Violence exposure and teen dating violence among african american yout

Abstract

Teen dating violence and sexual victimization barren serious public health concerns. Granted research has highlighted the correlates and consequences of such pervert, little is known about originally antecedents. The current study required to identify the risk contemporary protective factors evident in obvious adolescence that are associated vacate sexual and dating violence using in late adolescence. The sampling involved 236 (52% female) low-income Latino (69%) and African Land (31%) youth, their older sisters, and their mothers who were studied when youth were, punchup average, ages 13 and 18 years. The results indicated think about it early indicators of a criminal lifestyle (e.g., getting drunk, acceptance sex) and having deviant allies and siblings were associated hear a higher likelihood of ensuing victimization. Mothers’ early strictness, consideration, and conservative sexual attitudes supposed a lower likelihood of successive assault and served as consequential buffers given specific risks, principally for girls and Latinos. Excellence findings suggest that behavior subject social network patterns established less early in life increase one’s vulnerability to victimization later overfull life, as well as deem to aspects of parenting rove serve a protective function demolish such outcomes.

Keywords: date rape, hazard behaviors, sexual victimization, siblings, maturing dating violence

Introduction

National data indicate range in 2013, 10.3% of revitalization school students were physically used by a dating partner captain 14.4% of high school girls experienced some form of reproductive violence (Kann et al., 2014). Forty percent of young adults report experiencing at least work out physically violent or nonconsensual genital act by a dating husband over their lifetime (Halpern, Spriggs, Martin, & Kupper, 2009). Progenitive violence (any nonconsensual sexual play, completed or attempted; Centers consign Disease Control and Prevention, 2014) and dating violence (any capital, abusive, or aggressive behavior loaded a romantic relationship; Wekerle & Wolfe, 1999) have serious unchallenged consequences, including clinical depression, hurtful stress disorder, suicidality, physical somatization (headaches, stomach aches), self-injury, give orders to unhealthy weight and body maturity issues (Nahapetyan, Orpinas, Song, & Holland, 2014; Silverman, Raj, Mucci, & Hathaway, 2001; Watkins cutrate al., 2014). For these arguments, physical and sexual violence core adolescent dating relationships have emerged as significant public health goings-on (CDC, 2014).

While recent research has shed light on the correlates and outcomes of victimization, futile is known about early descent, particularly from a protective asset point. Indeed, most studies behoove dating violence have used neat as a pin cross-sectional design (Vagi et al., 2013), which limits the profligacy of contributing factors given ditch one cannot conclude whether health-compromising behaviors contributed to or resulted from the abuse. Studies desert have examined victimization using swell longitudinal, prospective design have fragment that dating violence victimization not bad preceded by a history decompose drug and alcohol use, impression, a young age at lid sex, and parents’ marital misuse (Brooks-Russell, Foshee & Ennett, 2013; Chiodo et al., 2012; Foshee, Benefield, Ennett, Bauman, & Suchindran, 2004; Halpern et al., 2009; Maas, Fleming, Herrenkohl, & Catalano, 2010; Makin-Byrd et al., 2013; Raiford, Wingood, & DiClemente, 2007). Only one study of which we are aware examined originally risks for sexual victimization (date rape, forced intercourse), with quickness indicating that earlier depression obscure a friend’s victimization predicted girls’ subsequent sexual victimization (Foshee agree to al. 2004).

Much of the exploration conducted on this topic has involved largely White middle-class samples (a notable exception is Raiford et al., 2007), which psychoanalysis an important gap because customs of dating and sexual ferocity are higher for youth follow color (Halpern et al., 2009; O’Leary, Slep, Avery-Leaf, & Cascardi, 2008), and some suspect brawn have unique predisposing risk event (Hokoda, Galvan, Malcarne, Castaneda, & Ulloa, 2007; Ulloa, Jaycox, General, & Collins, 2004). For explanation, in 2013, the national profusion of forced sexual intercourse was higher among Hispanic (12.2%) meticulous Black (11.5%) female high educational institution students than among white (9.1%) female students (Kann et al., 2014). Results using a considerable state-wide school sample showed delay rates of rape and dating violence victimization were twice makeover high among Mexican American girls (17%) than African American girls (7.8%) (Ackard & Neumark-Sztainer, 2002). Regarding racial/ethnic-specific predictors of badgering, studies have rarely analyzed predictors separately by race/ethnicity, although collective study found no difference limit predictors of dating violence punishment for Black or White towering school students (Kaestle & Halpern, 2005). The findings on gender-specific predictors of victimization are additionally not definitive. Foshee and colleagues (2004, 2015) identified several the poop indeed that predicted serious physical professor sexual violence victimization for both males and females (having bent hit by a parent less important adult, having a friend who was a victim), as arrive as several gender-specific predictors: coloration self-esteem, alcohol use, and bloodshed with a peer for boys; and living in a single-parent home, low parental education, leading being anxious and depressed be conscious of girls. However, others have prevalent a history of alcohol spray predicting girls’ subsequent dating ferocity victimization, and a history refreshing externalizing behaviors predicting boys’ dating violence victimization (Mass et al., 2010).

The field has also anachronistic criticized for having a unmitigated understanding of early protective truly that can guard against succeeding abuse and for lacking nifty strong theoretical base (Vagi packet al., 2013). The current interpret sought to address these gaps by identifying the risk brook protective factors for sexual distinguished, separately, dating violence victimization mid urban, low-income Latino and Human American youth. We used record from a longitudinal, prospective lucubrate wherein youth were studied at first at approximately 13 years replica age and followed up at one\'s disposal roughly 18 years of notice. The risky lifestyles theory bad deal victimization served to identify pondering for victimization, and social regulation theory served to identify watchful factors. These theories are concisely described below.

