12] Foshee et al. (1996) USA 3.5
Chiodo et al. (2012) Perpetrators Teenagers/13.79 Conflict in Adolescent Relationship Inventory (CADRI) Canada 4
De Puy, Hamby, and Lindemuth (2014) Perpetrators/victims Teenagers/17.75 National survey Switzerland 4
Edwards, Desai, Gidycz, and Vanwynsberghe (2009) Victims Adults/18.54 Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2) USA 2.5
Ely, Nugent, Cerel, and Vimbba (2011) Victims Teenagers & adults/18.7 Conflict in Adolescent Relationship Inventory (CADRI) USA 2.5
Fineran and Bolen (2006) Perpetrators/victims Teenagers/15.9 Self-developed tool USA 2
Foshee, Ennett, Bauman, Benefield, and Suchindran (2005) Perpetrators Teenagers/13.8 Foshee et al. (1996) USA 3
Herrera, Wiersma, and Cleveland (2008) Perpetrators Adults/22 Self-developed tool USA 3
Jouriles et al. (2012) Perpetrators Teenagers/15.9 Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2) USA 3.5
Leadbeater, Banister, Ellis, and Yeung (2008) Victims Teenagers/15.05 Self-developed tool Canada 3
Linder and Collins (2005) Perpetrators/victims Teenagers & adults/20.59 Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2) USA 4

20
Melançon and Gagné (2011) Perpetrators Teenagers/14.2 Lavoie and Vezina (2002) Canada 4
Palazzolo, Roberto, and Babin (2010) Victims Adults/20.16 Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2) USA 3
Rivera and Fincham (2015) Perpetrators/victims Adults/19.45 Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2) USA 4
Sabina (2013) Perpetrators Adults/21.5 Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2) USA 2.5
Schnurr, Mahatmya, and Basche (2013) Perpetrators Adults/20.17 Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2) USA 3
Sears, Byers, and Price (2007) Perpetrators/victims Teenagers/14.64 Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2) Canada 3
Shen (2014) Victims Adults/21 Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2) Taiwan 3
Simons, Burt, and Simons (2008) Perpetrators Adults/19.5 Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2) USA 3
Simons, Simons, Lei, Hancock, and Fincham (2012) Victims Adults/19.5 Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2) USA 3
Sutton, Simons, Wickrama, and Futris (2014) Perpetrators/Victims Adults/[age below 25 (age was not collected)] Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2) USA 3
Vézina et al. (2011) Victims Teenagers/15 Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2) Canada 4
Windle and Mrug (2009) Perpetrators/victims Teenagers/14.14 Foshee et al. (1996) USA 3
Yahner, Dank, Zweig, and Lachman (2015) Victims Teenagers/15 Foshee et al. (1996) USA 3
Yalch, Lannert, Hopwood, and Levendosky (2013) Victims Adults/19.86 Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2) USA 2.5
Yarkovsky and Timmons Fritz (2014) Victims Adults/20.76 Conflict in Adolescent Relationship Inventory (CADRI) Canada 3

The full citations of the included studies are provided on the reference lists with asterisk (*).
Aggression and Violent Behavior 40 (2018) 19–28
S. Park, S.-H. Kim
Search PubMed (n= 371), Web of Science (n= 455), and SCOPUS (n= 40)
Filter: providing full-text & written in English
Scanning the
abstracts
84 studies remained (PubMed (n=34), Web of Science (n=43), and SCOPUS (n=7))
Screening the
studies in detail
42 studies remained
Studies examined Family and Community-related
correlates were extracted
131 correlates of perpetrators and 139 correlates of
victims from 27 studies were included for the
analysis.
Fig. 1. Flow diagram of study selection.
to the environment that includes the family, school, peer group, and
workplace as a “microsystem.” This microsystem is where teens and
young adults spend most of their time and where most of their social
interactions and daily activities occur, and thus naturally is where they
learn and model the behaviors of others.
As noted previously, the majority of developmental researchers
examining violence in dating relationships have attended to the par-
ental and familial contributions (Linder & Collins, 2005). Gover et al.
(2011), for example, showed that having a history of childhood mal-
treatment was one of the key risk factors of the perpetration and vic-
timization of physical and psychological DV. In addition, Maas et al.
(2010) reported that female adolescents' degree of bonding with their
parents played a protective role against DV victimization. Other re-
searchers attempted to link the onset of violent behaviors with the so-
cial learning of aggressive behaviors of parents, insecure attachment
due to poor-quality parenting, and the negative interactions and re-
lationships between parents and offspring (Linder & Collins, 2005).
Despite multiple studies investigating the contributions of family
factors to DV in various samples, it remains, as far as we understand,
21
Aggression and Violent Behavior 40 (2018) 19–28
Duplicates & unrelated studies
(n=782) removed
Study excluded (n=42)
Reasons
-Does not show correlate coefficient
(Pearson’s r) between the variables
and DV (n=4)
-Experimental studies (e.g. RCT)
(n=2)
-Dependent variables were not TDV
(n=19)
-About the violence issues in
married couples (n=5)
-Scale development (n=3)
-no DV variable exists (n=9)
unclear which familial factors contribute most to DV perpetration or
victimization. Additionally, although the contributions of community-
related factors have been relatively neglected, there have been several
researches predicting one's DV perpetrating or victimizing in terms of
his/her peer relations, friendship quality, school attachment, or
neighborhood atmosphere (Chang, Foshee, McNaughton Reyes, Ennett,
& Halpern, 2015; Johnson et al., 2015; Linder & Collins, 2005).
Nonetheless, at present, there is much less evidence for their involve-
ment compared to family-related factors (Linder & Collins, 2005).
Therefore, the current study presents the predictive power of fa-
mily- and community-related factors for the perpetration and victimi-
zation of DV, and seeks to determine the strongest risk factors within
each domain using a meta-analysis. The specific objectives were to (1)
systematically review familial and community factors related to DV
perpetration and victimization; (2) present the combined predictive
power of the family and community domains for DV perpetration and
victimization; (3) identify the predictive powers of specific factors
within the family and community domains; and (4) determine the
strongest factor contributing to DV perpetration and victimization. In
S. Park, S.-H. Kim Aggression and Violent Behavior 40 (2018) 19–28

Table 2
Superordinate factors and the allocated correlates.

