Skip to main content
PMC home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2013 Sep 24.
Published in final edited form as: J Interpers Violence. 2011 Nov 11;27(8):1562–1578. doi: 10.1177/0886260511425787

The Relationship Between Marijuana Use and Intimate Partner Violence in a Nationally Representative, Longitudinal Sample

Jennifer M Reingle 1, Stephanie A S Staras 1, Wesley G Jennings 2, Jennifer Branchini 1, Mildred M Maldonado-Molina 1
PMCID: PMC3782298  NIHMSID: NIHMS508469  PMID: 22080574

Abstract

Intimate partner violence is a significant public health problem, as these behaviors have been associated with a number of negative health outcomes including illicit drug use, physical injury, chronic pain, sexually transmitted diseases, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder. The current study examined the association between marijuana use and intimate partner violence using a longitudinal survey of adolescents and young adults ages 15 to 26 years. Data were obtained from 9,421 adolescents in the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health) Waves 1 through 4 (1995–2008). Marijuana use was measured in the past year at each wave and participants were categorized as “users” or “nonusers.” Partner violence was constructed using six items (three pertaining to victimization and three concerning perpetration) from Wave 4 (2007–2008). Using these six items, participants were categorized as “victims only,” “perpetrators only,” or “victims and perpetrators.” Survey multinomial regression was used to examine the relationship between marijuana use and intimate partner violence. Consistent use of marijuana during adolescence was most predictive of intimate partner violence (OR = 2.08, p < .001). Consistent marijuana use (OR = 1.85, p < .05) was related to an increased risk of intimate partner violence perpetration. Adolescent marijuana use, particularly consistent use throughout adolescence, is associated with perpetration or both perpetration of and victimization by intimate partner violence in early adulthood. These findings have implications for intimate partner violence prevention efforts, as marijuana use should be considered as a target of early intimate partner violence intervention and treatment programming.

Keywords: intimate partner violence, dating violence, longitudinal, victimization, marijuana

Intimate partner violence is a serious public health problem. Intimate partner violence is associated with negative health consequences, including an elevated risk of unhealthy weight control behaviors, low self-esteem and personal insecurity, pregnancy, suicidality, sexually transmitted diseases, chronic disease, physical injury, and substance use (Ackard, Neumark-Sztainer, & Hannan, 2003; Campbell, 2002; Coker et al., 2000; Kim-Godwin, Clements, McCuiston, & Fox, 2009; Pandey, Dutt, & Banerjee, 2009; Roberts, Auinger, & Klein, 2006; Silverman, Raj, Mucci, & Hathaway, 2001; Smith, Elwyn, Ireland, & Thornberry, 2010; Swahn, Bossarte, & Sullivent, 2008). According to the National Violence Against Women Survey, 16.3% of men and 19.7% of women between the ages of 18 and 25 report experiencing intimate partner violence within their lifetime. Between the ages of 26 and 35, these rates are even higher (23% among men and 31.2% among women; Coker et al., 2002). Another study reports even higher rates of intimate partner perpetration and victimization among 22-year-olds (40.2%), 23-year-olds (36.2%), and 24-year-olds (18.3%; Gomez, 2011). Therefore, an understanding of the etiology of intimate partner violence is necessary to prevent onset and continuity into adulthood (Chen & White, 2004; Gomez, 2011; Hines & Straus, 2007; Jain, Buka, Subramanian, & Molnar, 2010; Temple, Stuart, & O’Farrell, 2009).

There is evidence of a relationship between illicit drug use and intimate partner violence (El-Bassel, Gilbert, Wu, Chang, & Fontdevila, 2007; Moore et al., 2008; Roberts, Klein, & Fisher, 2003; Temple & Freeman, 2011). In a meta-analysis of 96 studies,Moore et al. (2008) found that use of marijuana was significantly associated (d = .22) with partner violence among all ages. Other studies have demonstrated support for the positive relationship between marijuana use and intimate partner violence among high school students (Chase, Treboux, & O’leary, 2002; Malik, Sorenson, & Aneshensel, 1997; Sorenson & Berk, 2001), college students (Nabors, 2010), and clinical populations (Chermack, Walton, Fuller, & Blow, 2001; Murphy, O’Farrell, Fals-Stewart, & Feehan, 2001). The generalizability of these findings to a general sample of adolescents and young adults is unclear.

