Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2020 Sep 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Res Adolesc. 2018 Jun 17;29(3):777–791. doi: 10.1111/jora.12415

Dating Relationship Dynamics, Mental Health, and Dating Victimization: A Longitudinal Path Analysis

Elizabeth A Mumford 1, Bruce G Taylor 2, Weiwei Liu 3, Peggy C Giordano 4
PMCID: PMC6941487  NIHMSID: NIHMS1063075  PMID: 29911354

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to assess the longitudinal association between adolescent dating relationship dynamics (measures of intimacy and problem dynamics), mental health, and physical and/or sexual victimization by a dating partner. Gender-stratified analyses were conducted in a sample of 261 adolescents, ages 10–18 at baseline, interviewed in three annual waves (2013–2015) of the nationally representative Survey on Teen Relationships and Intimate Violence (STRiV). Among male daters, better mental health at baseline was negatively associated with problem dynamics at follow-up, and aspects of problem dynamics at baseline predicted worse mental health at follow-up. However, unexpectedly, aspects of relationship intimacy at baseline were also negatively associated with mental health at follow-up. Male daters’ victimization did not mediate longitudinal measures of mental health or of relationship dynamics, but did predict worse mental health at follow-up. Among female daters, we found no longitudinal associations between mental health and intimacy or problem relationship dynamics, in either direction. However, victimization mediated aspects of female daters’ reported relationship dynamics. Dating violence prevention efforts should reflect that adolescent females reporting controlling behaviors and feelings of passionate love may be at increased risk for victimization. Positive youth development efforts should attend to the bidirectional associations of mental health and dating relationship dynamics over time, particularly for male adolescents.

Adolescent involvement in romantic relationships is generally considered positive development (Connolly, Craig, Goldberg, & Pepler, 1999; Furman & Wehner, 1997; Furman & Winkles, 2012), and dating behaviors more commonly progress, rather than regress, in seriousness and intimacy during adolescence (Meier & Allen, 2009). However, there can be problematic components of dating as well. The intensity of serious relationships has been found to be associated with abusive or violent interactions (Lewis & Fremouw, 2001), and rates of psychological, physical, and sexual victimization in adolescent dating relationships increase with developmental age (Exner-Cortens, Eckenrode, & Roth- man, 2013; Orpinas, Hsieh, Song, Holland, & Nahapetyan, 2013; Taylor & Mumford, 2016). One consequence of victimization in a dating relationship may be mental health problems (Exner-Cortens et al., 2013). Yet because mental health may be a function of other facets of adolescent biology, history, and social context, the adolescent’s mental health, coinciding with developing dating relationships, may contribute to and/or be a result of (un)healthy dynamics within those relationships. There has been insufficient research regarding the extent to which victimization in a dating relationship follows and/or is a precursor to mental health and dating relationship dynamics.

Theoretical Background

Multiple strands of theory can help explain the complex linkages between the various threads of research studying patterns of dating relationship dynamics, mental health, and dating victimization. Models explaining the association between poorer mental health and dating include explanations such as the potential for dating behaviors to monopolize attention to the deficit of other important processes, insufficient coping skills among adolescents to manage the stress that arises with a dating relationship, and individual differences such as personality or interpersonal style (Davila, 2008). Each of these explanations informs and/or draws on the dyadic nature of a dating relationship and the central subject of this study: dating relationship dynamics.

Sullivan’s interpersonal theory (1953) introduced the concept of significant others and the role that interpersonal interaction plays in individual development and well-being. Sullivan further identified intimacy as an emerging social need that develops during puberty and adolescence (following the development of needs for tenderness, companionship, and acceptance in earlier childhood), without which individuals are likely to feel anxiety (Furman & Wehner, 1994). Conversely, anxiety may interfere with individuals satisfying their need for intimacy (Exner-Cortens, 2014; Sullivan, 1953). Thus, while the interpersonal interactions of dating relationships may contribute to adolescents’ developmental goals and improved mental health, there is also the potential for individuals’ mental health problems to disrupt intimacy within dating relationships.

Disruption to the bidirectional association between adolescent mental health and intimacy in dating relationships may arise from many sources. In discussing the potential for change in relationship dynamics, Furman and Winkles (2012) queried the role of salient events such as abusive interactions in the dynamic relationship processes as well as adolescents’ anxiety regarding the relationship. In a review of five theories of adolescent development relevant to abusive dating behaviors, Exner- Cortens (2014) highlighted the potentially bidirectional relationship between personal anxiety and relationship intimacy (posited by Sullivan’s interpersonal theory) as a complex outcome of dating victimization. In other words, victimization may disrupt healthy relationship dynamics, which may lead to increased anxiety and risk of further exposure to victimization in dating relationships. This model is illustrated conceptually in Figure 1.

FIGURE 1.

FIGURE 1

Open in a new tab

Conceptual model. Adjusting for wave 1 victimization and demographic characteristics.

Taken together, past empirical work lends support to Sullivan’s and Exner-Cortens’s theories that negative dating relationship dynamics are associated with poorer mental health, but provides no insights as to whether salient victimization experiences interrupt this association. A further complexity that has only been partially considered is how gender differences in reported relationship dynamics, in mental health, and in dating victimization may play out in an integrated longitudinal context. Feminist theory underscores the importance of attending to the gendered nature of intimate partnerships (White, 2009) and the balance of power between adolescents that is traditionally and still frequently found to favor males (Hamby, 2014; Noonan & Charles, 2009; Shorey, Cornelius, & Bell, 2008). As a starting point, we investigate potential differentials in our proposed model by gender, reflecting evidence of gender differences between the constructs that make up our full model.

This study is guided by Sullivan’s theory and the subsequent input of other scholars; however, our model is not a formal test of Sullivan’s theory. In the following sections, we review descriptions and empirical evidence of associations between the key constructs of interest—relationship dynamics, mental health, and dating victimization.