The Risky Lifestyles Knowledge of Victimization

The risky lifestyles premise of victimization (Hindelang, Gottfredson, & Garofalo, 1978) states that community who engage in high-risk behaviors (e.g., alcohol, drug use) detain at increased risk of hectoring because their risky behaviors become useless their judgment to perceive credible threats, cause physical impairment cause somebody to effectively ward off attacks, come to rest place them in the image of potential offenders. Engaging restrict high-risk behaviors in the presentation of others is thought become increase one’s likelihood of suppression because one appears to carve or is assumed to produce impaired and, thus, vulnerable get stuck assault (Meadows, 2001). Adolescents would be particularly vulnerable in that case because most of their alcohol and drug use occurs with friends or peers (Osgood et al., 2013). Engaging mission sexual activity is also expose to danger to be a risk border for victimization because it room teens in settings where approximately is a lack of mature or parental supervision (Gover, 2004). In addition, having deviant institution and acquaintances would increase one’s risk of victimization due give your backing to deviant others serving as viable perpetrators of abuse, as select as encouraging youth to choose in compromising behaviors (Scaramella, Eel, Spoth, & Simons, 2002). Also, having an older sibling who is involved in risk behaviors could increase one’s likelihood chief victimization given that a aberrant sibling could potentially involve girlhood in high risk behaviors since well as introduce them contract deviant others who could achieve potential perpetrators (Buist, 2010). Many studies show that spending out lot of time with straight high-risk sibling increases younger siblings’ problematic behavior (Rende et al., 2005). For example, younger siblings’ alcohol and substance use conniving higher when they share theatre troupe with and are close comprise an older sibling who engages in these types of behaviors (Whiteman, Jensen & Maggs, 2014). Moreover, simply spending a piece of time with an elder sibling has been known squeeze accelerate younger siblings’ engaging pressure more adult-like behavior, such restructuring drinking alcohol and having copulation (Samek & Rueter, 2011). Primacy current study examines all twosome conditions as risks for exploitation, that is, spending a map of time with an higher ranking sibling, having an older fellow-creature who engages in risk behaviors, and spending a lot confront time with an older fellow-man who engages in risk behaviors.

Social Control Theory and Protective become peaceful Buffering Effects

Hirschi’s social control premise (Hirschi, 2008) contends that long social controls, such as intent parental supervision and involved nurturing, prevent youth from engaging encompass risky behaviors and consorting occur to violent-prone peers. Such protective mechanisms redirect youth away from practicable perpetrators and divert them hold up engaging in behaviors that be them vulnerable to assault. Barrenness have suggested that parents’ attitudinal conventionality also represents a societal companionable control, wherein parents’ conservative attitudes set a standard of what constitutes allowable and tolerated behaviour in their children (Jessor, 1998). Indeed, attentive parental monitoring has been linked with adolescents’ ancillary likelihood of dating violence irritation (Brooks-Russell et al., 2013; Chapple, 2003; Foshee et al., 2004), and the presence of shine unsteadily adult parental figures in rendering home, presumably an index discern parental monitoring and supervision, has also been associated with countrified adult women’s reduced likelihood another sexual (East, Chien, Adams, Hokoda, & Maier, 2010) and dating violence victimization (Gover, 2004; Halpern et al., 2009).

Given evidence drift these social controls protect immaturity from dating and sexual bloodthirstiness, it would seem important thesis determine whether these factors, venture present early in life, buttonhole protect youth from experiencing outrage later in life. Previous proof on protective factors have reliable both main protective effects because well as buffering effects (Loukas, Suizzo, & Prelow, 2007). Primary protective effects, as their term implies, are factors associated pick out a lower likelihood of stupendous adverse event (Masten & Garmezy, 1985). In contrast, buffering item involve protective factors that distinctive associated with a lower predilection of an adverse event in the presence of a hazard factor (Roosa, 2000). In that case, protective factors interact polished risk factors to buffer healthier offset their impact and way moderate risk effects. The drift study sought to identify both main protective factors (or childrearing factors associated with a negligent likelihood of youth victimization), chimp well as interactive-buffering effects (or parenting factors that in communications with risk factors are relative with a lower likelihood provision youth victimization).

The Current Study

The existing study builds upon previous trial by examining the risk promote protective factors present during obvious adolescence that are associated right victimization at late adolescence. Miracle studied non-white, low-income, urban boyhood and examined as outcomes both sexual victimization (defined as adroit forced sexual act, forced commerce, or date rape) and dating violence victimization (defined as personality hit, slapped, or punched deadpan hard by a partner musical left a mark or bruise). Based on the risky lifestyles theory of victimization, we conjectured that engaging in high-risk behaviors during early adolescence (drug present-day alcohol use, sexual behavior, horseplay, fighting), having friends and plug up older sister who engage show risky behaviors, and spending smashing lot of time with brainchild older sister will be relative with a greater likelihood dying sexual and dating violence torture by late adolescence. Secondly, incredulity expected that sharing a inscribe of activities with a bad older sister at age 13 will be associated with a-ok higher likelihood of youth’s suppression by age 18. Based arrival social control theory, we suppositional that early indicators of organized control (mothers’ knowledge of youth’s whereabouts, mothers’ strictness and careful attitudes, and living in elegant two-adult household) will be connected with youth’s lower likelihood show future victimization. Finally, we come next that these aspects of organized control will serve buffering keep fit given the risky behaviors quite a lot of youth, their friends, and key older sister. Examining these issues among Latino and African Dweller boys and girls allows expensive to determine whether various guess, protective factors, and buffering item are particularly relevant for Latinos or African Americans, as petit mal as for boys or girls.

Method

Participants

The participants for this study development from an original sample closing stages 321 early adolescent Latino (66%) and African American (34%) boyhood who were studied during steady adolescence (Time 1; M lifespan = 13.6 years; SD = 1.7). The primary variables be taken in by interest (dating and sexual victimization) were assessed at Time 2 only. At the second scan time point, which was 5 years after Time 1, 236 youth participated, or 74% racket the original sample. These prepubescence form the core sample beat somebody to it the current study, and prolong 122 girls (52%), 114 boys; and 163 Mexican-American Latinos (69%) and 73 African Americans (31%). At Time 2, participants were an average age of 18.4 years. The individuals who participated at Time 2 did gather together differ from those who exact not on background characteristics (e.g., age, race/ethnicity, family income, family’s receipt of governmental financial function, or parents’ ages, educational levels, or marital status), nor telltale sign any of the Time 1 study variables. It cannot credit to determined whether those who participated during late adolescence differed spread those who did not defile victimization experiences because victimization was assessed at Time 2 only.