Domains Superordinate factors Allocated correlates (variables)

Family Family relationship problems
Family structure
Positive parenting
Family dissolution
Negative parenting
Witnessing IPV
Childhood maltreatment
Fear of family violence
Social economic status
Parents' level of education
Community Bullying
Deviant peers
Positive friendship
Grade
School attachment
Neighborhood support
Neighborhood hazards
Family fighting, family hurtful behaviors, family relationship problems
Live with father, family structure
Interparental warmth, parental warmth, maternal warmth, paternal warmth, parental monitoring, maternal support, paternal
support, communication with parents, perceived parental support
Single-parent household, parental divorce
Parental harsh discipline, parental inconsistent discipline, parent–child negative interactions at age 13, parent–child boundary
violations at age 13, maternal hostility, paternal hostility, hostile parenting, parents' low trust/support, parental rejection, harsh
parenting lifetime breadth, harsh parenting recent frequency
Experienced mother-perpetrated interpersonal violence, witnessing of partner violence (between parents), experienced mother-
perpetrated, experienced father-perpetrated, witnessing parental violence, hitting with intention of harm (between parents)
Childhood physical abuse, childhood sexual abuse, maternal verbal abuse, maternal physical abuse, paternal verbal abuse, paternal
physical abuse, childhood exposure to family violence, childhood physical maltreatment, perceived mother verbal aggression, self-
report mother verbal aggression, perceived father verbal aggression, self-report father verbal aggression, mothers' psychological
control, fathers' psychological control, abusive parenting, childhood family violence, current maternal psychological violence,
current paternal psychological violence, mother corporal punishment, father corporal punishment
Fear of family violence
Family income, economic disadvantage, residential instability, parent's income
Parental knowledge, parental education, mother education
Any bullying (perpetration and victimization), physical/psychological/cyber bullying (perpetration and victimization)
Deviant peers, deviant peer affiliation, destructive disagreement beliefs
Friendship quality composite at age 16
Grade
School attachment, school support, GPA
Neighborhood physical disorder, neighborhood collective efficacy, neighborhood support, neighborhood monitoring
Neighborhood hazards, ethnic heterogeneity

the current study, DV was defined as dating violence occurred in teen
and young adults before marriage. Also, the family domain included
factors related to parents, family, and childhood experiences, whereas
the community domain included factors related to peers, school, and
the neighborhood.
2. Methods
2.1. Design and procedure
This study was a systematic review and meta-analysis guided by the
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis
checklist (PRISMA). The PubMed, Web of Science, and SCOPUS data-
bases were searched for relevant studies. The search terms used were
combinations of “dating AND (violence OR aggression OR abuse)” and
“intimate partner violence.” The final day of searching was December 1,
2016, and all papers published up to 2016 were included in this study.
In total, 371 articles from PubMed, 455 from Web of Science, and 40
from SCOPUS were found. After removing duplicate studies, we per-
formed two steps to select relevant articles. First, two research assis-
tants (RAs) scanned the abstracts of the identified articles and selected
articles that focused on DV issues; this process yielded 84 articles.
Second, we conducted a screening process, whereby the corresponding
author of this study and two RAs read the full texts of all 84 articles in
detail. The studies were included if they identified family or community
factors related to DV (including physical, emotional, and sexual DV)
using correlation coefficients (Pearson's r). The participants in these
studies had to be teens or unmarried young adults. Studies were ex-
cluded if they were qualitative, scale-development, or experimental
studies. Additionally, because this study dealt with DV only in teens and
young adults, we excluded all studies dealing with domestic violence in
married couples who have children. In terms of outcome measure-
ments, we included studies using validated tools with high Cronbach's
alpha coefficients. The measurements used in these studies are listed in
Table 1. After applying the exclusion/inclusion criteria, 27 studies re-
mained. Then, we extracted 131 correlates of DV perpetrators and 139
correlates of DV victims from 27 studies and coded. The included stu-
dies are listed in Table 1, and the search procedure is illustrated in
Fig. 1.
2.2. Quality appraisal
The quality of the included studies was screened using the criteria
for correlational studies suggested by Thompson, Diamond, Mcwilliam,
Snyder, and Snyder (2005). There are four specific criteria: using reli-
able and validate measurements, presenting practical and clinical sig-
nificance, avoiding common analytical errors, and using confidence
intervals. Two authors of this study assessed the quality of the studies
by giving one point for each criterion present (for a maximum of 4
points). The authors conducted the scoring separately and averaged the
results later; the findings are listed in Table 1. Although we intended to
exclude studies that received a score below 2, none of the studies did so.
The mean quality score for the included studies was 3.15.
2.3. Data analysis
Data extraction and coding were performed independently by two
RAs. The extracted data included the titles, authors, and publication
years of the studies; participant characteristics (mean ages and gender);
correlates of DV; correlation coefficients; dependent variables (DV
perpetration or DV victimization); forms of violence; DV measurement;
and sample sizes. Later, the results between the two RAs were matched.
Then, two authors of this study cross-checked the accuracy of the ex-
tracted and coded data together.
The data synthesis was then conducted. The 131 and 139 correlates
of DV perpetrators and victims from the 27 studies were grouped into
four categories: (1) family-related factors predicting DV perpetration,
(2) community-related factors predicting DV perpetration, (3) family-
related factors predicting DV victimization, and (4) community-related
factors predicting DV victimization. Within each category, related
correlates were grouped into superordinate factors. For instance,
“childhood physical abuse”, “childhood sexual abuse” and “maternal
physical abuse” were grouped under the factor “childhood maltreat-
ment.” All the superordinate factors and allocated correlates were listed
in Table 2. Two authors performed this process separately and later
matched the results, and discussed any disagreements until 100%
agreement was reached.
All correlation coefficients between the factors and DV perpetration
and victimization were then transformed into Fisher's z-scores.