Adolescent Romantic Relationship Dynamics

Adolescent romantic relationships have been studied both in terms of developmental stages and of relationship dynamics. Relationship dynamics may characterize a relationship at single or multiple points in time. Research design has progressed from describing dating relationships in terms of involvement based on frequency of contact and overall duration to assessing relationship quality in terms of disclosure, enjoyment, conflict resolution, intimacy, and security (Collins, 2003; Madsen & Collins, 2011; Roisman, Masten, Coatsworth, & Tellegen, 2004). Both theory and research emphasize the centrality of passion and intimacy in dating relationships (Connolly et al., 1999; Sternberg, 1986). Overall, the dynamics within an individual’s romantic relationship are expected to show some continuity with his or her past relationships, but changes in life circumstances and the influence of new experiences in any given relationship context suggest that relationship dynamics are not necessarily consistent over time or across partners (Furman & Wehner, 1994).

Empirical research has indeed shown that increasing age is associated with changes in a range of adolescent relationship dynamics (see review by Furman & Winkles, 2012), including increases in passionate love (Giordano, Manning, Longmore, & Flanigan, 2012; Sumter, Valkenburg, & Peter, 2013; Whitaker, Le, & Niolon, 2010) and controlling behaviors (Giordano et al., 2012), as well as declining awkwardness in communicating with a dating partner (Giordano et al., 2012). Whereas prior research finds some gender differences in relationship dynamics, such as boys’ perceptions of girls exhibiting more controlling behaviors and ease in communicating with a dating partner, other dynamics are similar for both genders (Giordano, Long- more, & Manning, 2006; Giordano, Manning, & Longmore, 2010). With developmental changes, moreover, it might be expected that there are gender-specific shifts over time in relationship dynamics. As a snapshot or over time, the various constructs defining relationship dynamics may be roughly categorized as positive or negative (see Furman & Winkles, 2012 for review). In this study, we examine positive and negative indicators of relationship dynamics. Passionate love and intimate self-disclosure reflect the positive aspects of relationship dynamics, herein labeled intimacy. Awkward communications and controlling behaviors reflect the negative aspects of relationship dynamics, labeled problem dynamics (see Figure 1).

Romantic Dynamics and Mental Health

Relationship dynamics are informed by the emotional stability each individual brings to the relationship. Two recent reviews of trajectories of depression in adolescence confirm past evidence that depressive symptoms peak during adolescence and, moreover, that a gender difference in depressive symptomology emerges early in adolescence with girls exhibiting more symptoms, perhaps due to girls’ earlier pubertal timing, relative stress, or propensity for a negative cognitive style (Salk, Hyde, & Abramson, 2017; Schubert, Clark, Van, Collinson, & Baune, 2017). Although being male is a predominant risk factor for persistent depression (Brière, Rohde, Stice, & Morizot, 2016), adolescent girls’ anxiety and depressive symptomology is marked by greater fluctuations over time (Olino, Klein, Lewinsohn, Rohde, & Seeley, 2010). Importantly, Davila (2008) highlights that adolescent mental health patterns develop concurrent to the normative development of intimate relationships in adolescence. A separate body of research has documented a negative association between adolescent dating relationships and mental health. Add Health data suggest that the negative association between dating and mental health is stronger for female adolescents compared to males (Joyner & Udry, 2000), a pattern that has been supported in multiple studies (see reviews in Davila, 2008; Natsuaki, Biehl, & Ge, 2009; Vujeva & Furman, 2011).

While far more attention has been directed to adolescent depression associated with dating status, there may also be value in unpacking the dynamics of dating relationships. There is some research investigating the correlation between poorer mental health and interactive relationship dynamics. For example, La Greca and Harrison (2005) found that problem dating relationship dynamics predict adolescent depressive symptoms. Conversely, individuals managing depression or anxiety are more likely to struggle with relationship communications and coping (Lewis & Fremouw, 2001; Longmore, Manning, Giordano, & Copp, 2014; Nash, Long- more, Manning, & Giordano, 2015). In other words, relationship strengths such as intimacy and the absence of problem dynamics are intertwined with individual mental health, and the interplay of these constructs may mitigate the incidence and consequences of dating victimization.

Dating Victimization, Mental Health, and Relationship Dynamics

Experiences of victimization by a dating partner may affect the bidirectional, temporal interaction of mental health and both positive and negative relationship dynamics. First, regarding mental health, cross-sectional empirical studies have shown that anxiety and depression are common correlates of dating victimization (Banyard & Cross, 2008; Callahan, Tolman, & Saunders, 2003; Holt & Espelage, 2005; Mendelson, Turner, & Tandon, 2010). Controlling for past depressive symptoms, Longmore et al. (2014) found a subsequent cross-sectional association between physical victimization and depression. However, cross-sectional research is not able to fully disentangle what may be preexisting individual characteristics (which may in turn inform relationship dynamics) nor assess mental health consequences of victimization. Longitudinal research has shown that victims are at risk of subsequent anxiety, depression, and suicidal ideation (Ackard, Eisenberg, & Neumark-Sztainer, 2007; Bonomi, Anderson, Nemeth, Rivara, & Buettner, 2013; Cleveland, Herrera, & Stuewig, 2003; Exner- Cortens et al., 2013), whether male or female (Johnson, Giordano, Longmore, & Manning, 2014). Conversely, there is limited evidence of poor mental health preceding subsequent involvement in abusive relationship situations (Tschann et al., 2009).

Second, regarding relationship dynamics, a lack of dyadic intimacy and the presence of problem dynamics likely places a relationship at risk for conflict which may, in turn, escalate to abusive behaviors. A handful of studies have found associations between these adolescent relationship dynamics and the risk of victimization. Specifically, studies have found that problem dynamics within adolescent relationships are associated with victimization by the dating partner, and that controlling behaviors are consistently associated with physical and sexual victimization by an adolescent partner (Catallozzi, Simon, Davidson, Breitbart, & Rickert, 2011; Giordano, Soto, Manning, & Longmore, 2010). Awkward communications also signal problem dynamics; youth themselves identify communication flow as critical to healthy dating relationships (Giordano, Manning, & Longmore, 2010; Noonan & Charles, 2009). Reported efforts among undergraduate students (average age 18) to solve dating communication problems were associated with victimization (Cornelius, Shorey, & Beebe, 2010). Because theory suggests that measures of intimacy signal a healthier relationship, we would expect dating victimization to be associated with reduced intimacy. However, studies of the association between adolescents’ passionate love and dating victimization have shown mixed results (Giordano, Manning, & Longmore, 2010; Taylor, Joseph, & Mumford, 2017), highlighting the complexity of distinguishing the love that comes with intimacy and the potential for passionate love to overlap with relationship dependency (Charkow & Nelson, 2000). Moreover, a prior cross-sectional study of intimate self-disclosure found no association with victimization (Giordano, Manning, & Longmore, 2010). Importantly, while much of the research to date has been cross-sectional, we expect that experiences of victimization do play a significant role in the dynamics within ongoing or successive relationships, as investigated in this study.