Much of the research on intimate partner violence has tended to concentrate only on perpetration and perpetrators or only on victimization and victims without assessing the overlap between the two (Gottfredson, 1981; Schreck, Stewart, & Osgood, 2008). Gottfredson (1981) suggests that factors associated with risks for victimization may also be associated with risk for offending, suggesting that similar mechanisms may be operating in both. The extant research that has been conducted on the overlap between perpetration and victimization has paid little attention to the longitudinal patterning of perpetration and victimization (Lauritsen & Laub, 2007). The current study will address this gap in the literature by examining the role of marijuana use by perpetrators only, victims only, and those who are both victims and perpetrators of intimate partner violence in a nationally representative sample followed over a period of 11 years.

To our knowledge, only seven studies have examined the relationship between marijuana use and intimate partner violence using longitudinal data. Of these studies, three used clinical populations (El-Bassel, Gilbert, Wu, Go, & Hill, 2005; Fals-Stewart, Golden, & Schumacher, 2003; Walton, Chermack, & Blow, 2002), two were conducted with specific populations (i.e., only females or African Americans; Railford, Wingood, & Diclemente, 2007; Testa, Livingston, & Leonard, 2003), one considered the effect of marijuana use with other illicit drugs (Roberts et al., 2003), and one focused on young adults between the ages of 18 and 27 who were cohabitating or married (Woffordt, Mihalic, & Menard, 1994). With the exception ofWalton et al. (2002), who classified intimate partner violence as “expressed” or “received,” all studies categorized intimate partner violence as “victims only,” “perpetrators only,” or a heterogeneous “victim or perpetrator” (e.g., any intimate partner violence) category. The current study is unique in that it uses a nationally representative sample of adolescent youth (beginning at age 15) and follows them into adulthood (until age 26). This longitudinal design is necessary to understand how the effects of differential patterns of marijuana use over the life-course influence participation in intimate partner violence. For example, adolescents who use marijuana at one point in their life and desist thereafter may be at lower risk for intimate partner violence compared with an adolescent who uses marijuana consistently throughout adolescence and young adulthood. This is the first study to evaluate the longitudinal effect of marijuana use on intimate partner violence.

The measures of intimate partner violence used in this study (nonviolence, victim only, perpetrator only, and victim and perpetrator) allow us to examine perpetration and victimization of intimate partner violence as distinct measures, including a “victim and perpetrator” overlap category. Use of this overlap category of perpetration and victimization is a contribution to the literature on intimate partner violence, as the combination of both behaviors has been largely underresearched (Gottfredson, 1981; Schreck et al., 2008). The few studies evaluating the overlap between victimization and perpetration have found substantial support for this group (Maldonado-Molina, Jennings, Tobler, Piquero, & Canino, 2010; Jennings, Park, Tomsich, Gover, & Akers, 2011). BesidesJennings et al. (2011), who found substantial support for the perpetration–victimization overlap in dating violence in a sample of South Korean college students, no studies to our knowledge have applied the overlap perspective to intimate partner violence in a nationally representative sample of adolescents and young adults in the United States.

Specifically, the purpose of this study is to test the effect of patterns of marijuana use in adolescence and early adulthood (between ages 15 and 21) on intimate partner violence (by age 26) in young adulthood. We hypothesized that consistent marijuana users are at greater risk of being perpetrators, and both victims and perpetrators of intimate partner violence compared with nonusers.

Method

Research Design

Data were obtained from Waves 1 (1994–1995), 2 (1995–1996), 3 (2001–2002), and 4 (2007–2008) of the restricted-use sample of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health). The Add Health is a nationally representative sample of 80 high schools and 52 middle schools in the United States, using a two-stage cluster design and selecting students from school rosters. Data were collected from an in-home face-to-face interview. Adolescents and their parents were interviewed separately at Wave 1. Subsequent waves focused only on the adolescents who participated in Wave 1 (parents were not reinterviewed). Details of data-collection and survey procedures are described elsewhere (Harris et al., 2003). After excluding cases with missing data weights at Wave 4 (Chantala & Tabor, 1999), 9,421 participants remained in the data set. The exclusion of cases without weights was necessary to include only the participants in the cohort sample of the survey.

Measures

Dependent Variable

Intimate partner violence

The dependent variable was created with six items measuring perpetration and victimization reported as occurring during the 12 months prior to Wave 4 participation. Respondents were not given any formal definition of “intimate partner”; therefore, “partner” was left to the respondents’ individual interpretation. Three items measured victimization: (a) “How often did (your partner) threaten you with violence, push or shove you, or throw something at you that could hurt?” (b) “How often has (your partner) slapped, hit or kicked you?” and (c) “How often did you have an injury, such as a sprain, bruise, or cut because of a fight with (your partner)?” Participants who reported any of these victimization behaviors were categorized as victims.