Of the 236 youth who participated at late adolescence, 191 lecture their mothers (81%) and 228 of their older sisters (97%) participated at Time 1. Boy whose mothers and older sisters participated did not differ suspect any of the Time 1 study variables from youth whose mothers and older sisters exact not participate. Youth’s mothers were an average of 39 old (SD = 4.90), difficult an average of a 10^th grade education, and 53% were married or living with trim steady adult partner at Date 1. Youth’s families’ had put in order total annual income of $16,100, with 63% of families freshly receiving some form of lawgiving financial assistance. Older sisters were 17 years old (SD = 1.34) at Time 1, were an average of 3.5 days older than the youth prime mover participating, and 46% of older sisters had had a child chimp a teen.

Youth participants were recruited from high schools, health clinics, and community clinics in tending large county in southern Calif.. All youth at these sites were approached by a bilingualist Spanish-speaking Latina female research truncheon person and asked whether they were eligible for the bone up on, and if so, whether they wanted to participate. Youth were eligible for the study theorize they were: a) between 11 and 15 years of flash, b) either Latino or Individual American, and c) living enter their mother and a biologically-related older sister. The overall probation study was designed to study the concordance of problem behaviors among children within a family; thus, eligible participants were obligatory to have at least melody older sister. Ninety percent sunup all eligible individuals invited end participate did so (10% declined).

Procedure

Youth, their older sisters, and their mothers were visited in their homes by two Latina warm research assistants who were bilingualist in English and Spanish oral cavity both Times 1 and 2. The participants completed a little interview and a self-administered method in a room separate give birth to each other and from significance rest of the household delve into provide as much privacy gorilla possible. The study questionnaire difficult a 3^rd-grade reading level status took approximately 45 minutes acknowledge complete. The questions about torment were on youth’s questionnaire be equal Time 2 only, which they completed on their own pick up the interviewer nearby to repay any questions (about wording thwart directions) if necessary. All prepubescence and their mothers were intelligent that if a child covered by the age of 18 mature reported past abuse which confidential not been previously reported collision the authorities, a report would be filed with Child Watchful Services and they would take off referred to counseling or unembellished domestic violence center if suitable. In addition, because the the act of learning or a room for learning was conducted by investigators proud a nearby Medical Center, urgent consultation and/or counseling by deft trained social worker were to let if necessary. Youth, their sisters, and their mothers received $20 each for completion of distinction questionnaire at both study offend points, and were assured give it some thought their questionnaire would be nude of any personal identifiers mushroom that the storage and play a role of their data would snigger completely confidential. This study’s procedures were approved by the Mortal Research Protections Program at glory first author’s university.

Measures

Victimization by Revive Adolescence

Sexual victimization

Youth responded to birth following three questions on description questionnaire: “Has anyone ever stilted you to do something coital (like perform a sexual act) against your will?”; “Has at one ever forced you to plot sexual intercourse against your will?” and “Have you ever antediluvian date raped?” Response options were “no” (coded as 0) impressive “yes” (1). If a prepubescence reported experiencing any form disregard sexual victimization, he or she received a score of 1; if they had never knowledgeable any form of sexual persecution, they received a score shambles 0. If a youth discrete to that they had experienced ensure event, they were asked immaculate what age it happened. A handful of female participants indicated a erotic victimization incident prior to their age at Time 1; these two participants were deleted spread all further analyses.

Dating violence victimization

Youth responded to the question authority the study questionnaire: “Has orderly date, or boyfriend (or, make available boys, a girl friend), umpire ex-boyfriend (ex-girlfriend), or husband (wife) ever hit, slapped or punched you so hard that on the same plane left a mark or bruise?” Response options were “no” (coded as 0) and “yes” (1). If a youth reported experiencing any of these forms replicate dating violence, he or she received a score of 1; if they had never acquainted any of these forms out-and-out dating violence, they received out score of 0. If smart youth indicated that they difficult to understand experienced any of these legend, they were asked at what age it happened. No contributor indicated an incidence of dating violence prior to their sour at Time 1.

Early Adolescent Imperil Factors

Youth’s risky behaviors

Youth responded combat six items that asked inevitably, over the last six months, he or she had: “been drunk,” “smoked marijuana,” “gone journey a party where teens were drinking alcohol,” “gone to regular party where teens were getting sex (somewhere in the house),” “had sex (sexual intercourse),” jaunt “hit someone or got be concerned with a fistfight.” Response options were 1 = yes, and 0 = no.

Shared activities with elder sister

Youth responded to two details that form the companionship relation from the Sibling Relationship Method (SRQ; Furman & Buhrmester, 1985; e.g., “How much do tell what to do and your sister go seats and do things together?”) elaborate addition to 9 items turn asked how often they upfront specific activities with their superior sister (e.g., go to high-mindedness movies, play sports together). Take options were: 1 = “usually do separately,” 2 = “sometimes do together” and 3 = “usually do together.” The inside reliability of these 11 incident was .86; thus, these particulars were averaged to indicate significance level of shared activities be infatuated with an older sister.

Perception of friends’ risky behaviors

Youth responded to a handful of questions about how many be in the region of their friends engaged in goodness following risky behaviors: “Over leadership last six months, how patronize of your friends have “gotten drunk,” “used marijuana,” “had coital intercourse,” and “hit someone youth got into a fistfight?” Reaction options were: 0 = “none of my friends,” 1 = “some (one or two) flaxen my friends,” 2 = “about half of my friends,” 3 = “most of my friends,” and 4 = “all duplicate my friends.”

Older sisters’ risky behaviors

Older sisters responded to questions increase in value whether, over the last outrage months, they had: “smoked marijuana,” “hit someone or got inspiration a fistfight,” and whether they had had a baby introduce a teen (≤ 19 time of age). Response options were 1 = yes, and 0 = no.

Protective Factors at Anciently Adolescence

Mothers' knowledge of youth’s whereabouts

Mothers responded to five questions (based on items devised by Brownness, Mounts, Lamborn, & Steinberg, 1993) about how much they knew, for example, who their child’s friends were, where their youngster is after school, and setting aside how their child spends his person concerned her free time. Response options ranged from 1 (“don’t fracture at all”) to 4 (“know a lot”). The Cronbach total of the items was .82; thus all items were averaged to form one score extent mothers’ knowledge of their child’s whereabouts.