22
S. Park, S.-H. Kim
a)
b)
Fig. 2. Funnel plots to determine publication bias.
Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software was used to calculate the effect
sizes using inverse-variance and sample size weights.
Publication bias was evaluated using funnel plots and Egger's re-
gression test. The funnel plots are illustrated in Fig. 2, and the plots
seemed to be symmetrical. Egger's test statistically confirmed the
symmetry of these funnel plots, thus indicating no evidence of pub-
lication bias in the included studies at the 5% significance level (per-
petration: intercept 0.42, p = 0.43; victimization: intercept 0.56,
p = 0.1). In addition, random-effect models were used not only because
there was heterogeneity between the studies, as identified by Q and I2
statistics (perpetration: Q = 1441.21, I2 = 90.84; victimization:
Q = 870.55, I2 = 84.15), but also because we assumed that the in-
cluded studies would not be homogeneous in terms of population
parameters.
3. Results
3.1. Description of included studies
In total, 27 studies were included in the analysis. The studies were
published from 2005 to 2016. Ten studies dealt only with DV
23
Aggression and Violent Behavior 40 (2018) 19–28
perpetrators, while another ten dealt only with DV victims. The re-
maining seven examined both DV perpetrators and victims. Study
participants were all teens and young adults, with mean ages ranging
from 13.79 to 22. Sample size ranges from 88 to 5647. Regions of
conducting studies are listed in Table 1, and majority of the included
studies were conducted in North America. To measure DV, the included
studies used validated and reliable measurement tools, including the
Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, &
Sugarman, 1996), Conflict in Adolescent Relationship Inventory (Wolfe
et al., 2001), and Foshee's tool (Foshee et al., 1996).
3.2. The predictive power of family and community for DV perpetration and
victimization
To calculate the overall effect sizes of the identified factors, we
converted the effect sizes into absolute values. The overall effect size of
DV perpetration was ESr = 0.167 [0.15, 0.18], p < 0.001, and that of
DV victimization was ESr = 0.179 [0.17, 0.19], p < 0.001, which were
medium effect sizes according to Cohen (1992). For DV perpetration,
the effect sizes of family- and community-related factors were both
ESr = 0.167 [both 0.14, 0.19], p < 0.001. For DV victimization, the
S. Park, S.-H. Kim Aggression and Violent Behavior 40 (2018) 19–28

a) Family-related factors

Group by Study name Statistics for each study Fisher's Z and 95% CI
middle
Fisher's Standard Lower Upper
Z error limit limit Total
1. Family relationship problems 0.359 0.051 0.259 0.459
2 . Fa m i l y s t ru ctu re -0 . 1 0 5 0 .0 6 5 -0 . 2 3 2 0 .0 2 2
3 . Fa m i l y d i ssol u ti o n 0 .0 9 5 0 .0 5 0 -0 . 0 0 2 0 .1 9 3
4 . Po si ti ve p a re n ti n g -0 . 1 5 1 0 .0 3 4 -0 . 2 1 8 -0 . 0 8 5
5 . Ne g a ti ve p a re n ti n g 0 .2 1 4 0 .0 3 1 0 .1 5 2 0 .2 7 5
6 . Wi t n e ssi n g I P V 0 .2 5 1 0 .0 3 3 0 .1 8 6 0 .3 1 7
7 . Ch i l d h o o d m a l t re a tm e n t 0 .1 3 8 0 .0 3 1 0 .0 7 8 0 .1 9 7
8 . Fe a r o f Fa m i l y V i o l e n ce 0 .2 1 9 0 .0 4 5 0 .1 3 0 0 .3 0 8
9 . Pa re n t s' l e ve l o f e d u ca ti o n -0 . 0 5 9 0 .0 4 2 -0 . 1 4 1 0 .0 2 4
9 . SE S -0 . 0 8 6 0 .0 3 1 -0 . 1 4 8 -0 . 0 2 5

-0.50 -0.25 0.00 0.25 0.50

b) Community-related factors

Group by Study name Statistics for each study Fisher's Z and 95% CI
middle
Fisher's Standard Lower Upper
Z error limit limit Total
1. Bully ing 0.171 0.011 0.150 0.193
2. D ev iant peer s 0.456 0.034 0.389 0.523
3. Positiv e f r iends hip - 0.236 0.073 - 0.380 - 0.093
4. Gr ade 0.142 0.030 0.083 0.201
5. Sc hool attac hment - 0.118 0.028 - 0.173 - 0.063
6. Neighbor hood haz ar ds 0.130 0.031 0.070 0.191
7. Neighbor hood s uppor t - 0.084 0.020 - 0.122 - 0.045