Three items measured perpetration: (a) “How often did you threaten (your partner) with violence, push or shove (him or her), or throw something at (him or her) that could hurt?” (b) “How often did you slap, hit, or kick (your partner)?” and (c) “How often did (your partner) have an injury, such as a sprain, bruise, or cut because of a fight with you?” Participants who reported any of these perpetration behaviors were categorized as perpetrators. If the respondent reported both victimization and perpetration behaviors, he or she was categorized as both a victim and a perpetrator.

Independent Variables

Four independent variables were derived from the marijuana use variable at Waves 1, 2, and 3: “[In your life (Wave 1)] or [since month of last interview (Waves 2 & 3)], how many times have you used marijuana?” Respondents who reported no marijuana use at all waves were classified as “nonmarijuana users.” Respondents who reported marijuana use at Wave 1 or 2 (during adolescence, ages 15 or 16) but no use at Wave 3 (early adulthood, age 21) were considered “desistors from marijuana use.” Participants who reported marijuana use at Wave 3 but not during adolescence (Waves 1 or 2) were considered “initiators.” Respondents who reported marijuana use at all waves were categorized as “consistent” users. These four groups have been used in previous research as differential categories of substance users (Maldonado-Molina, Reingle, & Jennings, 2011; Sampson & Laub, 2003).

Covariates

We used measures of all covariates at Wave 1 as predictors of intimate partner violence at Wave 4 to account for baseline risky behavior and found that covariates did not vary substantially over time.

Depression

This mental health status variable was measured with one item, “How often in the past week have you felt depressed?” Values for this variable were dichotomized into “no instances of depression” and “one or more instances” of depression in the past week.

Parental involvement

Parental influence and involvement was measured using a scale of 20 items (10 for maternal involvement and 10 measuring paternal involvement; Prado et al., 2009). Each individual item was dichotomized, and the scale was the sum of all 20 items (range: 0–20). For both their mother and their father, respondents answered 10 items about activities occurring in the past 4 weeks: (a) going shopping; (b) playing a sport; (c) attending a religious or church-related event; (d) talking about someone they are dating or a party they attended; (e) attending a movie, play, concert, or sporting event; (f) talked about a personal problem they were having; (g) had a serious argument about their behavior; (h) talked about work or grades; (i) worked on a project for school; and (j) talked about other things they are doing in school. Cronbach’s coefficient alpha for this scale was .74.

Binge drinking

Binge drinking was measured using the item, “In the past 12 months, on how many days did you drink five or more drinks in a row?” Adolescents who reported at least one episode of binge drinking in the past year were considered to have participated in “binge drinking,” whereas those who did not report this behavior were categorized as “nonbinge drinkers.”

Peer marijuana and alcohol use

Peer alcohol use was measured using one item, “Of your three best friends, how many drink alcohol at least once a month?” For analysis, we dichotomized peer alcohol use as “no friends” and “one or more friends.” Similarly, respondents were asked, “Of your three best friends, how many use marijuana at least once a month?” For analysis, we dichotomized peer marijuana use as “no friends” and “one or more friends.”

Parental alcohol use

Parental alcohol use was measured using one item on the parent survey, “How often do you drink alcohol?” For analysis, respondents were dichotomized as “nonusers” and “alcohol users.”

Demographic

Respondents were asked to self-report their race as “White,” “Black or African American,” “American Indian or Native American,” “Asian or Pacific Islander,” and/or “Other” during data collection. Persons who reported multiple races were coded as “Other.” Ethnicity was recorded using the item, “Are you of Hispanic or Latino background?” Those who responded “yes” to this ethnicity item were categorized as “Hispanics,” regardless of how the “race” item was answered. The respondents’ age was calculated by subtracting the month of birth from the Wave 1 survey participation (calculated from the middle of the month for anonymity purposes).