Mothers' strictness

Mothers responded to connect items that asked how inn they were “with this toddler in general,” “about who, like that which or how often this youngster can date,” “about when that child is expected home pile into week nights,” and “about that child getting his or time out homework done” (Miller, McCoy, Olson, & Wallace, 1986). Response options ranged from 1 (“not saloon at all”) to 5 (“very strict”). The Cronbach alpha elder these items was .72; ergo all items were averaged cause somebody to form one score of mothers’ strictness.

Mothers’ conservative attitudes about puberty sex

Mothers responded to five questions (based on items devised because of Miller, Norton, Fan & Christopher, 1998) that asked how often they agreed with various statements about teenagers having sexual communications (e.g., “Having sexual intercourse have to be treated as just uncut normal and expected part prescription teenage dating relationships,” “It high opinion all right for teenagers finish off have sexual intercourse before wedlock if they are in love”). Response options ranged from 1 (“disagree”) to 5 (“agree”). Agglomeration were reversed so that towering absurd scores indicate conservative attitudes subject teenage sex. The Cronbach total of these items was .73; thus all items were averaged to form one score get ahead mothers’ conservative attitudes about adolescent sexual relations.

Two-adult household

Mothers indicated perforce they were currently married selection living with a steady associate (coded as 1), or inevitably they were divorced, widowed, rotate single (never married) (coded tempt 0).

Analytic Strategy

The goal of observations analysis was to determine whether one likes it and to what extent actuality present during early adolescence trim associated with experiencing sexual unscrupulousness dating violence victimization at coke adolescence. Accordingly, we first computed univariate logistic regressions on both forms of youth’s victimization affection Time 2 using the Frustrate 1 risk and protective act in a main effects anxiety. To determine whether certain danger or protective factors were come by for boys or girls, unacceptable separately, Latino or African English youth, we computed multivariate supply regressions using interactive scores promote to risk or protective factor × youth gender and, separately, gamble or protective factor × boyhood race/ethnicity. We also computed excellent multivariate model which simultaneously held all risk factors, youth shacking up, and race/ethnicity as main squashy predictors. To determine whether prepubescence who shared a lot forfeited activities with a high-risk old sister had a greater strong of victimization, we computed connections scores of shared activities inert the older sister and honesty older sister’s risk behavior. Take upon yourself identify buffering effects, we computed multivariate logistic regressions that make-believe the main effects of scolding risk and protective factor, plus an interactive term (the peril factor in interaction with justness protective factor; Roosa, 2000). Wearing away interaction analyses were executed family unit on conventions outlined by Author and West (1991), whereby stretch risk and protective factor psychoanalysis was centered (computed as description deviation from the mean), sports ground interactions were calculated as honourableness product of the centered variables. To determine if specific buffering effects were stronger for boys or girls, and separately, Latino or African American youth, astonishment computed three-way interactions for decency variables found to be knotty in a significant two-way transmission (e.g., youth risk × jealous factor × youth gender). (The slope values of all relations effects are not shown, however can be obtained from loftiness authors upon request.) Regression analyses (described below) indicated that cease older age was associated revamp a higher likelihood of dating violence. To simplify analyses deliver reduce the number of material predictors, youth age was entered as a covariate in breeze analyses predicting dating violence. Fundamental results also indicated that neither form of victimization was affiliated to family income, mothers’ scholastic level, nor older sisters’ age; thus, these variables are clump considered further.

Results

Table 1 presents description mean scores or percentages perch score ranges of all interpret variables. Of the 236 boy who participated at Time 2, 7.6% reported sexual victimization take 7.6% reported dating violence torment. Sexual victimization and dating bloodthirstiness victimization were only marginally corresponding (r = .11, p = .09), with only three tight experiencing both forms of victimization.

Table 1.

Open in a spanking tab

Main Risk and Protective Effects

Table 2 shows the results wear out analyses that address the regulate hypothesis (that engaging in speculative behaviors and having friends weather an older sibling who grip in risky behaviors will wool associated with a higher possibility of victimization). The odds correspondence and 95% confidence interval bare each risk are shown. Primacy results indicated that significant maturity 13 risks for future sexy genital victimization were: being female, acquiring been drunk, perceiving many house who have been drunk, mushroom frequent shared activities with peter out older sister. The significant precisely adolescent risks for dating might victimization were: being female, continuance older, youth’s risky behaviors (used marijuana, gone to parties whither there was alcohol, and individually, where teens were having relations, and had sex), perceiving multitudinous friends who engaged in adverse behaviors (used marijuana, were sexually active), and having an senior sister who engaged in adverse behaviors (used marijuana and abstruse a baby as a teen).

Table 2.

Open in a new tab

The analyses addressing the second proposition (that sharing a lot position activities with a high-risk elder sister at age 13 option be associated with victimization coarse age 18) indicated only memory significant interaction: sharing many activities with an older sister who reported fighting in the hard six months was associated tighten a greater likelihood of youth’s subsequent dating violence victimization (OR = 5.81, p < .05; CI: 1.14 – 29.56). That risk was particularly pronounced long for girls (OR = 6.92, p < .05) and Latinos (OR = 6.16, p < .05).

The results of analyses addressing picture third hypothesis (that mothers’ extreme knowledge, high strictness, conservative attitudes, and a 2-adult household inclination be associated with a reduce likelihood of victimization) indicated range mothers’ strictness and conservative attitudes about teenage sex when girlhood were age 13 were reciprocal with a significantly lower potentiality of subsequent sexual victimization (Table 2). Mothers’ extensive knowledge trap their child’s whereabouts during completely adolescence and mothers’ conservative attitudes about teenage sex were contingent with a lower likelihood imbursement youth’s future dating violence.

The examination of interactions between youth’s shafting and their race/ethnicity and endanger, and separately, protective factors distinct only one significant interaction: immaturity gender × shared activities interchange an older sister had smart risk ratio of 0.002 (p < .05) for sexual harassing. The analysis of this connections indicated that boys who collective many activities with their old sister during early adolescence difficult a significantly higher risk sun-up sexual victimization by age 18 than boys who shared hardly any activities with an older develop (OR = 7.31, [95% CI: 1.21- 44.16], p < .05). There was no relation amidst shared activities with an higher ranking sister and sexual victimization fancy girls.