-0.50 -0.25 0.00 0.25 0.50

Fig. 3. Effect sizes of the correlates of dating violence perpetrators.

effect size of family-related factors was ESr = 0.173 [0.15, 0.20],
p < 0.001, whereas that of community-related factors was ESr = 0.188
[0.17, 0.21], p < 0.001.
3.3. Specific factors predicting DV perpetration and victimization
3.3.1. Family-related factors predicting teen dating violence perpetration
Ten factors in total were related to DV perpetration, and these are
listed in Fig. 3a and as follows: family relationship problems, family
structure (cohabiting parent types), family dissolution, positive par-
enting, negative parenting, witnessing IPV between their parents,
childhood maltreatment, fear of family violence, parents' level of edu-
cation, and socioeconomic status (SES)
Among these factors, family relationship problems, negative par-
enting, witnessing IPV between their parents, childhood maltreatment,
and fear of family violence positively predicted children's later DV
perpetration. Family relationship problems (ESr = 0.359) showed the
highest effect size among these factors, indicating that it had the
strongest contribution to children's later DV perpetration. Then, in
descending order of effect size (all of which were medium), witnessing
IPV (ESr = 0.251), fear of family violence (ESr = 0.219), negative
parenting (ESr = 0.214), and childhood maltreatment (ESr = 0.138)
showed significant associations with DV perpetration.
On the other hand, several factors exhibited negative associations
with DV perpetration, and thus could be considered protective factors
against individual becoming DV perpetrators: family structure, positive
parenting, parents' level of education, and SES. In particular, positive
parenting, including parental support and monitoring as well as good
communication with parents, had the highest effect sizes among the
protective factors (ESr = −0.151). Higher SES (ESr = −0.086) also
showed significant negative associations with later DV perpetration;
however, the effect sizes were small. Unbroken family structure
(ESr = −0.105) and parents' level of education (ESr = −0.059)
showed a small effect size, but those were not statistically significant.
Overall, the powers of those protective factors were generally weaker
than were those of the risk factors.
3.3.2. Community-related factors predicting teen dating violence
perpetration
In total, seven community-related factors were identified (Fig. 3b)
that had significant associations with DV perpetration: bullying, de-
viant peers, positive friendship, grade, school attachment, neighbor-
hood hazards, and neighborhood support. Among those factors, bul-
lying, deviant peers, grade, and neighborhood hazards showed
significant positive association with DV perpetration. Having deviant
peers had the highest effect size (indicating a very large effect) among
the factors (ESr = 0.456). Bullying (ESr = 0.171), neighborhood ha-
zards (ESr = 0.130) and grade (ESr = 0.053) showed medium and
small effect sizes, respectively.
Positive friendship, school attachment and neighborhood support
were protective factors against DV perpetration. Positive friendship
showed a large effect size, and it was the highest effect size among these
protective factors (ESr = −0.236), followed by school attachment and
neighborhood support, which showing medium and small effect sizes,
respectively (ESr = −0.118 and −0.084).
3.3.3. Family-related factors predicting teen dating violence victimization
A total of nine family-related factors were associated with DV vic-
timization (Fig. 4a): family relationship problems, family structure
(cohabiting parent types), positive parenting, negative parenting, wit-
nessing IPV between their parents, childhood maltreatment, fear of
family violence, parents' level of education, and SES. The factors were
similar to those of DV perpetrators except for family dissolution.
However, there were notable differences in terms of predictive power.

24
S. Park, S.-H. Kim Aggression and Violent Behavior 40 (2018) 19–28

a) Family-related factors

Study name Group by Statistics for each study Fisher's Z and 95% CI
Middle
Fisher's Standard Lower Upper
Z error limit limit Total
1. Family relationship problems 0.356 0.038 0.283 0.430 3184
2. Family structure -0.111 0.080 -0.267 0.045 264
3. Positive parenting -0.173 0.026 -0.224 -0.122 8455
4. Negative parenting 0.236 0.024 0.188 0.284 6932
5. Witnessing IPV 0.476 0.061 0.356 0.596 527
6. Childhood maltreatment 0.112 0.013 0.086 0.138 19368
7. Fear of Family Violence 0.241 0.037 0.169 0.314 1899
8 . SES -0 .151 0 .0 5 5 -0 .26 0 -0.04 3 7 49
9. Parents' level of education 0.080 0.058 -0.034 0.195 1100

-0.50 -0.25 0.00 0.25 0.50

b) Community-related factors

Study nameGroup by Statistics for each study Fisher's Z and 95% CI

Middle
Fisher's Standard Lower Upper
Z error limit limit Total
1. Bully ing 0.163 0.003 0.157 0.169 112940
2. Deviant peers 0.265 0.019 0.228 0.302 2827
3. Positive friendship -0.299 0.065 -0.427 -0.172 242
4. Gr ade 0.226 0.023 0.181 0.271 1899
5. Neighborhood hazards 0.227 0.021 0.186 0.267 2338

-0.50 -0.25 0.00 0.25 0.50

Fig. 4. Effect sizes of the correlates of dating violence victims.