Analytical Strategy

Consistent with the recommendations for Add Health data analysis, all analyses were conducted considering the clustered two-stage sampling design, and observations were weighted due to the unequal probability of selection of each primary sampling unit (Chantala & Tabor, 1999). To account for the clustering of individuals within schools, survey multinomial logistic regression was used to provide weighted effect estimates and confidence intervals. Respondents in the “nonviolent” category served as the dependent variable reference group for all models, and the “nonmarijuana users” served as the reference group for all groups of marijuana users. Three models were created to test the effects of marijuana use patterns on intimate partner violence. The first model tested the bivariate relationship between intimate partner violence and each covariate described previously (demographics and other risk and protective factors). Only predictors that met the inclusion criteria (p < .10) were included in the multivariate models. The second model was a bivariate model testing the relationship between marijuana use and intimate partner violence. The final model was a multivariate analysis of the effects of marijuana use on intimate partner violence, accounting for all covariates retained from the initial bivariate model. All analyses were conducted using STATA 10 (StataCorp, 2009).

Results

Participants

Table 1 reports demographic and relevant descriptive characteristics of the sample. Briefly, the cohort was 42.5% male, with a mean age of 15.26 (SE = 0.02) at Wave 1. Whites comprised 57.7% of the sample, 20.9% were African American, and 15.4% self-identified as Hispanic. More than 50% of the sample reported any marijuana use between ages 15 and 26, and approximately 30% reported some form of intimate partner violence at Wave 4 (12.0% were victims only, 4.7% were perpetrators only, and 11.9% reported both victimization and perpetration of intimate partner violence).

Table 1.

Description of Sample Adolescents

n %
Intimate partner violence, Wave 4
  Nonviolent 6,472 71.26
  Victim only 1,093 12.03
  Perpetrator only 424 4.66
  Victim and perpetrator 1,083 11.91
Marijuana use, Waves 1–3
  Nonuser 4,023 47.28
  Desisted from marijuana use 756 8.88
  Initiated marijuana use 2,594 30.49
  Consistent marijuana use 1,138 13.35
Demographics, Wave 1
  Male 4,279 42.53
  Age 15.26 (0.02)
Race/ethnicity
  White 5,423 57.65
  African American 1,969 20.93
  Hispanic 1,448 15.41
  Asian or Pacific Islander 632 6.71
  Native American 244 2.59
Open in a new tab

Note: N = 9,421.

Bivariate analyses indicated that any pattern of marijuana use during adolescence and early adulthood was a significant risk factor for being a victim and a perpetrator of intimate partner violence (Table 2). In addition, consistent use of marijuana marginally predicted victimization (OR = 1.28; 95% CI [0.98, 1.69]).

Table 2.

Marijuana Use (Ages 15–21) Patterns as Predictors of Intimate Partner Violence (Age 26)

Victim Onlyb
 Perpetrator Onlyb
 Victim and Perpetratorb
OR 95% CI OR 95% CI OR 95% CI
Unadjusted modela
  No marijuana use 1.00 — 1.00 — 1.00 —
  Desisted from marijuana use 0.99 [0.78, 1.24] 1.27 [0.93, 1.75] 1.27* [1.05, 1.54]
  Initiated marijuana use 1.14 [0.86, 1.50] 1.28 [0.80, 2.06] 1.54** [1.12, 2.11]
  Consistent marijuana use 1.28+ [0.98, 1.69] 1.84** [1.18, 2.86] 2.36*** [1.89, 2.94]
Adjusted modela
  No marijuana use 1.00 — 1.00 — 1.00 —
  Desisted from marijuana use 1.10 [0.80, 1.52] 1.33 [0.83, 2.14] 1.37+ [0.96, 1.96]
  Initiated marijuana use 1.99 [0.78, 1.26] 1.40 [0.95, 2.05] 1.39** [1.12, 1.73]
  Consistent marijuana use 1.24 [0.89, 1.73] 1.85* [1.04, 3.28] 2.08*** [1.53, 2.85]
Covariates
  Peer alcohol use 0.97 [0.77, 1.18] 1.13 [0.82, 1.55] 1.24+ [0.97, 1.59]
  Peer marijuana use 0.92 [0.72, 1.18] 1.42+ [0.97, 2.09] 1.22+ [0.97, 1.54]
  Parental involvement 0.98 [0.95, 1.01] 1.01 [0.96, 1.05] 0.98 [0.95, 1.02]
  Parental alcohol use 0.94 [0.79, 1.11] 0.98 [0.70, 1.39] 0.74** [0.59, 0.92]
  Depression 1.08 [0.90, 1.31] 1.26 [0.90, 1.76] 1.30* [1.05, 1.60]
  Binge drinking 1.31* [1.03, 1.67] 0.75 [0.53, 1.09] 1.09 [0.84, 1.40]
Open in a new tab

Note: Adjusted models were adjusted for race/ethnicity, gender, age, and listed covariates.

a

Reference: Never marijuana use.

b

Reference: Nonviolent.