The Present Study

In sum, there remain gaps in the empirical literature regarding the interplay between adolescents’ mental health, their dating relationship dynamics, and experiences of dating victimization. Longitudinal data are necessary to disentangle the association and sequencing of individual and relationship processes, including how dyadic dynamics and individual mental health are reciprocally related, whether these measures are stable or variable over time, and when problem dynamics and reduced intimacy precede experiences of victimization as well as when they follow victimization. The longitudinal framework and use of path analysis in this study allows us to model any initial variability in individual conditions and early features of the relationship, how these factors influence victimization, and how victimization experiences subsequently influence mental health and later reports of intimacy and problem dynamics. We hypothesized first (H1) that male adolescents would report lower mental health risks than females and, on average, we did not expect to see much change in mental health reports over the study period, as we anticipated that the broad age range of our sample (1018 at baseline, and 12–20 at follow-up) would mask the common nadir in mental health around age 16 (Salk et al., 2017). Second (H2), we expected that dating relationship dynamics—including aspects of intimacy and problem dynamics—would tend to be consistent over time for both female and male adolescents. Third (H3), while empirical evidence has consistently linked romantic relationships with poorer mental health, we expected that subconstructs of relationship dynamics would correlate differentially with mental health. Specifically, per Sullivan’s theory, we anticipated we would find the two problem relationship dynamics (awkward communication and controlling behaviors) to be negatively associated with mental health, whereas we expected the two intimacy measures (passionate love and intimate self-disclosure) to be positively related to mental health. Although developmental systems theory would suggest that the interplay of relationship dynamics and mental health might change over time, we had no specific reason to believe that we would not find these same associations both cross-sectionally and longitudinally. Fourth (H4), building on Exner-Cortens (2014), we hypothesized that victimization would mediate the temporal association between these factors, such that early mental health problems, lack of intimacy (i.e., less intimate self-disclosure and feelings of passionate love), and problem dynamics (i.e., more awkward communications and controlling behaviors) would predict subsequent experiences of victimization, which would in turn be associated at follow-up with poorer mental health, reduced intimacy, and further problem dynamics. Given significant gender differences in experiences of mental health (Merikangas et al., 2010), reports about relationship dynamics (Galliher, Enno, & Wright, 2008; Giordano et al., 2006; Laurent, Kim, & Capaldi, 2008), and interpretations of victimization (Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 2010), we examine these associations separately for male and female respondents in a nationally representative sample.

METHODS

Data for this study are from three waves of the national Survey on Teen Relationships and Intimate Violence (STRiV), collected annually online beginning in October 2013 with parental consent and child assent (Taylor & Mumford, 2016) under protocols approved by the Institutional Review Board of NORC at the University of Chicago. The GfK Knowledge Network, a national household probability sample of the United States (50,000+ members ages 18 and older), constituted the sampling frame of households with a resident child between the ages of 10 and 18 at the time of baseline recruitment (Knowledge Networks, 2013). The baseline (wave 1) weighted sample includes 2,354 youth (ages 10–18 years; thus, ages 12–21 at wave 3 follow-up). The follow-up participation rate at wave 2 was 62.5% and at wave 3 was 66.0%. Youth respondents at each wave were asked if they had “ever dated someone for at least a week, including, for example, someone you spent time with or someone you are or were seeing or going out with.” Subsequently, respondents were asked “are you currently dating someone?” and those who responded in the negative were asked “Have you dated someone in the past year, in other words, since [date inserted]?” At baseline, 695 respondents were in current or recent (within the past year) dating relationships. In annual follow-up surveys, 539 youth (out of n = 1,471, wave 2, initiated October 2014) and 725 youth (out of n = 1,553, wave 3, initiated October 2015) reported current or recent dating relationships, such that the weighted study sample of youth who were in a current or recent dating relationship at all three waves is n = 261 (Figure 2). The study sample of daters at all three waves is similar to STRiV respondents who reported only baseline dating in terms of gender, race/ethnicity, household income, the presence of two parents in the home, and mental health, as well as intimate self-disclosure and communication awkwardness in their baseline dating relationships. Respondents who reported dating at baseline but not in subsequent waves were compared to the eligible sample with chi-square tests. These excluded “baseline-only” daters were slightly younger (mean age 15.3 vs. 15.6 for eligible sample, p = .045) and reported slightly greater passionate love (mean score 2.3 vs. 2.2 for eligible sample, p = .006) and controlling behaviors (mean score 4.0 vs. 3.8 for eligible sample, p = .003) in their relationships.

FIGURE 2.

FIGURE 2

Open in a new tab

Sample selecton. Sample sizes are weighted.

Measures

Dating victimization.

Victimization was measured by the Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory (CADRI; Wolfe et al., 2001). The self-report scale includes 13 measures of overt and covert forms of physical and sexual victimization within the specified dating relationship (Cronbach’s a = .87). At both waves 1 and 2, respondents reporting any physical or sexual victimization by their dating partner were coded 1, whereas those respondents who did not report any of the items were coded 0. Items included kicking, hitting, or punching; pushing, shoving, or shaking; slapping or pulling hair; throwing something at the other person; scratching or bending fingers; burning; choking; use of a knife or a gun; unwanted sexual touching; unwanted kissing; forced sex; and threats to get sex.

Mental health status.

