Predicting Verbal & Physical Teen Dating Violence Perpetration: Individual, Peer, and Family Level Predictors

For decades, scholars have tended to study each type of aggression or violence in isolation of one another and only recently have scholars recognized the need to examine multiple forms of violence simultaneously (Espelage et al., 2011; Hamby & Grych, 2013). These problems undoubtedly share some developmental correlates and evidence is emerging that these problems co-occur among early adolescents (Basile et al., 2009). This longitudinal study of a large sample of high school students addresses the extent to which violence directed toward peers (e.g., homophobic name-calling, bullying, sexual harassment) and other correlates (e.g., attitudes, family, and peer dynamics) is predictive of verbal and physical teen dating violence over a one year of high school, controlling for initial levels of TDV perpetration. 

Students from three high schools (N = 1947) were surveyed at two time points (Spring 2012, 2013); sample was on average 15.81 years of age, 53% female, 53% African-American, 32% White, and 8% biracial.  Students completed a wide range of scales with strong psychometric evidence including the University of Illinois Bully Scale (Espelage & Holt, 2001), 28-items of the Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationship Inventory (Wolfe et al., 2001). The  University of Illinois Bully Scale (Espelage & Holt, 2001) was used to assess bullying behavior that included teasing, social exclusion, name-calling, and rumor spreading.  Two CADRI teen dating violence (TDV) scales were used in these analyses:  verbal (name-calling) and physical (choking, biting, hitting) perpetration.  Other scales assessed anger, depression, sexual harassment and homophobic name-calling perpetration, attitudes supportive of dating violence, explosive conflict style, delinquency, substance use, peer support for teen dating violence, and family violence.          

Two regression analyses were calculated predicting verbal and physical TDV perpetration at wave 2 from the predictors listed above, controlling for gender and age. The model predicting verbal TDV wave 2 explained 37% of the variance and the significant predictors from wave 1 were greater bullying perpetration, verbal TDV wave 1, depression, and an explosive conflict style. In the physical TDV model, 17% of the variance was explained and significant predictors were physical TDV wave 1 and bully perpetration.  Findings indicated some shared and non-shared risk factors for verbal and physical TDV. These data point to the importance of understanding that violence from peer interactions extend to violence in romantic relationship contexts.