+

p < .10.

*

p < .05.

**

p < .01.

***

p < .001.

Similar results were found when adjusting for covariates. Specifically, any pattern of marijuana use significantly predicted victimization and perpetration of intimate partner violence. The strongest effects were found among consistent marijuana users (perpetration: OR = 1.84, 95% CI [1.04, 3.28]; victim and perpetrator: OR = 2.36, 95% CI [1.89, 2.94]). However, adolescents with any pattern of marijuana use had an increased risk of victimization and perpetration compared with nonusers.

In addition to marijuana use, males, African American/Black youth, and depression were significantly associated with increased risk for intimate partner violence. Males were significantly more likely than females to be victims of intimate partner violence (OR = 2.44; 95% CI [2.00, 2.99]) and less likely to be perpetrators (OR = 0.47; 95% CI [0.29, 0.74]). African American/Blacks were significantly more likely than Whites to be victims (OR = 2.13; 95% CI [1.55, 2.92]). Depression increased the odds of victimization and perpetration (OR = 1.30; 95% CI [1.05, 1.60]). In contrast, adolescents whose parents used alcohol were less likely to be both victims and perpetrators of intimate partner violence (OR = 0.74; 95% CI [0.59, 0.92]) compared with those whose parents did not use alcohol. Increased age reduced the odds of victimization and perpetration (OR = 0.93; 95% CI [0.86, 0.99]).

Discussion

Among young adults, all analyzed patterns of marijuana use during adolescence and early adulthood were associated with a 1.2 to 2.4 times increased risk of intimate partner violence perpetration and victimization. This study expands on prior research linking marijuana use with intimate partner violence (Moore et al., 2008) by using a longitudinal design and recognizing the overlap between perpetration and victimization in intimate partner violence. Specifically, we found that any use of marijuana during adolescence and young adulthood increases the risk of intimate partner violence. Consistent users were at greatest risk of perpetration and victimization.

The current study found substantial evidence for the “victim–offender” overlap among those who reported intimate partner violence (12% of the sample were both victims and perpetrators). Consistent marijuana use was a strong predictor of intimate partner violence for those who were both victims and perpetrators, independent of alcohol use and other risk factors. These findings are consistent with prior studies, which have found that any marijuana use is predictive of victimization and physical assault by their intimate partners (Moore et al., 2008; Nabors, 2010; Railford et al., 2007). This finding highlights the role of marijuana use, independent of alcohol use, as an important predictor of intimate partner violence and has a distinct effect on victimization and perpetration of intimate partner violence.

Unexpectedly, results indicated that males were more likely to be victims and less likely to be perpetrators of intimate partner violence compared with females. However, a small body of literature supports this finding (Chan et al., 2008; Gover, Park, Tomsich, & Jennings, 2011). This finding may be the result of underreporting of victimization by females or increased prevalence of the “victim–offender” overlap in intimate partner violence. In agreement with the extant literature on intimate partner violence, this study found that Blacks (Nabors, 2010) as well as persons suffering from depression (Roberts, 2003) were at risk for intimate partner violence.

Implications

These findings have a number of implications for intimate partner violence prevention. First, given that any marijuana use appears to increase the risk for intimate partner violence, violence-prevention strategies should include early and continued marijuana prevention efforts in existing intimate partner violence treatment and prevention programming. Second, knowledge regarding the link between marijuana use and intimate partner violence could be used to inform domestic violence treatment providers of issues related to intimate partner violence recidivism. If early and continual marijuana treatment is emphasized as an important component of domestic violence treatment, then repeat occurrences of intimate partner violence among marijuana users may be reduced. Third, recognizing that there is a shared overlap between intimate partner violence perpetration and victimization and that marijuana use is a strong predictor for experiencing both outcomes, programs and policies that incorporate the complex relationship between marijuana and intimate partner violence could be developed to offer a more comprehensive treatment regimen. These holistic approaches are likely to be more beneficial than the current programs that are often “client specific” (e.g., they only serve drug users, or victims, or perpetrators; Karmen, 2007). Fourth, the finding that males are at increased risk for intimate partner violence indicates that males should be included in intimate partner violence prevention programming, which has traditionally been reserved for women. Culturally specific programming may also be relevant, as different risk factors may be present for Blacks compared with other groups, which may increase their risk for intimate partner violence. Future research is necessary to delineate these cultural-specific risk factors. Finally, the findings from this study may shed light on the potential harms of legislation legalizing marijuana use, as increased access to marijuana may increase use and, therefore, increase the harm associated with marijuana use (e.g., domestic violence, chronic diseases, and unintentional injuries).