Respondents’ mental health status at wave 1 and wave 3 was assessed with the Mental Health Inventory (MHI-5), a five- item validated scale drawn from the SF-36 Health Survey validated as a screener for anxiety and depression (Berwick et al., 1991). The measure is included as a continuous variable in the models, ranging from 0 to 100 (Cronbach’s a = .85 at wave 1; a = .85 at wave 3), with higher scores representing better mental health and lower scores representing poorer mental health.

Intimacy.

We examined intimacy as a positive construct of relationship dynamics, with respondents describing their dating relationships in terms of intimate self-disclosure and feelings of passionate love (Giordano, Manning, & Longmore, 2010; Giordano et al., 2006). The measure of passionate love was created from four items (Cron- bach’s a = .84 at wave 1; a = .85 at wave 3) reflecting the respondent’s agreement on a 5-point scale with statements that the respondent preferred to be with the partner over other people, was very attracted to the partner, always had the partner on his or her mind, and was turned on by the partner. A higher score reflected greater feelings of passionate love. The three-item intimate self-disclosure scale (Cronbach’s a = .83 at wave 1; a = .85 at wave 3) assessed the frequency on a 5-point scale (ranging from never to very often) that the respondent shared with their dating partner private thoughts and feelings, the occurrence of “something really great”, and the occurrence of “something really bad.” A higher score reflects greater levels of self-disclosure, interpreted as greater intimacy within the relationship.

Problem dynamics.

Conversely, problem dynamics within the relationship were represented by communication awkwardness and controlling behaviors (Giordano, Manning, & Longmore, 2010; Giordano et al., 2006). Four items measuring communication awkwardness (Cronbach’s a = .72 at wave 1; a = .79 at wave 3) probed whether there were times the respondent did not know what to say to the partner, had a hard time sharing feelings, felt uncomfortable with an intimate conversation, or felt the need to be careful about what she or he said. These items assessed the respondent’s agreement on a 5-point scale (ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree). Higher scores reflected more awkward communications, that is, a problematic dynamic. Controlling behaviors within the relationship were measured on a 5-point scale of agreement by six items (Cronbach’s a = .86 at wave 1; a = .89 at wave 3) that assessed whether the respondent was always trying to change the partner or control what the partner does, whether the respondent perceived the partner as always trying to change or control the respondent, and whether the respondent felt that the partner would tell the respondent what to wear and/or to be immediately responsive to the partner’s text messages or phone calls. Higher scores reflected more controlling behaviors, another problematic dynamic.

Sociodemographics.

Respondent age (continuous) was included in all models. Household income was coded as an indicator marking a value at or above the 2013 U.S. median income (Noss, 2014) or below median income (0).

Analyses

All analyses were conducted using Stata 14.0 (Sta- taCorp, College Station, TX) and adjusted to be nationally representative using sampling and study-specific poststratification weights based on current population survey demographic distributions. There was <1% missing response data for the four subtypes of relationship dynamics; all other measures had full data. Within-construct comparisons of victimization rates between waves 1 and 2, and of mental health and the subtypes of relationship dynamics between waves 1 and 3, were made using t-tests, as were comparisons of victimization, mental health, and relationship dynamic subtypes between males and females. Following inspection of the correlation between study variables, a path model was fit with the observed data, in accordance with our theoretical framework, to determine the associations between observed measures of wave 1 mental health and subtypes of relationship dynamics, the longitudinal association of these factors with wave 2 victimization, and the subsequent association of wave 2 victimization with wave 3 mental health and relationship dynamics. First, we estimated a fully saturated model by gender including all baseline covariates and expected associations; model fit was determined to be acceptable, assessed through the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR), wherein scores range from zero to one and a score <0.08 is acceptable (Hooper, Coughlan, & Mullen, 2008; Hu & Bentler, 1998).1 We then estimated more refined parsimonious models (Chen et al., 2014) by gender which include all significant pathways found in the fully saturated model as well as pathways suggested by theory and STATA modification indices to improve model fit. Only statistically significant direct effects are reported in Figure 3. Estimation of the mediated (indirect) effects through wave 2 victimization are calculated following the recommended joint significance test method representing the statistically significant direct effects from baseline to wave 2, and from wave 2 to wave 3 (MacKinnon, Lockwood, Hoffman, West, & Sheets, 2002).

FIGURE 3.

FIGURE 3

Open in a new tab

Path model relating mental health, intimate relationship qualities, and dating abuse victimization. (a) Males (b) Females. Notes: Survey on teen relationships and intimate violence (STRiV), 2013–2015. (a) Weighted path analysis results (n = 138 males; standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) = 0.057). Standardized coefficients are shown for each path. ***p < .001; **p < .01; *p < .05. (b) Weighted path analysis results (n = 123 females; SRMR = 0.038). Standardized coefficients are shown for each path. ***p < .001; **p < .01; *p < .05. Indirect effects are shown with bold lines.

RESULTS

Descriptive Statistics

Table 1 presents the distribution of sample characteristics. For both female and male daters, wave 3 communication awkwardness scores were significantly higher than wave 1 scores. Male daters’ reports of controlling behaviors at wave 3 were significantly lower than controlling behaviors reported at wave 1. One out of five male daters and one out of three female daters reported suffering physical and/or sexual victimization by their dating partner at wave 1. The change in rates of victimization from wave 1 to wave 2 was not statistically different for either male or female respondents. At both waves 1 and 3, male adolescents in this dating sample screened as having significantly better mental health compared to females. Both genders showed consistency in mental health scores between baseline and the wave 3 surveys.

TABLE 1.