In DV victimization, witnessing IPV between their parents
(ESr = 0.476) was the strongest factor predicting children's DV victi-
mization, showing a very large effect size. This was followed by family
relationship problems (ESr = 0.356), fear of family violence
(ESr = 0.241), negative parenting (ESr = 0.236), and childhood mal-
treatment (ESr = 0.112), which all showed large to medium effect
sizes. In terms of the protective factors for DV victimization, positive
parenting (ESr = −0.173) had the highest effect size, as with DV per-
petration. Additionally, high SES (ESr = −0.151) showed a negative
association with DV victimization, although the effect size was small.
The effect sizes of family structure and parents' level of education were
not statistically significant.
(including teenagers and adults), we found that there were significant
moderating effects of age groups on the effect sizes (perpetration:
p = 0.026; victimization: p < 0.001). Specifically, in terms of DV
perpetration, mixed group (ESr = 0.238) showed highest relation with
the factors and this was followed by adult (ESr = 0.220) and teenager
group (ESr = 0.153). In terms of DV victimization, mixed group
(ESr = 0.250) again showed highest relation and it was followed by
teenager (ESr = 0.202) and adult group (ESr = 0.145). Thus, the pre-
dicting factors of DV perpetration were relatively greater important to
adult group, whereas those of DV victimization were more important to
teenager group.

3.3.4. Community-related factors predicting teen dating violence
victimization
There were five community-related factors significantly associated
with DV victimization: bullying, deviant peers, positive relationship,
grade, and neighborhood hazard. Similar with the DV perpetration,
deviant peers (ESr = 0.265) had the strongest association with DV
victimization. In addition, neighborhood hazards (ESr = 0.227), grade
(ESr = 0.226), and bullying (ESr = 0.163) were significantly and po-
sitively associated with DV victimization. Positive friendship
(ESr = −0.299) was the only protective factor against DV victimiza-
tion, showing a medium effect size.
3.4. Moderating effects of gender and age
A meta-analysis of variance (meta-ANOVA) was performed to ex-
amine the potential moderating effects of gender and age. We found
that the effect sizes were not influenced by gender (perpetration:
p = 0.47; victimization: p = 0.2). However, when categorizing the in-
cluded studies into three groups by the ages of their target popula-
tions—teenager (below 18), adult (18 and above) and mixed group
4. Discussion
For this study, we performed a meta-analysis of studies on the fac-
tors associated with DV perpetration and victimization, and determined
the predictive power of family- and community-related factors for DV.
Most previous empirical research has focused more on exploring the
contributions of childhood experiences to later violent behaviors
(Jennings et al., 2014; Jouriles, Mueller, Rosenfield, McDonald, &
Dodson, 2012; Linder & Collins, 2005). However, the results of this
study are meaningful in that they indicate community-related factors as
important predictors of DV victimization. In addition, we identified the
specific factors that predict both DV perpetration and victimization.
Notably, these factors were similar for perpetrators and victims. This is
unsurprising, since it has been demonstrated in previous studies that DV
victimization and perpetration are predicted by similar factors (Lewis &
Fremouw, 2001). However, this study was able to determine the
strongest predictors of DV perpetration and victimization by computing
and comparing the predictive powers of these factors. According to the
findings, the strongest factor predicting DV perpetration was “deviant
peers,” while that predicting DV victimization was “witnessing IPV
between the parents.”