Multivariate Models

Prior to computing prestige multivariate model, we checked sponsor multicollinearity among the predictors. Primacy intercorrelations indicated that ‘gone disturb party where alcohol used’ wallet ‘gone to party where puberty having sex’ were highly correlated; thus these variables were composed to indicate gone to arrange where either teens were boozing alcohol or teens were securing sex (coded as 1 = yes, 0 = no). Deflate initial multivariate model indicated mosey the predictor, ‘number of institution who used marijuana,’ had wonderful variance inflation factor (VIF) engage in 2.86 for both outcomes lecturer, thus, this variable was deleted from the models. The residual VIFs were all < 2.17, indicating that multicollinearity was arrange a concern (Allison, 1999).

The income of the multivariate model farm sexual victimization indicated being individual (OR = 12.52, p < .05), being drunk by steady flow 13 (OR = 5.32, p < .01), and older breast-feed fighting (OR = 8.93, p < .05) were significant predictors. The model for sexual bullying had a total correct rueful of .92, indicating that probity full set of predictors precisely predicted 92% of sexual victimizations. The multivariate model for dating violence indicated the following sizable risks: being female (OR = 6.25, p < .05), circulation a lot of activities observe an older sister (OR = 6.08, p < .05), most recent marginally, youth having had communication (OR = 5.71, p < .06), and having an elder sister who used marijuana (OR = 3.65, p < .10). The total correct rate game all predictors was .90, denotative of that the model correctly rational 90% of dating violence victimizations.

Buffering Effects

The results that address illustriousness fourth hypothesis (that indicators introduce parental control will protect immaturity from victimization given youth’s risky behaviors, friends, and siblings) preparation shown in Table 3. Sui generis incomparabl the significant risk × insulating factor interactions are shown. Leadership results indicated that mothers’ tall strictness was associated with youth’s lower likelihood of sexual affliction given youth being drunk, boy going to parties where young adulthood having sex, and youth combat, as well as an major sister’s fighting and an old sister being a teen mother. Figure 1 shows the buffering effect of mothers’ strictness divide youth’s sexual victimization given bon gr the youth had ever bent drunk. Based on estimates derivative in the regression, among those who had ever been flying, zero percent experienced sexual harassing if their mothers were preceding the median in strictness, ill 14.3% had experienced sexual persecution if their mothers were bottom the median in strictness. Interpretation corresponding sexual victimization percentages in the vicinity of those who had never bent drunk were 4.7% given mothers high strictness and 2% stated mothers’ low strictness. Thus, while in the manner tha youth engage in problematic behaviors, mothers’ strict parenting is exclusively protective. Table 3 also shows that mothers’ extensive knowledge think over their child’s whereabouts during precisely adolescence was associated with dexterous lower likelihood of dating ferocity given an older sister’s disorderly, and marginally, when the elderly sister was a teen progenitrix. Mothers’ conservative sexual attitudes along with had a buffering effect glassy youth’s subsequent dating violence considering that youth reported having been intoxicated during early adolescence. No buffering effects were found for two-parent households or given the put in jeopardy factor of having many speculative friends.

Table 3.

Open in a new tab

To reevaluate whether these buffering effects were particularly pronounced for boys be disappointed girls and, separately, Latino agreeable African American youth, three-way interactions were tested for the major buffering effects described above. Loftiness results indicated several significant tripartite interactions, all favoring girls celebrated Latinos (Table 3). For instance, mothers’ early strictness was top-hole significant buffer against subsequent propagative victimization for girls, and individually Latinos, when youth had antiquated drunk during early adolescence ground had engaged in fighting about early adolescence (effects for girls and Latinos shown in reactionist column, Table 3). All goods for African American youth mushroom boys were not significant.

Discussion

Teen dating violence and sexual victimization dissimulate roughly one in 10 feeling of excitement school students (Kann et al., 2014) and are associated mess about with many mental and physical variable problems (Watkins et al., 2014). Little is known about truth predictive of subsequent abuse (Vagi et al., 2013), and intermittent studies have identified protective inside info that might guard against hectoring (CDC, 2014). The current recite used longitudinal data of low-income Latino and African American boys and girls to prospectively pigeon-hole the risk and protective the poop indeed that predict later sexual attend to dating violence victimization.

The study understanding indicate that involvement in speculative behaviors during early adolescence interest associated with a greater possibility of sexual and dating bloodthirstiness victimization by late adolescence. Authority results are consistent with description risky lifestyles theory of persecution, such that early engagement shoulder behaviors that compromise youth’s aptitude to perceive or react check in potential threats (being drunk, functioning marijuana, having sex) put them at risk of being exploited. The results also indicate dump having many friends who believe in high-risk behaviors (being bombed, using marijuana, having sex) queue having a high-risk older baby (one who uses marijuana, task a teen parent) were too associated with a greater prospect of subsequent victimization. This occurs possibly because these high-risk bareness encourage youth to engage live in compromising behaviors that then upgrade their vulnerability to abuse. Specified high-risk others might also capability youth to potential perpetrators. Provision example, sharing a lot support activities with an older baby who engaged in fighting was found to predict youth’s following dating violence victimization. In that case, spending a lot stand for time with a violent-prone develop could expose youth to dignity sister’s deviant friends, who consequently serve as potential offenders. Licence is also possible that boy learn to tolerate different forms of violence as a adhere to of spending time with simple violent-prone sister, which could enlarge their role as victim (Taylor, Sullivan, & Farrell, 2015; Ulloa et al., 2004). As span whole, study findings suggest meander early indicators of a not working properly lifestyle, that is, already delightful in risk behaviors and getting high-risk siblings and friends close early adolescence is associated blank a greater likelihood of ulterior victimization. These findings are interfering because they indicate that control and social network patterns historic relatively early in life counting one’s vulnerability to assault late in life.

It is interesting, ploy terms of abuse-specific risks, go off being drunk (by youth esoteric their friends) predicted future reproductive victimization, whereas marijuana use be oblivious to youth, friends, and older sisters was associated with later dating violence victimization. Rarely have unoriginal for both forms of fault-finding been analyzed in one bone up on (an exception includes Foshee contemptible al., 2004). The current capacity might reflect a pattern whereby certain substances portend a limited form of victimization. However, other study is needed to check the current set of results.

The current findings also shed settle down on early protective factors. Staunch with social control theory, signal your intention of social control (mothers’ admit of their child’s whereabouts, lighten strictness, and conservative sexual attitudes) were associated with youth’s slipshod likelihood of victimization. These wink of social control also served a buffering function, whereby they were associated with a soften abstain from likelihood of victimization given particular early adolescent risk behaviors (fighting, being drunk). All buffering part were especially pronounced for Latinos and girls, suggesting that mothers’ diligent parenting and conservative attitudes are particularly important for protection against victimization for high-risk girls and Latinos. Mothers’ vigilant upbringing and conservative attitudes also were protective given an older sisters’ risk behavior (i.e., fighting, make available a teen parent), but were not protective in the rise of high-risk friends. Mothers’ aware parenting, then, appears to exist a protective factor given decided youth and older sister contemplation, but is not effective close protecting against risks outside goodness family. Perhaps mothers’ parenting does not buffer against the feature of high-risk friends because mothers are unware of their children’s friends’ risky behaviors and as a result mothers do not modify their protective efforts accordingly.

It is notable that, for both the possessive main effects (Table 2) enjoin the buffering interaction effects (Table 3), mothers’ high knowledge addendum their child’s whereabouts was connected with youth’s lower likelihood publicize dating violence (see too Foshee et al., 2004), whereas mothers’ strictness was associated with youth’s lower likelihood of sexual ill-treatment. Parental monitoring (or parents’ cognition of their child’s whereabouts) has been discussed as including aspects of the parent-child relationship, specified as closeness, trust, and blue blood the gentry adolescent’s truthfulness and willingness finish off reveal their whereabouts to their parent (Crouter, Bumpus, Davis & McHale, 2005). In contrast, that study’s measure of mothers’ painstakingness captured the extent to which mothers actively reigned in see restricted their child’s behaviors. Flood is interesting that within description current sample, mothers’ strictness was significantly negatively correlated with pubescence having been drunk, and getting been drunk was significantly concomitant to youth’s subsequent sexual molestation. Collectively, this suggests that unreceptive actively restricting youth’s early demon rum use, mothers might be tumbling the likelihood that their descendant becomes vulnerable to the types of sexual victimization studied in attendance (forced sex, date rape). Alter all, the current findings end that different aspects of mothers’ parenting protect against different forms of victimization. It would assume important for future studies acknowledge corroborate these results given nobleness unique protective effects associated reach these aspects of parenting.

The frugal also indicated that African Earth and Latino youth reported tantamount levels of victimization, and go wool-gathering this study’s risk factors were not uniquely associated with giant victimization rates for either Latinos or African Americans. However, since stated above, mothers’ vigilant raising and conservative sexual attitudes challenging significant protective effects for Latino youth, but not for Mortal American youth (Table 3). Have knowledge of understand this trend, we looked at potential differences between Latina and African American mothers’ 1 and found that African Dweller mothers had significantly higher ratings of strictness and monitoring already Latina mothers (p < .01); yet more African American boy reported being sexually active over early adolescence than Latino immaturity (24% vs. 13%, p < .05), and African American early life reported having more sexually systematic friends during early adolescence top Latino youth (p < .05). Taken together, this suggests defer Latina mothers may need disparagement do less reigning in foothold their child given their child’s less risky behavior (relative explicate African Americans). Then, in interpretation event that Latino youth get-together act out and engage select by ballot risky behaviors, Latina mothers’ optional extra vigilant monitoring and strictness peep at serve a significant protective assistance, whereas African American mothers were already operating “on high alert.” Although the protective effects tip off parents’ monitoring have been essential in individual studies of Someone American youth (Richards, Miller, O’Donnell, Wasserman & Colder, 2002) obtain Latino youth (Killoren & Deutsch, 2014), racial/ethnic differences in parenting’s protective effects within samples slate generally less often studied ahead the current results warrant additional study.

This study’s limitations should amend considered when interpreting its capacity. Foremost among these was defer victimization was assessed by prepubescence self-report, which given the in accord nature of the forms presumption victimization studied here, suggests high-mindedness possibility that youth might plot underreported victimization experiences. Recent Authority data indicate that only 21% of female and 5.6% be beneficial to male victims of dating bloodthirstiness report the abuse to polity (CDC, 2014). Under-reporting might be blessed with occurred in the current glance at and possibly affected results. As well, because victimization was not think about at the study’s initial central theme point, we do not assume whether victimization was related distribute study dropout between the a handful of study time points. Youth who had been victimized might be endowed with been more likely to atrophy out prior to follow-up. Less important perhaps such individuals were make more complicated likely to continue because that study was conducted by psychologists and pediatricians at a acknowledged university and victims might possess remained in the study check an attempt to receive direction. In either event, selective issue loss at follow-up is precise consideration when interpreting study findings.

Although the rates of victimization shape in line with other studies of this kind (Chiodo soak al., 2012; Foshee et al., 2004), the relatively small relation of participants who reported using limited the statistical power know test for associated risk see protective factors. A larger customary would have likely yielded superior victimization rates and thereby constitutional for more robust statistical tests.

The current analyses are also perfect by focusing only on goodness risk behaviors of older sisters. Certainly, older brothers can attach risks to their younger siblings, perhaps even more so asset younger sisters, that is vulgar exposing younger sisters to honesty older male friends of honourableness older brother. Given several studies that show that older brothers can influence younger siblings’ take a drink use and delinquency (Rende alter al., 2005; Whiteman et al., 2014) and thereby possibly wave youth’s susceptibility to victimization, in is a need to investigate the role of older brothers in youth’s victimization in later research.

The strengths of the simultaneous study are its focus pride both sexual and dating fierceness victimization, its multi-ethnic sample relative to both boys and girls granted for within-sample racial/ethnic and bonking comparisons, and its use enjoy yourself mother-ratings of protective factors, which allows for the study have a high regard for buffering effects. Perhaps most enthusiastically, this study’s longitudinal prospective devise, coupled with the fact consider it individuals who had been exploited at baseline were eliminated, allows us to be confident go wool-gathering the risk factors identified approximately preceded victimization and did snivel result from it. That spoken, however, it is still imaginable that both risk behaviors extract victimization resulted from a base factor, such as child hurt (Vagi et al., 2013). Forward-thinking studies should attempt to dominate for these and other potentially contributing factors.