Strengths and Limitations

The results from this study should be interpreted in light of a few limitations. First, because we could not assess marijuana use at the time of the violent behavior, it is unclear how event-specific marijuana use relates to intimate partner violence. Second, this study used secondary data to assess the effect of marijuana use on intimate partner violence, and there are a number of limitations to using secondary data. For example, we were unable to account for baseline intimate partner violence, as such measures were not included in Wave 1 of the Add Health data. Also, we could not differentiate the frequency of marijuana use over time, as frequent, consistent marijuana users may be at the highest risk for intimate partner violence. Third, data were collected using interview methodology, and, because of the sensitive nature of the items (intimate partner violence), behavior may be underreported. Finally, the analysis did not account for relationship characteristics (casual dating, marriage, cohabitation, discordance of race/ethnicity, demographics), and these variables may have an impact on intimate partner violence (Buzawa, Buzawa, & Stark, 2011).

This study has four important strengths. First, this study was able to evaluate the relationship between marijuana use and intimate partner violence across two developmental life-course periods (adolescence and early adulthood), a function of the longitudinal nature of the data. Second, the sample was nationally representative, enhancing the external validity of the findings. Third, this study used patterns of marijuana use over time rather than the typical dichotomized measure of drug use. Finally, we were able to evaluate the “victim–offender overlap” by including intimate partner violence and perpetration as a part of the outcome variable in this study.

In conclusion, any marijuana use during adolescence nearly doubles the risk for intimate partner violence perpetration and both victimization and perpetration. Future studies should examine the relationship between the eventspecific co-occurrence of marijuana use and intimate partner violence, as well as the differential effect of marijuana use on intimate partner violence by characteristics of the relationship (age discordance, number of common friends or acquaintances, etc.). These results have implications for intimate partner violence prevention efforts, as marijuana use should be a target of preventative and early intimate partner violence intervention and treatment programming.

Acknowledgments

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: National Institute for Alcohol and Alcoholism: K01 AA018255, PI: S. Staras and K01 AA017480, PI: M. Maldonado-Molina.

Biographies

Jennifer M. Reingle is a PhD in epidemiology at the University of Florida. She currently serves as a research assistant in the Department of Health Outcomes and Policy and is a fellow of the Institute for Child Health Policy. She is interested in metaanalysis, the link between alcohol and violence, and gender differences in criminal behaviors among young adults.

Stephanie A. S. Staras, PhD, is a research assistant professor in the Department of Health Outcomes and Policy at the University of Florida. Her research interests include sexually transmitted infections, partner selection, and the role of alcohol use in sexually transmitted infection transmission.

Wesley G. Jennings, PhD, is an associate professor in the College of Behavioral and Community Sciences in the Department of Criminology and has a courtesy assistant professor appointment in the Department of Mental Health Law and Policy at the University of South Florida. He received his doctorate degree in criminology from the University of Florida in 2007. He has published more than 60 peer-reviewed articles, and his major research interests include longitudinal data analysis, semiparametric group-based modeling, sex offending, gender, and race/ethnicity. He is also currently a coinvestigator on a National Institute of Justice–funded project examining sex offender recidivism and collateral consequences. In addition, he is a recent recipient of the 2011 William S. Simon/Anderson Publishing Outstanding Paper Award from the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences.

Jennifer Branchini, MA, is a graduate student at the University of Florida and research assistant for the Institute for Child Health Policy.

Mildred M. Maldonado-Molina, PhD, is an associate professor in the Department of Health Outcomes and Policy and the Institute for Child Health Policy at the University of Florida. Her research interests include examining health disparities in alcohol and drug use among adolescents, alcohol policy research, and longitudinal methods.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