Sample Description, STRiV Respondents Dating at Waves 1–3, Weighted

N = 269 n Total %/Mean
(SE)		 n Male %/Mean
(SE)		 n Female %/Mean
(SE)		 Effect
Sizec
Wave 1 measures
Gender 261
 Male 138 52.9% N/A N/A
 Female 123 47.1% N/A N/A
Age 261 15.9 (.15) 138 15.9 (.21) 123 16.0 (.21) 0.5
Household income > median 261 60.5% 138 63.9% 123 56.6% 0.17
Mental health 261 70.5 (1.4) 138 75.1 (1.6)b 123 65.2 (2.0)b 5.5
Intimacy
 Intimate self-disclosure 261   3.7 (.07) 138   3.6 (.10) 123   3.8 (.10) 2
 Passionate love 261   3.9 (.05) 138   4.0 (.10) 123   3.9 (.10) 1
Problem dynamics
 Awkward communications 261   3.5 (.07)a 138   3.4 (.10)a 123   3.5 (.10)a 1
 Controlling behaviors 261   2.2 (.06)a 138   2.2 (.10)a 123   2.3 (.10) 1
Victimization 261 28.6% 138 21.1%b 123 37.1%b 0.44
Wave 2 measures
Victimization 261 28.3% 138 24.6%b 123 32.4%b 0.21
Wave 3 measures
Mental health 261 70.5 (1.6) 138 75.2 (1.8)b 122 65.2 (2.3)b 4.8
Intimacy
 Intimate self-disclosure 260   3.8 (.10) 138   3.7 (.10) 122   3.9 (.09) 0.3
 Passionate love 257   4.0 (.04) 135   4.0 (.10) 122   4.0 (.10) 0
Problem dynamics
 Awkward communications 260   3.6 (.10)a 138   3.7 (.10)a 122   3.6 (.12)a 0.9
 Controlling behaviors 260   2.1 (.10)a 138   2.0 (.10)a 122   2.2 (.12) 1.8
Open in a new tab

Notes:

a

Indicates Wave 3 measure significantly differs from Wave 1.

b

Indicates males significantly differ from females.

c

Cohen’s d effect size.

Path Analyses for Male Adolescent Daters

Mental health and relationship dynamics.

Male daters’ baseline mental health status and reports of intimate self-disclosure and awkward communications with the dating partner were significantly, positively associated with these same measures at the wave 3 follow-up (Figure 3a). The model of male daters’ experiences indicated a negative correlation at baseline between mental health and controlling behaviors. Male respondents’ mental health was not significantly correlated with other subtypes of relationship dynamics at baseline, and no cross-sectional associations were significant at wave 3 follow-up between males’ mental health and reported relationship dynamics. Negative temporal associations were found between males’ baseline mental health and wave 3 reports of problem dynamics, such that better mental health at baseline predicted less awkward communications and less controlling behavior at follow-up. The model also indicated inverse associations for baseline intimate self-disclosure and awkward communications with follow-up mental health, that is, greater self-disclosure and more awkward communications at baseline were associated with poorer mental health at wave 3.

Intervening experiences of victimization.

Neither baseline mental health nor any subtypes of relationship dynamics at baseline were associated with wave 2 victimization of male daters. Following experiences of victimization reported at wave 2, male daters reported poorer mental health at wave 3. Wave 2 reports of victimization were not significantly associated with males’ reported relationship dynamics at wave 3 follow-up.

Path Analyses for Female Adolescent Daters

Mental health and relationship dynamics.

Baseline mental health status and reports of intimate self-disclosure, awkward communications, feelings of passionate love, and controlling behaviors in the dating relationship were positively associated with these same dynamics at the wave 3 follow-up for female respondents (Figure 3b). Consistent with results for male daters, the model of female daters’ experiences indicated a negative concurrent association at baseline between mental health and reports of controlling behaviors in the dating relationship. Female respondents’ mental health was not significantly correlated with other subtypes of relationship dynamics at baseline. The model indicated negative concurrent associations at the wave 3 follow-up between females’ mental health and their reports of awkward communications. There were no significant longitudinal associations between baseline mental health and wave 3 measures of intimacy or problem dynamics, nor between baseline intimacy or problem dynamics and wave 3 mental health.

Intervening experiences of victimization.

Baseline mental health was not significantly associated with females’ reports of wave 2 victimization. Among the subtypes of relationship dynamics, baseline reports of controlling behaviors in the dating relationship as well as reported feelings of passionate love were positively associated with wave 2 victimization. In turn, wave 2 victimization of female daters was positively associated with intimate self-disclosure at the wave 3 follow-up. These associations indicate an indirect effect from baseline relationship dynamics through wave 2 victimization to follow-up relationship dynamics. Specifically, we found significant positive indirect associations of baseline feelings of passionate love and of baseline controlling behaviors on wave 3 intimate self-disclosure through wave 2 victimization (not shown in figure). In addition to this indirect effect, we also found a direct association between passionate love and self-disclosure, indicating that victimization partially mediates the effect of passionate love and self-disclosure. However, the direct effect of controlling behavior on self-disclosure is not significant, indicating that victimization fully mediates the effect of controlling behavior on self-disclosure.

DISCUSSION

Early romantic experiences may have a lasting impact (Furman & Rose, 2015). The current results underscore the importance of studying the range of precursors and consequences associated with young romantic relationships. In this study, one of the few dating violence studies with a broad national sample of youth, we investigated dating relationship dynamics over time in the context of adolescents’ mental health and the role of intervening experiences of victimization. Our gender-stratified analyses show that physical and/or sexual victimization was more common among consistent female daters than among consistent male daters at two time points, consistent with general population students in cross-sectional research (Vagi, O’Malley Olsen, Basile, & Vivolo-Kantor, 2015). This study also adds to past research indicating gender differences in the perception and role of romantic relationship dynamics (Giordano et al., 2006; Giordano, Manning, & Longmore, 2010; Seiffge-Krenke, Shulman, & Kiessinger, 2001).

Our first hypothesis (H1) posited consistency in reported mental health over time in our sample of consistent daters, and that males would report lower mental health risks than females. As expected, the data showed better mental health reported by males than by females at both measurement time points. Moreover, consistent with other longitudinal adolescent research (Rushton, Forcier, & Schectman, 2002), we found stability in dating youth’s mental health over the study period. Notably, because we were not studying changes in dating status, these results do not contradict earlier research that dating is associated with poorer mental health among adolescents (Davila, 2008; Joyner & Udry, 2000; Natsuaki et al., 2009; Vujeva & Furman, 2011).