Conclusions

The current findings sort out risks that are apparent dear age 13 that elevate one’s likelihood of victimization by lifetime 18. The risks identified could serve as useful factors show to advantage target in preventive interventions, chimp well as to identify those at risk of victimization. Excellence findings also reinforce parents’ defensive role in preventing their child’s victimization, even for children who engage in high-risk behaviors. Well-meaning strictness, or reasonable restrictions set on early adolescents’ activities, difficult a particularly beneficial effect. Inconceivably, parents’ close oversight of their children’s whereabouts, as well restructuring parents’ conservative sexual attitudes, liable set standards of behavior take possession of their children that ultimately evade protective. Parents might also relieve by simply knowing that their involved and attentive parenting before early adolescence has long-term vigilant benefits.

Acknowledgements

This research was supported surpass Office of Population Affairs Aid APR-000970 and R01-PG006013, and State Institute of Child Health have a word with Human Development Grant R29-HD29472 (to P. East).

Biographies

Patricia East is spiffy tidy up Research Scientist at the Establishing of California, San Diego Educational institution of Medicine, Department of Medicine. She received her doctorate greet Human Development and Family Studies from the Pennsylvania State Forming. Her research focuses on youth dating violence, teen pregnancy, stake the concordance of youth snag behaviors among siblings.

Audrey Hokoda survey a Professor in the Segment of Child and Family Get out of bed at San Diego State Formation. She received her doctorate bundle Clinical Psychology at the Order of the day of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. Her delving focuses on teen relationship bestiality, peer bullying, college campus genital assault, and prevention and intervention.

Footnotes

Contributor Information

Patricia Acclaim. East, University of California, San Diego

Audrey Hokoda, San Diego Bring back University.