  1. Ackard DM, Neumark-Sztainer D, Hannan P. Dating violence among a nationally representative sample of adolescent girls and boys: Associations with behavioral and mental health. Journal of Gender Specific Medicine. 2003;6:39–48. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Buzawa E, Buzawa CG, Stark E. Responding to domestic violence: The integration of criminal justice and human services. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; 2011. [Google Scholar]
  3. Campbell JC. Health consequences of intimate partner violence. Lancet. 2002;359:1331–1336. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)08336-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Chan KL, Straus MA, Brownridge D, Tiwari A, Leung WC. Prevalence of dating partner violence and suicidal ideation among male and female university students worldwide. Journal of Midwifery and Women’s Health. 2008;53:529–537. doi: 10.1016/j.jmwh.2008.04.016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Chantala K, Tabor J. Strategies to perform a design-based analysis using the Add Health data. National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. 1999 Retrieved from http://www.cpc.unc.edu/projects/addhealth/data/guides/weight1.pdf.
  6. Chase KA, Treboux D, O’leary D. Characteristics of high-risk adolescents dating violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 2002;17:33–49. [Google Scholar]
  7. Chen P, White HR. Gender differences in adolescent and young adult predictors of later intimate partner violence: A prospective study. Violence Against Women. 2004;10:1283–1301. [Google Scholar]
  8. Chermack ST, Walton MA, Fuller BE, Blow FC. Correlates of expressed and received violence across relationship types among men and women substance abusers. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. 2001;15:140–151. doi: 10.1037//0893-164x.15.2.140. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Coker AL, Davis KE, Arias I, Desai S, Sanderson M, Brandt HM, Smith PH. Physical and mental health effects of intimate partner violence for men and women. American Journal of Preventative Medicine. 2002;24:260–268. doi: 10.1016/s0749-3797(02)00514-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Coker AL, McKeown RE, Sanderson M, Davis KE, Valois RF, Huebner S. Severe dating violence and quality of life among South Carolina high school students. American Journal of Preventative Medicine. 2000;19:220–227. doi: 10.1016/s0749-3797(00)00227-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. El-Bassel N, Gilbert L, Wu E, Chang M, Fontdevila J. Perpetration of intimate partner violence among men in methadone treatment programs in New York city. American Journal of Public Health. 2007;97:1230–1232. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2006.090712. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. El-BAssel N, Gilbert L, Wu E, Go H, Hill J. Relationship between drug abuse and intimate partner violence: A longitudinal study among women receiving methadone. American Journal of Public Health. 2005;95:465–470. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2003.023200. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Fals-Stewart W, Golden J, Schumacher JA. Intimate partner violence and substance use: A longitudinal dat-to-day examination. Addictive Behaviors. 2003;28:1555–1574. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2003.08.035. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Gomez AM. Testing the cycle of violence hypothesis: Child abuse and adolescent dating violence as predictors of intimate partner violence in young adulthood. Youth Society. 2011;43(1):171–192. [Google Scholar]
  15. Gottfredson MR. On the etiology of criminal victimization. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. 1981;72:714–726. [Google Scholar]
  16. Gover AR, Park M, Tomsich EA, Jennings WG. Dating violence perpetration and victimization among south Korean college students: A focus on gender and childhood maltreatment. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 2011;26(6):1232–1263. doi: 10.1177/0886260510368161. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Harris KM, Florey F, Tabor JW, Bearman PS, Jones J, Udry JR. The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health: Research Design. 2003 Retrieved from http://www.cpc.unc.edu/projects/addhealth/design.
  18. Hines DA, Straus MA. Binge drinking and violence against dating partners: The mediating effect of antisocial traits and behaviors in a multinational perspective. Aggressive Behavior. 2007;33:441–457. doi: 10.1002/ab.20196. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Jain S, Buka LS, Subramanian SV, Molnar BE. Neighborhood predictors of dating violence victimization and perpetration in young adulthood: A multilevel study. American Journal of Public Health. 2010;100:1737. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2009.169730. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Jennings WG, Park M, Tomsich E, Gover A, Akers RL. Assessing the overlap in dating violence perpetration and victimization among South Korean college students: The influence of social learning and self-control. American Journal of Criminal Justice. 2011;36:188–206. [Google Scholar]
  21. Karmen A. Crime victims: An introduction to victimology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth; 2007. [Google Scholar]
  22. Kim-Godwin YS, Clements C, McCuiston AM, Fox JA. Dating violence among highschool students in Southeastern North Carolina. Journal of School Nursing. 2009;25:141–151. doi: 10.1177/1059840508330679. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Lauritsen JL, Laub JH. Understanding the link between victimization and offending: New reflections on an old idea. Crime Prevention Studies. 2007;22:55–75. [Google Scholar]