25
S. Park, S.-H. Kim
Among the family-related factors, “family relationship problems”
was the strongest risk factor for DV perpetration, whereas “witnessing
IPV between the parents” was the strongest for DV victimization.
Family relationship problems include fighting or other hurtful beha-
viors among family members. While “family relationship problems”
was the strongest predictor of DV perpetration (ESr = 0.355), it showed
a similar power in predicting DV victimization (ESr = 0.356). In fact,
most of the factors showed similar effect sizes between DV perpetration
and victimization. However, “witnessing IPV between the parents”
showed a far larger effect size for DV victimization. In other words,
those who witnessed violence between their parents were more likely to
experience violence from their dating partners. This result is consistent
with a recent study conducted by Madruga et al. (2017). They reported
that children who witnessed parental violence (WPV) had a higher
likelihood of becoming victims of IPV in adulthood. They further ar-
gued that depressive symptoms mediated the direct effect of WPV on
IPV, and cautiously interpreted this phenomenon using a theoretical
perspective based on social and role learning (Bandura, 1971).
Peers and friends have strong influences on teens and young adults
in terms of DV. Specifically, children and teens seem to model the be-
haviors not only of parents but also of their peers. This coincides with
how, among the community-related factors, “deviant peers” was the
strongest predictor of DV perpetration and victimization. Nevertheless,
the predictive power of “deviant peers” was much stronger for DV
perpetration (ESr = 0.430) than for DV victimization (ESr = 0.270).
Bullying is another form of violence that often occurs among adoles-
cents. In this study, the “bullying” factor encompassed three types of
bullying experiences as either perpetrators or victims: physical bul-
lying, psychological bullying, and cyberbullying. Those who had ex-
perienced bullying were more likely to be involved in DV. Concerning
the protective factors, “positive friendship” was the strongest for both
DV perpetration (ESr = −0.236) and victimization (ESr = −0.299). In
terms of DV victimization, in particular, the roles of friends and by-
standers have been well-documented in previous literature. In general,
DV victims are more likely to disclose their victimization to friends than
to professionals or other authorities, such as police or schoolteachers
(Ashley & Foshee, 2005). Additionally, those who have heard about
their friends' DV victimization tend to react more supportively and
helpfully (Banyard, Moynihan, Walsh, Cohn, & Ward, 2010).
Moreover, the community environment seems to be a pivotal factor
in predicting DV. Our findings showed that “neighborhood hazards”
was positively associated with DV victimization, while “neighborhood
support” was negatively associated with DV perpetration. In our study,
the “neighborhood hazards” factor comprised the correlates of neigh-
borhood hazards and ethnic heterogeneity, while “neighborhood sup-
port” comprised neighborhood physical disorder, neighborhood col-
lective efficacy, neighborhood support, and neighborhood monitoring.
Our results coincide with those of Johnson et al. (2015), who conducted
a systematic review to examine neighborhood-level factors and DV and
found that perceived neighborhood disorder was associated with phy-
sical DV perpetration but not with physical DV victimization. Foshee,
Chang, McNaughton Reyes, Chen, and Ennett (2015) similarly found
that neighborhood ethnic heterogeneity was significantly related to DV
victimization; however, other factors were not related, such as neigh-
borhood economic disadvantage, social disorganization, and violence.
Thus, according to both previous and current findings, ethnic hetero-
geneity seems to be highly important for DV victimization; however,
further studies would be needed to clarify the contrary results.
Importantly, we identified both protective and risk factors influen-
cing DV victimization and perpetration. However, the current study
findings show that the risk factors generally have more power in pre-
dicting violence perpetrators and victims, whereas the protective fac-
tors had comparatively smaller effects. For instance, negative parenting
had higher effect sizes compared to positive parenting for both DV
perpetration and victimization. This may indicate that the negative
factors have a greater impact on individuals in terms of generating
26
Aggression and Violent Behavior 40 (2018) 19–28
future DV perpetrators and victims when compared to the positive
factors preventing the same. This has important implications for re-
search, particularly in the development of interventions to prevent DV
perpetration and victimization—specifically, it seems to be more im-
portant to focus on reducing or minimizing the risk factors than on
promoting or enhancing the protective factors.
Several limitations of this study should be considered. First, since
we included only the studies providing correlational coefficients
(Pearson's r) and excluded the studies providing odds ratios and qua-
litative data, we might have missed several factors associated with DV
perpetration and victimization. Second, there might be several potential
moderators of the associations between correlates and DV; however,
only gender and age groups were considered in the analysis. In terms of
the moderating effect of age, we could not conduct a meta-regression
since we could not identify the mean ages of all included studies.
Indeed, there were several studies that did not provide the mean ages of
the samples in the papers, so we contacted with the authors of those
studies and acquired the mean ages, but still we failed to contact with
several of them. Therefore, we categorized the included studies into
three groups by the age of their target populations — teenager (below
18), adult (18 and above) and mixed group (including teenagers and
adults), and conducted meta-ANOVA. However, this result should be
cautiously interpreted since there was relatively few studies having
mixed group as the sample; thus, the sample size of mixed group was
relatively small. Third, we also found that the heterogeneity of the in-
dividual study results was existed. Thus, our estimates should be in-
terpreted with caution. Finally, recent literature has introduced the
concept of bi-directional violence, or the “victim-perpetrator overlap
model,” in DV (Park & Kim, 2017). This study, unfortunately, could not
consider those models, and instead separated individuals into either
perpetrators or victims. This was because the majority of previous
studies dealing with DV followed this method of categorization. Thus,
further studies should aim to explore risk/protective markers by con-
sidering bi-directional violence in DV.
5. Conclusion
The current study systematically reviewed familial and community
factors associated with DV and identified the power of those factors to
predict DV perpetration and victimization. This study indicated that
“deviant peers” was the strongest risk factor of DV perpetration, while
“witnessing IPV between the parents” was the strongest predictive
factor of DV victimization. The findings of this study are meaningful in
terms of identifying the strongest risk factors of both perpetrators and
victims of DV. Furthermore, we found that the risk factors were more
powerful predictors of DV perpetrators and victims than were the