In support of our second hypothesis (H2) about the consistency of dating relationship dynamics over time, all four baseline measures of intimacy and of problem dynamics were positively associated with similar dynamics at follow-up for adolescent females. Results for adolescent males were similar for intimate self-disclosure and awkward communications, but not for feelings of passionate love or controlling behaviors. How male and female adolescents feel and process sensations of love varies in terms of timing and expression (Montgomery & Sorell, 1998). Furthermore, among male daters, in adjusting for intervening physical/ sexual victimization, our model of male adolescent experiences may have sufficiently explained subsequent controlling behaviors. We did not find the same growth in communication skills or growth in feelings of passion as found in prior research (Giordano et al., 2012), but by contrast both male and female daters reported more awkward communications in their dating relationships at follow-up. This may reflect the contradiction between growing maturity and gendered perspectives on dating relationships in terms of realistic assessments and satisfaction (Galliher et al., 2008; Laurent et al., 2008). Other research has also found distinctions in gendered perceptions of relationships and self-silencing that translate into gendered experiences of power in the relationship (Smith, Welsh, & Fite, 2010). Thus, the gender difference we find in our study may relate to unmeasured individual characteristics and dyadic dynamics. In sum, these results are largely consistent with theory that prior experiences in a relationship shape the development of attachment, expectations, and behavior—and hence the potential self-fulfillment of said expectations— in new romantic partnerships (Furman & Wehner, 1994), but do not consistently translate to the dynamics of a subsequent relationship (Capaldi & Kim, 2007; Whitaker et al., 2010).

Regarding our third hypothesis (H3), our cross-sectional results supported our expectations that we would find a negative association between mental health and problem dynamics, specifically controlling behaviors, in both male and female dating relationships. However, the longitudinal data did not support our correlational hypothesis for female daters’ mental health and reported intimacy or problem dynamics within their dating relationships. By contrast, for male adolescent daters only, longitudinal evidence from this study supports Sullivan’s theory that poorer mental health would negatively correlate with the quality of adolescents’ romantic partnerships, extending earlier cross-sectional research (Nash et al., 2015). Also among male daters, we found evidence of early problem relationship dynamics associated with poorer mental health at follow-up, further supporting the expectation of a bidirectional correlation and Sullivan’s theory that barriers to an intimate connection would cause anxiety.

One of our key findings contradicting Sullivan’s theory and our hypothesis (H3) was that greater intimate self-disclosure by males predicted worse mental health at follow-up. This contrary finding may reflect increased intimate sharing by those adolescent daters who are managing more life problems (Giordano, Cernkovich, & Pugh, 1986). In other words, it may be that male daters willing to share more of their intimate feelings are facing exogenous stressors, such as family or peer conflicts, which in turn may predict poorer mental health (Schleider & Weisz, 2016). Alternatively, within the dating relationship, gender stereotypes constraining male partners from sharing their intimate feelings may result in the partner’s rejection of these feelings, strained relationship quality, and thus anxiety or depression for male adolescents. Prior research found that anxiety positively correlated with boys’ but not girls’ feelings of love for a romantic partner (Hatfield, Brinton, & Cornelius, 1989), consistent with our result that intimacy and anxiety patterns function differently by gender.

Turning to our fourth hypothesis (H4) and the expected role of intervening experiences of physical or sexual victimization by a dating partner, we found evidence for female (but not male) adolescents that victimization mediated the temporal relationship between subtypes of intimacy and problem dynamics. Female daters’ reports of more controlling behaviors preceding victimization in our sample is consistent with prior research in a female clinical population ages 15–24 (Catallozzi et al., 2011) and theory that “a series of ongoing experiences ... may lead to marked, discontinuous changes in romantic experiences” (Furman & Winkles, 2012, p. 207). Other results were opposite the expected directionality of the mediation of intimacy. The iatrogenic effect of female daters’ reports of passionate love predicting victimization contradicts theory. Such feelings in earlier adolescent dating relationships may indicate a less mature stage of the relationship, such as infatuation (Connolly et al., 1999), and/or border on unhealthy dependencies (Charkow & Nelson, 2000). This might also explain the negative total effect of females’ early feelings of passionate love on wave 3 intimate self-disclosure, mediated by victimization experiences. Female daters navigating what they feel is a passionate relationship may be vulnerable to subsequent victimization given potential dependencies within the relationship. Young girls may be unused to these passionate feelings, many of whom may be experiencing such emotions for the first time, which in turn can make them more susceptible to victimization. Victimization in these girls’ relationships may subsequently feel like a lesson that they should filter the extent to which they share their intimate feelings. In sum, passionate feelings do not necessarily capture all of the important dimensions of intimacy (Sternberg, 1986), and intervening experiences of victimization may explain some of that negative association for female daters. In contrast to the experiences of female daters, our results did not reveal any mediation of relationship dynamics by victimization for male daters. Males may not attend to their emotions around intimacy as much as females do (Montgomery & Sorell, 1998), and so their reports of passionate love and intimate self-disclosure may be less reliably consistent.

Contrary to our conceptual model, poorer mental health did not appear to be a precursor of subsequent victimization among male or female daters. Principally, our results among male daters, which control for the direct association of the respondents’ mental health over time, add to the literature relating victimization to subsequent mental health problems (Banyard & Cross, 2008; Exner- Cortens et al., 2013). The absence of this finding for female daters, contradicting theory and cross-sectional research, emphasizes the need to control for direct effects of past mental health, the importance of attending to the age range of study participants in later adolescence, and questions about gender differences in mental health, power, expectations, coping strategies, and interpretation of victimization experiences (Merikangas et al., 2010; Welsh & Shulman, 2008).

Research Directions

Overall, further contextual data are necessary to fully interpret and extend these findings. The original theorization of Sullivan and others did not attempt to explain what patterns might evolve over time for individuals who may or may not remain in the same relationship. The longitudinal associations found in our study, primarily found for male daters, are extensions of the posited contemporaneous associations. Moreover, mastering competency in romantic relationships is a developmental task, with varying successes and failures informing the learning curve during adolescence (Roisman et al., 2004). While mental health may be directly impacted over time based on ongoing stressful communications with a dating partner, there may be other factors at play after a period of two or more years of adolescent development (Galliher et al., 2008; Laurent et al., 2008; Montgomery & Sorell, 1998; Smith et al., 2010), beyond the context of the same or a new romantic partnership. Moreover, the absence of longitudinal associations between female daters’ mental health and the reported intimacy or problem dynamics of their relationships, contrary to theory, raises questions about measurement. In sum, we need further research to map adolescent reports of changing dating relationship dynamics over time in the context of other potential stressors and longitudinal patterns of mental health.