  24. Maldonado-Molina M, Reingle JM, Jennings WG. Does alcohol use predict violent behavior? The relationship between alcohol use and violence in a nationally representative longitudinal sample. Youth, Violence and Juvenile Justice. 2011;9(2):99–111. doi: 10.1177/1541204010384492. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Maldonado-Molina MM, Jennings WG, Tobler AL, Piquero AR, Canino G. Assessing victim–offender overlap among Hispanic youth. Journal of Criminal Justice. 2010;38:1191–1201. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Malik S, Sorenson SB, Aneshensel CS. Community and dating violence among adolescents: Perpetration and victimization. Journal of Adolescent Health. 1997;21:291–302. doi: 10.1016/S1054-139X(97)00143-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Moore TM, Stuart GL, Meehan JC, Rhatigan DL, Hellmuth JC, Keen SM. Drug abuse and aggression between intimate partners: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review. 2008;28:238–247. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2007.05.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Murphy CM, O’Farrell TJ, Fals-Stewart W, Feehan M. Correlates of intimate partner violence among male alcoholic patients. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2001;69:528–540. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.69.3.528. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Nabors EL. Drug use and intimate partner violence among college students: An in-depth exploration. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 2010;25:1043–1063. doi: 10.1177/0886260509340543. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Pandey GK, Dutt D, Banerjee B. Partner and relationship factors in domestic violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 2009;24:1175–1191. doi: 10.1177/0886260508322186. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Prado G, Huang S, Schwartz S, Maldonado-Molina MM, Bandiera F, De la Rosa M, Pantin H. What accounts for differences in substance use among U.S. born and Foreign born Hispanic adolescents? Results from a longitudinal prospective cohort study with a nationally representative sample of Hispanic adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health. 2009;45:118–125. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2008.12.011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Railford JL, Wingood GM, Diclemente RJ. Prevalence, incidence, and predictors of dating violence: A longitudinal study of African American female adolescents. Journal of Women’s Health. 2007;16:822–833. doi: 10.1089/jwh.2006.0002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Roberts TA, Auinger P, Klein JD. Predictors of partner abuse in a nationally representative sample of adolescents involved in heterosexual dating relationships. Violence and Victims. 2006;21:81–89. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Roberts TA, Klein JD, Fisher S. Longitudinal effects of intimate partner abuse on high-risk behavior among adolescents. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine. 2003;157:875–881. doi: 10.1001/archpedi.157.9.875. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Sampson RJ, Laub JH. Life-course desisters? Trajectories of crime among delinquent boys followed to age 70. Criminology. 2003;41:555–592. [Google Scholar]
  36. Schreck CJ, Stewart EA, Osgood DW. A reappraisal of the overlap of violent offenders and victims. Criminology. 2008;46:871–906. [Google Scholar]
  37. Silverman JG, Raj A, Mucci LA, Hathaway JE. Dating violence against adolescent girls and associated substance, unhealthy weight control, sexual risk beehavior, pregnancy, and suicidality. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2001;286:572–579. doi: 10.1001/jama.286.5.572. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Smith CA, Elwyn LJ, Ireland TO, Thornberry TP. Impact of adolescent exposure to intimate partner violence on substance use in early adulthood. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. 2010;71:219–230. doi: 10.15288/jsad.2010.71.219. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Sorenson SB, Berk RA. Handgun sales, beer sales, and youth homicide, California, 1972–1993. Journal of Public Health Policy. 2001;22:182–197. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. StataCorp. Stata Statistical Software: Release 11. College Station, TX: Author; 2009. [Google Scholar]
  41. Swahn MH, Bossarte RM, Sullivent EE. Age of alcohol use initiation, suicidal behavior, and peer and dating violence victimization and perpetration among high-risk, seventh-grade adolescents. Pediatrics. 2008;121:297–305. doi: 10.1542/peds.2006-2348. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Temple JR, Freeman DH. Dating violence and substance use among ethnically diverse adolescents. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 2011;26(4):701–718. doi: 10.1177/0886260510365858. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Temple JR, Stuart GL, O’Farrell TJ. Prevention of intimate partner violence in substance-using populations. Substance Use and Misuse. 2009;44:1318–1328. doi: 10.1080/10826080902961377. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Testa M, Livingston JA, Leonard KE. Women’s substance use and experiences of intimate partner violence: A longitudinal investigation among a community sample. Addictive Behaviors. 2003;28:1649–1664. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2003.08.040. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Walton MA, Chermack ST, Blow FC. Correlates of received and expressed violence persistence following substance abuse treatment. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 2002;67:1–12. doi: 10.1016/s0376-8716(02)00016-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Woffordt S, Mihalic DE, Menard S. Continuities in marital violence. Journal of Family Violence. 1994;9:195–225. [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES