Abstract: The Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Association of Bullying Subtypes and Teen Dating Violence (Society for Prevention Research 26th Annual Meeting)

395 The Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Association of Bullying Subtypes and Teen Dating Violence

Schedule:
Thursday, May 31, 2018
Columbia A/B (Hyatt Regency Washington, Washington, DC)
* noted as presenting author
Elizabeth D. Torres, MPH, Senior Clinical Research Coordinator, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX
Vi D. Le, MPH, Doctoral student, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX
Yu Lu, PhD, Postdoctoral Fellow, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX
Jeff R. Temple, PhD, Professor, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX
While there is extensive cross-sectional research on the link between bullying and teen dating violence (TDV), there is a gap in the literature examining this association over time. Further, less is known about how different bullying experiences (bullies, victims, and bully-victims) relate to each other and to TDV – both cross-sectionally and over time. Thus, we examined the association between bullying (bullies, victims, and bully-victims) and TDV among an ethnically diverse sample of adolescents from Wave 1 (2010, n= 1,042, 55.9% female) and Wave 2 (2011, n= 964, 55.9% female) of an ongoing longitudinal study, Dating It Safe. TDV (perpetration and victimization) was measured with the CADRI. Bullying was measured with the one perpetration item (“How often have you bullied other teens in the past 12 months?”) and one victimization item (“How often have you been bullied in the past months?”). Bully-victims were delineated as having endorsed both the bully perpetration and bully victimization items. Linear regression tests indicated that bully (β = .16, p < .001), victim (β = .11, p < .01), and bully-victim (β = .10, p < .01) were all significantly associated with TDV victimization cross-sectionally, even after controlling for age, gender, and race. Longitudinally, the same relationships were identified for bully (β = .11, p < .01), victim (β = .07, p < .05), and bully-victim (β = .10, p < .01) with TDV victimization. For TDV perpetration, significant associations were identified for bully both cross-sectionally (β = .20, p < .001) and longitudinally (β = .07, p < .05). Bully-victim, on the other hand, only significantly associated with TDV perpetration cross-sectionally (β = .13, p < .001), but not longitudinally (β = .05, p = .12). No significant associations were identified for victimization cross-sectionally (β = .05, p = .14) or longitudinally (β = .05, p = .12). Findings demonstrate adolescents involved in bullying (regardless of form) increase the likelihood of TDV victimization (cross-sectionally and longitudinally). Findings also suggest that adolescents who reported being bullies or bully-victims are at risk for TDV perpetration, and bullies are more likely to perpetrate TDV even at one year later. When addressing dating violence prevention programs, it is also important to address all three bully subtypes (bullies, victims, and bully-victims) with an emphasis on bullies.