Limitations

Interpretation of these results is limited by the selfreported nature of the data. Furthermore, we are unable to ascertain with certainty whether the dating partners of respondents in a given wave were the same partner identified in a previous wave. One might expect that the independent effects and associations between mental health and relationship dynamics would be stronger holding the partner identity constant over time; however, it is possible also that experiences in one relationship are revelatory learning opportunities for adolescents, who are then better prepared to cope with the inevitable conflicts in subsequent relationships with more skill and thus with less anxiety or depression. Hence, the stability of a relationship has an unknown effect, and our inability to track this factor in these data may bias results in either direction. Furthermore, this study did not assess the sexual orientation of the participants or whether the adolescents were in same-sex or oppo- site-sex relationships. Measurement error may also affect the results of this study; as a web-based survey in an adolescent/young adult cohort, the STRiV instrumentation assesses validated scales, but each is brief and may not capture intimacy, problem dynamics, and mental health in the manner and to the extent possible through personal interviews and diagnostic techniques. Further research is warranted to develop survey measures that capture a range of intimate partnership relationship dynamics and how subtypes of relationship dynamics are associated with each other (Goldman, Mulford, & Blachman-Demner, 2016). More detailed, validated scales do exist to measure mental health; additional assessment of emotional regulatory responses to interpersonal conflict would also be constructive (Caiozzo, Houston, & Grych, 2016). Longer interviews using these scales, potentially in settings allowing for qualitative components to the interview, would be constructive to further examine the model investigated in this study. Additional research adjusting for other covariates of dating victimization (see Exner-Cor- tens, Eckenrode, Bunge, & Rothman, 2017; Capaldi, Knoble, Shortt, & Kim, 2012) as well as correlated externalizing behaviors (Chase, Treboux, & O’Leary, 2002; Connolly, Nguyen, Pepler, Craig, & Jiang, 2013) is warranted to replicate the current findings. It is also important to recognize that adolescents consistently reporting that they are in a current or recent dating relationship across three survey waves do not necessarily represent all adolescents who date (Connolly et al., 2013). This study sample is slightly older (on average age 15.6 vs. 15.3) than respondents who reported dating at only one or two of the three study waves, but otherwise did not differ significantly on race/ethnicity, household income, parents’ marital status, baseline mental health, or baseline victimization in their dating relationship. Further attention to additional distinguishing characteristics of adolescents who consistently date is warranted. Longitudinal associations or even mediation are not evidence alone of causal relationships (Bullock, Green, & Ha, 2010). Finally, while our analytic model converged for the current small samples of male and female daters, replication of this study in a larger sample is warranted.

CONCLUSION

Overall, study findings provided some evidence that (1) adolescent relationship dynamics are associated with mental health (for male daters) and dating victimization (for female daters), and (2) victimization in adolescent dating relationships predicts poorer mental health (for male daters) and reductions in intimacy in subsequent relationship experiences (for female daters). This study highlights the importance of acknowledging the dynamic nature of youth relationships, that is, the mutual effects of one partner’s emotions and behaviors on the other partner’s emotions and behaviors (Kenny, Kashy, & Cook, 2006). The current results regarding the role of dating relationship dynamics underscore the value of new approaches (Coker, Banyard, & Recktenwald, 2017; Wilkins, Myers, Kuehl, Bauman, & Hertz, 2018) to teaching healthier social skills and/or to preventing violence across different relationship types.

IMPLICATIONS AND CONTRIBUTION

The mental health of dating youth is related to the dynamics of their dating relationships, and these dynamics predict subsequent female dating victimization. Female victimization is associated with subsequent constraints on intimacy but also reduced problem dynamics with their dating partner. Dating victimization leads to poorer mental health outcomes for males. Attending to the patterns of adolescent relationship dynamics is a key component of integrated healthy skill-building and violence prevention interventions for youth.

Acknowledgments

This research was funded by the National Institute of Justice (Grant No. 2014-VA-CX-0065), Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice or any other organization. We thank Maria Bohri for significant contributions to the STRiV research.

Footnotes

1

Stata does not provide additional fit statistics for weighted survey analyses. Additional fit statistics (comparative fit index, Tucker-Lewis index, χ2) resulting from the unweighted models were consistent with good model fit per Hooper et al. (2008).

Contributor Information

Elizabeth A. Mumford, NORC at the University of Chicago

Bruce G. Taylor, NORC at the University of Chicago

Weiwei Liu, NORC at the University of Chicago.