protective factors. Therefore, while enhancing the protective factors in
DV interventions is crucial, minimizing the risk factors seems much
more important. Finally, although family- and parent-related factors
have received more attention regarding interpersonal violence issues so
far, we know that community-related factors (e.g., school and neigh-
borhood) should also be considered for various prevention strategies.
We believe that the findings of this study provide strong evidence for
developing various interventions that aim to prevent DV.
Acknowledgement
The authors report no conflict of interest. This study is supported by
INHA University Research Grant.
Funding
This study is supported by INHA University Research Grant.
S. Park, S.-H. Kim
References
Ashley, O. S., & Foshee, V. A. (2005). Adolescent help-seeking for dating violence: pre-
valence, sociodemographic correlates, and sources of help. Journal of Adolescent
Health, 36(1), 25–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2003.12.014 (7p).
Bandura, A. (1971). Social learning theory. NY: General Learning Press.
*Banyard, V. L., Cross, C., & Modecki, K. L. (2006). Interpersonal violence in adolescence.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21(10), 1314–1332.
Banyard, V. L., Moynihan, M. M., Walsh, W. A., Cohn, E. S., & Ward, S. (2010). Friends of
survivors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25(2), 242–256.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human development:
Research perspectives. Developmental Psychology, 22(6), 723–742. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/0012-1649.22.6.723.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1994). Ecological models of human development. In M. Gauvain, &
M. Cole (Vol. Eds.), Readings on the development of children(2nd ed.). Vol. 3. Readings
on the development of children (pp. 37–43). NY: Freeman. https://doi.org/http://www.
psy.cmu.edu/~siegler/35bronfebrenner94.pdf.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2016). Teen dating violence. Retrieved
from https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention.com.
*Chang, L. Y., Foshee, V. A., McNaughton Reyes, H. L., Ennett, S. T., & Halpern, C. T.
(2015). Direct and indirect effects of neighborhood characteristics on the perpetra-
tion of dating violence across adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44(3),
727–744. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-014-0190-z.
*Chiodo, D., Crooks, C. V., Wolfe, D. A., McIsaac, C., Hughes, R., & Jaffe, P. G. (2012).
Longitudinal prediction and concurrent functioning of adolescent girls demonstrating
various profiles of dating violence and victimization. Prevention Science, 13(4),
350–359. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11121-011-0236-3.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159.
*De Puy, J., Hamby, S., & Lindemuth, C. (2014). Teen dating violence in French-speaking
Switzerland: Attitudes and experiences. International Journal of Conflict and Violence,
8(2), 305–315.
*Edwards, K. M., Desai, A. D., Gidycz, C. A., & Vanwynsberghe, A. (2009). College wo-
men's aggression in relationships: The role of childhood and adolescent victimization.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 33, 255–265.
*Ely, G. E., Nugent, W. R., Cerel, J., & Vimbba, M. (2011a). The relationship between
suicidal thinking and dating violence in a sample of adolescent abortion patients.
Crisis, 32(5), 246–253. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/0227-5910/a000082.
Ely, G. E., Nugent, W. R., Cerel, J., & Vimbba, M. (2011b). The relationship between
suicidal thinking and dating violence in a sample of adolescent abortion patients.
Crisis, 32(5), 246–253. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/0227-5910/a000082.
Eshelman, L., & Levendosky, A. A. (2012). Dating violence: mental health consequences
based on type of abuse. Violence & Victims, 27(2), 215–228.
*Fineran, S., & Bolen, R. M. (2006). Risk factors for peer sexual harassment. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 21(9), 1169–1190. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0886260506290422.
*Foshee, V. A., Chang, L. Y., McNaughton Reyes, H. L., Chen, M. S., & Ennett, S. T. (2015).
The synergy of family and neighborhood on rural dating violence victimization.
American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 49(3), 483–491. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.amepre.2015.06.005.
Foshee, V. A., Ennett, S. T., Bauman, K. E., Benefield, T., & Suchindran, C. (2005). The
association between family violence and adolescent dating violence onset: Does it
vary by race, socioeconomic status, and family structure? The Journal of Early
Adolescence, 25(3), 317–344. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0272431605277307.
Foshee, V. A., Linder, G. F., Bauman, K. E., Langwick, S. A., Heath, J. L., & McMahon, P.
M. (1996). The safe dates project: Theoretical basis, evaluation design, and selected
baseline findings. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 12(Suppl5), 39–47.
Furman, W., Brown, B. B., & Feiring, C. (1999). The development of romantic relationships in
adolescence. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Giordano, P. C., Kaufman, A., Manning, W. D., & Longmore, M. A. (2015). Teen dating
violence: The influence of friendships and school context. Sociological Focus, 48(2),
150–171. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00380237.2015.1007024.
Gover, A. R., Jennings, W. G., Tomsich, E. A., Park, M., & Rennison, C. M. (2011). The
influence of childhood maltreatment and self-control on dating violence: A compar-
ison of college students in the United States and South Korea. Violence and Victims,
26(3), 296–318.
*Herrera, V. M., Wiersma, J. D., & Cleveland, H. H. (2008). The influence of individual
and partner characteristics on the perpetration of intimate partner violence in young
adult relationships. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37(3), 284–296. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1007/s10964-007-9249-4.
Jennings, W. G., Park, M., Richards, T. N., Tomsich, E., Gover, A., & Powers, R.a. (2014).
Exploring the relationship between child physical abuse and adult dating violence
using a causal inference approach in an emerging adult population in South Korea.
Child Abuse & Neglect, 38(12), 1902–1913. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2014.
08.014.
Johnson, R. M., Parker, E. M., Rinehart, J., Nail, J., & Rothman, E. F. (2015).
Neighborhood factors and dating violence among youth: A systematic review.
American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 49(3), 458–466. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.amepre.2015.05.020.
*Jouriles, E. N., Mueller, V., Rosenfield, D., McDonald, R., & Dodson, M. C. (2012). Teens'
experiences of harsh parenting and exposure to severe intimate partner violence:
Adding insult to injury in predicting teen dating violence. Psychology of Violence, 2(2),
125–138. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0027264.
Kamimura, A., Nourian, M. M., Assasnik, N., & Franchek-Roa, K. (2016). Depression and
intimate partner violence among college students in Iran. Asian Journal of Psychiatry,
23, 51–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajp.2016.07.014.
27
Aggression and Violent Behavior 40 (2018) 19–28
Lavoie, F., & Vezina, L. (2002). Violence towards girls in the context of dating relation-
ships: Elaboration of a measure VIFFA. Canadian Journal of Mental Health, 20(1),
153–171.
*Leadbeater, B. J., Banister, E. M., Ellis, W. E., & Yeung, R. (2008). Victimization and
relational aggression in adolescent romantic relationships: The influence of parental
and peer behaviors, and individual adjustment. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,
37(3), 359–372. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-007-9269-0.
Lewis, S. F., & Fremouw, W. (2001). Dating violence. Clinical Psychology Review, 21(1),
105–127. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0272-7358(99)00042-2.
*Linder, J. R., & Collins, W. A. (2005). Parent and peer predictors of physical aggression
and conflict management in romantic relationships in early adulthood. Journal of
Family Psychology, 19(2), 252–262. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.19.2.252.
Maas, C. D., Fleming, C. B., Herrenkohl, T. I., & Catalano, R. F. (2010). Childhood pre-
dictors of teen dating violence victimization. Violence and Victims, 25(2), 131–149.
Madruga, C. S., Viana, M. C., Abdalla, R. R., Caetano, R., & Laranjeira, R. (2017).
Pathways from witnessing parental violence during childhood to involvement in in-
timate partner violence in adult life: The roles of depression and substance use. Drug
and Alcohol Review, 36(1), 107–114. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/dar.12514.
*Melançon, C., & Gagné, M.-H. (2011). Father's and mother's psychological violence and
adolescent behavioral adjustment. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(5), 991–1011.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0886260510365863.
*Palazzolo, K. E., Roberto, A. J., & Babin, E. A. (2010). The relationship between parents'
verbal aggression and young adult children's intimate partner violence victimization
and perpetration. Health Communication, 25, 357–364. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
10410231003775180.
Park, S., & Kim, S. H. (2017). Who are the victims and who are the perpetrators in dating
violence?: sharing the role of victim and perpetrator. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1524838017730648 (in press).
Reidy, D. E., Kearns, M. C., Houry, D., Valle, L. A., Holland, K. M., & Marshall, K. J.
(2016). Dating violence and injury among youth exposed to violence. Pediatrics,
137(2), e20152627. http://dx.doi.org/10.1542/peds.2015-2627.
Richards, T. N., Branch, K. A., & Ray, K. (2014). The impact of parental and peer social
support on dating violence perpetration and victimization among female adolescents:
A longitudinal study. Violence and Victims, 29(2), 317–331.
*Rivera, P. M., & Fincham, F. (2015). Forgiveness as a mediator of the intergenerational
transmission of violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30(6), 1–16. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1177/0886260514539765.
*Sabina, C. (2013). Individual and national level associations between economic depri-
vation and partner violence among college students in 31 national settings. Aggressive
Behavior, 39(4), 247–256. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ab.21479.
*Schnurr, M. P., Mahatmya, D., & Basche, R. A. (2013). The role of dominance, cyber
aggression perpetration, and gender on emerging adults' perpetration of intimate
partner violence. Psychology of Violence, 3(1), 70–83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
a0030601.
*Sears, H. A., Byers, E. S., & Price, E. L. (2007). The co-occurrence of adolescent boys' and
girls' use of psychologically, physically, and sexually abusive behaviours in their
dating relationships. Journal of Adolescence, 30(3), 487–504. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.adolescence.2006.05.002.
*Shen, A. C.-T. (2014). Dating violence and posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms in
Taiwanese college students: The roles of cultural beliefs. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 29(4), 635–658. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0886260513505213.
*Simons, L. G., Burt, C. H., & Simons, R. L. (2008). A test of explanations for the effect of
harsh parenting on the perpetration of dating violence and sexual coercion among
college males. Violence and Victims, 23(1), 66–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1891/0886-
6708.23.1.66.
*Simons, L. G., Simons, R. L., Lei, M.-K., Hancock, D. L., & Fincham, F. D. (2012). Parental
warmth amplifies the negative effect of parental hostility on dating violence. Journal
of Interpersonal Violence, 27(13), 2603–2626. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0886260512436387.
Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. (1996). The revised conflict
tactics scales (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of
Family Issues, 17, 283–316.
*Sutton, T. E., Simons, L. G., Wickrama, K. A. S., & Futris, T. (2014). The intergenera-
tional transmission of violence: Examining the mediating roles of insecure attach-
ment and destructive disagreement beliefs. Violence and Victims, 29(4), 670–687.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.VV-D-13-00007.
Swahn, M. H., Bossarte, R. M., & Sullivent, E. E., 3rd. (2008). Age of alcohol use initiation,
suicidal behavior, and peer and dating violence victimization and perpetration
among high-risk, seventh-grade adolescents. Pediatrics, 121(2), 297–305. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1542/peds.2006-2348.
Thompson, B., Diamond, K. E., Mcwilliam, R., Snyder, P., & Snyder, S. W. (2005).
Evaluating the quality of evidence from correlational research for evidence-based
practice. Council for Expeceptional Children, 71(2), 181–194.
*Vézina, J., Hébert, M., Poulin, F., Lavoie, F., Vitaro, F., & Tremblay, R. E. (2011). Risky
lifestyle as a mediator of the relationship between deviant peer affiliation and dating
violence victimization among adolescent girls. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,
40(7), 814–824. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-010-9602-x.
*Windle, M., & Mrug, S. (2009). Cross-gender violence perpetration and victimization
among early adolescents and associations with attitudes toward dating conflict.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38(3), 429–439. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s10964-008-9328-1.
Wolfe, D. A., Scott, K., Reitzel-Jaffe, D., Wekerle, C., Grasley, C., & Straatman, A. (2001).
Development and validation of the conflict in adolescent dating relationships in-
ventory. Psychological Assessment, 13, 277–293. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1040-
3590.13.2.277.
*Yahner, J., Dank, M., Zweig, J. M., & Lachman, P. (2015). The co-occurrence of physical
S. Park, S.-H. Kim
and cyber dating violence and bullying among teens. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,
30(7), 1079–1089. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0886260514540324.
*Yalch, M. M., Lannert, B. K., Hopwood, C. J., & Levendosky, A. A. (2013). Interpersonal
style moderates the effect of dating violence on symptoms of anxiety and depression.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28, 3171–3185. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
28
Aggression and Violent Behavior 40 (2018) 19–28
0886260513496901.
*Yarkovsky, N., & Timmons Fritz, P. A. (2014). Attachment style, early sexual inter-
course, and dating aggression victimization. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29(2),
279–298. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0886260513505143.