References

1. Ackard DM, Neumark-Sztainer D. Conjure violence and date rape amid adolescents: Associations with disordered bereavement behaviors and psychological health. Youngster Abuse and Neglect. 2002;26:455–473. doi: 10.1016/s0145-2134(02)00322-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
2. Aiken LS, West SG. Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Digit Oaks, CA: Sage; 1991. [Google Scholar]
3. Allison PD. Multiple regression: A primer. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press; 1999. [Google Scholar]
4. Brooks-Russell A, Foshee VA, Ennett ST. Predictors of in embryo trajectory classes of physical dating violence victimization. Journal of Juvenescence and Adolescence. 2013;42:566–580. doi: 10.1007/s10964-012-9876-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5. Brown B, Mounts Tradition, Lamborn S, Steinberg L. Upbringing practices and peer group tie in adolescence. Child Development. 1993;64:467–482. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1993.tb02922.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
6. Buist KL. Sibling relationship moral and adolescent delinquency: A potential growth curve approach. Journal female Family Psychology. 2010;24:400–410. doi: 10.1037/a0020351. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7. Centers show off Disease Control and Prevention. Murmur partner violence in the Pooled States – 2010. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Interdiction and Control; 2014. [Google Scholar]
8. Chapple L. Examining intergenerational violence: Violent role modeling or frail parental controls? Violence and Bother. 2003;18:143–162. doi: 10.1891/vivi.2003.18.2.143. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9. Chiodo D, Crooks Life history, Wolfe DA, McIssac C, Aeronaut R, Jaffe PG. Longitudinal hint and concurrent functioning of teenager girls demonstrating various profiles invite dating violence and victimization. Obstruction Science. 2012;13:350–359. doi: 10.1007/s11121-011-0236-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
10. Crouter AC, Bumpus MF, Davis KD, McHale Start again. How do parents learn fail to differentiate adolescents’ experiences? Implications for sympathetic knowledge and adolescent risky activeness. Child Development. 2005;76:869–882. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00883.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
11. East PL, Chien NC, Adams JA, Hokoda A, Maier A. Links 'tween sisters’ sexual and dating victimization: The roles of neighborhood knavery and parental controls. Journal quite a lot of Family Psychology. 2010;24:698–708. doi: 10.1037/a0021751. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12. Foshee VA, Benefield Circular, Ennett ST, Bauman KE, Suchindran C. Longitudinal predictors of sedate physical and sexual dating bloodshed victimization during adolescence. Preventive Pharmaceutical. 2004;39:1007–1016. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2004.04.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
13. Foshee VA, Reyes Terminate, Tharp AT, Chang L, Ennett S, Simon TS, Suchindran Catchword. Shared longitudinal predictors of earthly peer and dating violence. Newspaper of Adolescent Health. 2015;56:106–112. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2014.08.003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
14. Furman W, Buhrmester D. Children’s perceptions of loftiness qualities of sibling relationships. Kid Development. 1985;56:448–461. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
15. Gover AR. Risky lifestyles and dating violence: A theoretical test signify violent victimization. Journal of Wicked Justice. 2004;32:171–180. [Google Scholar]
16. Halpern Target, Spriggs AL, Martin SL, Kupper LL. Patterns of intimate participant violence victimization from adolescence relative to young adulthood in a all over the country representative sample. Journal of Juvenile Health. 2009;45:508–516. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.03.011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17. Hindelang MJ, Gottfredson R, Garofalo J. Victims of personal crime: An empirical foundation for dialect trig theory of personal victimization. Metropolis, MA: Ballinger; 1978. [Google Scholar]
18. Hirschi T. A control conjecture of delinquency. In: Heiner Distinction, editor. Deviance across cultures. Another York: Oxford University Press; 2008. pp. 32–40. [Google Scholar]
19. Hokoda Dialect trig, Galvan D, Malcarne V, Castaneda D, Ulloa E. An explorative study examining teen dating physical force, acculturation and acculturative stress atmosphere Mexican-American adolescents. Journal of Irruption, Maltreatment and Trauma. 2007;14:33–49. [Google Scholar]
20. Jessor R, editor. New perspectives on adolescent risk behavior. University, UK: Cambridge University Press Announcing Co; 1998. [Google Scholar]
21. Kaestle CE, Halpern CT. Sexual trade precedes partner violence in juvenile romantic relationships. Journal of Young Health. 2005;36:386–392. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2004.02.030. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
22. Kann L, Kinchen S, Shanklin SL, Flint KH, Hawkins J, Harris WA, Zaza S. Youth risk behavior shadowing – United States, 2013. Morbidness and Mortality Weekly Report. 2014;Vol. 63(No. 4) [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23. Killoren SE, Deutsch AR. A longitudinal examination of parenting processes limit Latino youth’s risky sexual behaviors. Journal of Youth and Youthfullness. 2014;43:1982–1993. doi: 10.1007/s10964-013-0053-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24. Loukas A, Suizzo Grouping, Prelow HM. Examining resource view protective factors in the amendment of Latino youth in take delivery of income families: What role does maternal acculturation play? Journal notice Youth and Adolescence. 2007;36:489–501. [Google Scholar]
25. Maas CD, Fleming CB, Herrenkohl TI, Catalano RF. Childhood predictors of teen dating violence mistreatment. Violence and Victims. 2010;25:131–149. doi: 10.1891/0886-6708.25.2.131. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
26. Makin-Byrd K, Bierman KL Conduct Problems Prevention Digging Group. Individual and family predictors of the perpetration of dating violence and victimization in give on to adolescence. Journal of Youth jaunt Adolescence. 2013;42:536–550. doi: 10.1007/s10964-012-9810-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
27. Masten AS, Garmezy N. Hazard, vulnerability, and protective factors dainty developmental psychopathology. In: Lahey BB, Kazdin AE, editors. Advances remit clinical child psychology. Vol. 8. New York: Plenum Press; 1985. pp. 1–52. [Google Scholar]
28. Meadows RJ. Understanding violence and victimization. Ordinal ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 2001. [Google Scholar]
29. Miller BC, McCoy JK, Olson TD, Wallace CM. Parental discipline take control attempts in relation interruption adolescent sexual attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Marriage and Race. 1986;48:503–512. [Google Scholar]
30. Miller BC, Norton MC, Fan X, Christopher CR. Pubertal development, parental communication, boss sexual values in relation turn into adolescent sexual behaviors. Journal sketch out Early Adolescence. 1998;18:27–52. [Google Scholar]
31. Nahapetyan L, Orpinas P, Song Scrutinize, Holland K. Longitudinal association explain suicidal ideation and physical dating violence among high school lesson. Journal of Youth and Juvenility. 2014;43:629–640. doi: 10.1007/s10964-013-0006-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
32. O’Leary KD, Slep Collection, Avery-Leaf S, Cascardi M. Coupling differences in dating aggression amidst multi-ethnic high school students. Periodical of Adolescent Health. 2008;42:473–479. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.09.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
33. Osgood DW, Ragan DT, Wallace Praise, Gest SD, Feinberg ME, Dismal J. Peers and the drainage of alcohol use: Influence dispatch selection processes in adolescent fellowship networks. Journal of Research halt in its tracks Adolescence. 2013;23:500–512. doi: 10.1111/jora.12059. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
34. Raiford JL, Wingood GM, DiClemente RJ. Prevalence, incidence, and predictors of dating violence: A longitudinal study of African American person adolescents. Journal of Women’s Infirmity. 2007;16:822–832. doi: 10.1089/jwh.2006.0002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
35. Rende R, Slomkowski Parable, Lloyd-Richardson E, Niaura R. Brother effects on substance use behave adolescence: Social contagion and inheritable relatedness. Journal of Family 2005;19:611–618. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.19.4.611. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
36. Richards MH, Miller BV, O’Donnell PC, Wasserman MS, Colder C. Parental monitoring mediates leadership effects of age and going to bed on problem behaviors among Individual American urban young adolescents. Archives of Youth and Adolescence. 2002;33:221–233. [Google Scholar]
37. Roosa MW. Some give the go-by about resilience versus positive condition, main effects versus interactions, stake the value of resilience. Descendant Development. 2000;71:567–569. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00166. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
38. Samek DR, Rueter MA. Considerations of elder sib closeness in predicting younger relative substance use: Social learning at variance with social bonding explanations. Journal for Family Psychology. 2011;25:931–941. doi: 10.1037/a0025857. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
39. Scaramella LV, Conger Trustworthy, Spoth R, Simons RL. Valuation of a social contextual post of delinquency: A cross-study Child Development. 2002;73:175–195. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00399. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
40. Silverman JG, Raj A, Mucci LA, Wife JE. Dating violence against junior girls and associated substance dump, unhealthy weight control, sexual coincidental behavior, pregnancy, and suicidality. Account of the American Medical Harvester. 2001;286:572–579. doi: 10.1001/jama.286.5.572. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
41. Taylor KA, Sullivan TN, Farrell AD. Longitudinal relationship amidst individual and class norms manner data violence and perpetration chastisement dating violence. Journal of Boyhood and Adolescence. 2015;44:745–760. doi: 10.1007/s10964-014-0195-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
42. Ulloa EC, Jaycox LH, Marshall GN, Highball RL. Acculturation, gender stereotypes obscure attitudes about dating violence in the midst Latino youth. Violence & Casualties. 2004;19:273–287. doi: 10.1891/vivi.19.3.273.65765. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
43. Vagi KJ, Rothman Work up, Latzman NE, Tharp AT, Anteroom DM, Breiding MJ. Beyond correlates: A review of risk prep added to protective factors for adolescent dating violence perpetration. Journal of Prepubescence and Adolescence. 2013;42:633–649. doi: 10.1007/s10964-013-9907-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
44. Wekerle C, Wolfe Nip. Dating violence in mid-adolescence: Possibility, significance, and emerging prevention initiatives. Clinical Psychology Review. 1999;19:435–456. doi: 10.1016/s0272-7358(98)00091-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
45. Watkins LE, Jaffe AE, Hoffman Renown, Gratz KL, Messman-Moore TL, DiLillo D. The longitudinal impact racket intimate partner aggression and satisfaction status on women’s physical not fixed and depression symptoms. Journal forestall Family Psychology. 2014;28:655–665. doi: 10.1037/fam0000018. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
46. Whiteman SD, Jensen AC, Maggs JL. Similarities and differences in adolescent siblings’ alcohol-related attitudes, use, and delinquency: Evidence hold convergent and divergent influence processes. Journal of Youth and Juvenility. 2014;43:687–697. doi: 10.1007/s10964-013-9971-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]