Peggy C. Giordano, Bowling Green State University

REFERENCES

  1. Ackard DM, Eisenberg ME, & Neumark-Sztainer D (2007). Long-term impact of adolescent dating violence on the behavioral and psychological health of male and female youth. Journal of Pediatrics, 151, 476–481. 10.1016/j.jpeds.2007.04.034 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Banyard VL, & Cross C (2008). Consequences of teen dating violence: Understanding intervening variables in ecological context. Violence Against Women, 14, 9981013. 10.1177/1077801208322058 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Berwick DM, Murphy JM, Goldman PA, Ware JE, Barsky AJ, & Weinstein MC (1991). Performance of a five-item mental health screening test. Medical Care, 29(2), 169–176. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bonomi AE, Anderson ML, Nemeth J, Rivara FP, & Buettner C (2013). History of dating violence and the association with late adolescent health. BMC Public Health, 13(1), 821 10.1186/1471-2458-13-821 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Briere FN, Rohde P, Stice E, & Morizot J (2016). Group-based symptom trajectories in indicated prevention of adolescent depression. Depression and Anxiety, 33, 444–451. 10.1002/da.22440 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Bullock JG, Green DP, & Ha SE (2010). Yes, but what’s the mechanism? (Don’t expect an easy answer). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 550–558. 10.1037/a0018933 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Caiozzo CN, Houston J, & Grych J (2016). Predicting aggression in late adolescent romantic relationships: A short-term longitudinal study. Journal of Adolescence, 53, 237–248. https://doi.org/10.1016Zj.adolescence.2016.10.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Callahan MR, Tolman RM, & Saunders DG (2003). Adolescent dating violence victimization and psychological well-being. Journal of Adolescent Research, 18, 664–681. 10.1177/0743558403254784 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Capaldi DM, & Kim HK (2007). Typological approaches to violence in couples: A critique and alternative conceptual approach. Clinical Psychology Review, 27 (3), 253–265. 10.1016/j.cpr.2006.09.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Capaldi DM, Knoble NB, Shortt JW, & Kim HK (2012). A systematic review of risk factors for intimate partner violence. Partner Abuse, 3(2), 231–280. 10.1891/1946-6560.3.2.231 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Catallozzi M, Simon PJ, Davidson LL, Breitbart V, & Rickert VI (2011). Understanding control in adolescent and young adult relationships. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 165(4), 313–319. 10.1001/archpediatrics.2011.32 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Charkow WB, & Nelson ES (2000). Relationship dependency, dating violence, and scripts of female college students. Journal of College Counseling, 3(1), 17–28. 10.1002/j.2161-1882.2000.tb00160.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Chase KA, Treboux D, & O’Leary KD (2002). Characteristics of high-risk adolescents’ dating violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17(1), 33–49. 10.1177/0886260502017001003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Chen H, Fang X, Liu C, Hu W, Lan J, & Deng L (2014). Associations among the number of mental health problems, stigma, and seeking help from psychological services: A path analysis model among Chinese adolescents. Children and Youth Services Review, 44, 356–362. https://doi.org/doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.07.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Cleveland HH, Herrera VM, & Stuewig J (2003). Abusive males and abused females in adolescent relationships: Risk factor similarity and dissimilarity and the role of relationship seriousness. Journal of Family Violence, 18, 325–339. 10.1023/Ai1026297515314 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Coker AL, Banyard VL, & Recktenwald EA (2017). Primary intimate partner violence prevention programs for adolescents and young adults In Renzetti CM, Follingstad D, & Coker AL (Eds.), Preventing intimate partner violence: Interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 39–70). Chicago, IL: Policy Press. [Google Scholar]
  17. Collins WA (2003). More than myth: The developmental significance of romantic relationships during adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 13, 1–24. 10.1111/1532-7795.1301001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Connolly J, Craig W, Goldberg A, & Pepler D (1999). Conceptions of cross-sex friendships and romantic relationships in early adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 28, 481–494. [Google Scholar]
  19. Connolly J, Nguyen HNT, Pepler D, Craig W, & Jiang D (2013). Developmental trajectories of romantic stages and associations with problem behaviours during adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 36, 10131024. 10.1016/j.adolescence.2013.08.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Cornelius TL, Shorey RC, & Beebe SM (2010). Self-reported communication variables and dating violence: Using Gottman’s marital communication conceptualization. Journal of Family Violence, 25, 439–448. 10.1007/s10896-010-9305-9 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Davila J (2008). Depressive symptoms and adolescent romance: Theory, research, and implications. Child Development Perspectives, 2(1), 26–31. 10.1111/j.l750-8606.2008.00037.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Exner-Cortens D, Eckenrode J, Bunge J, & Rothman E (2017). Revictimization after adolescent dating violence in a matched, national sample of youth. Journal of Adolescent Health, 60(2), 176–183. 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2016.09.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Exner-Cortens D (2014). Theory and teen dating violence victimization: Considering adolescent development. Developmental Review, 34(2), 168–188. https://doi.org/10.1016Zj.dr.2014.03.001 [Google Scholar]
  24. Exner-Cortens D, Eckenrode J, & Rothman E (2013). Longitudinal associations between teen dating violence victimization and adverse health outcomes. Pediatrics, 232(1), 71–78. 10.1542/peds.2012-1029 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Furman W, & Rose AJ (2015). Friendships, romantic relationships, and peer relationships In Lerner RE & Lamb ME (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology and developmental science (Vol. 3, pp. 932–974). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley; 10.1002/9781118963418.childpsy322 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Furman W, & Wehner EA (1994). Romantic views: Toward a theory of adolescent romantic relationships In Montemayor R, Adams GR, & Gullotta TP (Eds.), Advances in adolescent development: An annual book series. Vol. 6: Personal relationships during adolescence (pp. 168195). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. [Google Scholar]
  27. Furman W, & Wehner EA (1997). Adolescent romantic relationships: A developmental perspective. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 1997, 21–36. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Furman W, & Winkles JK (2012). Transformations in heterosexual romantic relationships across the transition into adulthood In Lauresen B & Collins WA (Eds.), Relationship pathways: From adolescence to young adulthood (pp. 191–213). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. [Google Scholar]
  29. Galliher RV, Enno AM, & Wright R (2008). Convergence and divergence among multiple methods for assessing adolescent romantic relationships. Journal of Adolescence, 31, 747–769. https://doi.org/doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2007.12.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Giordano PC, Cernkovich SA, & Pugh MD (1986). Friendships and delinquency. American Journal of Sociology, 91, 1170–1202. 10.2307/2780125 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Giordano PC, Longmore MA, & Manning WD (2006). Gender and the meanings of adolescent romantic relationships: A focus on boys. American Sociological Review, 71, 260–287. [Google Scholar]
  32. Giordano P, Manning W, & Longmore M (2010). Affairs of the heart: Qualities of adolescent romantic relationships and sexual behavior. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 20, 983–1013. 10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00661.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Giordano PC, Manning WD, Longmore MA, & Flanigan CM (2012). Developmental shifts in the character of romantic and sexual relationships from adolescence to young adulthood In Booth A, Brown SL, Landale NS, Manning WD, & McHale SM (Eds.), Early adulthood in a family context (pp. 133–164). New York, NY: Springer. [Google Scholar]
  34. Giordano PC, Soto DA, Manning WD, & Long- more MA (2010). The characteristics of romantic relationships associated with teen dating violence. Social Science Research, 39, 863–874. 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2010.03.009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Goldman AW, Mulford CF, & Blachman-Demner DR (2016). Advancing our approach to teen dating violence: A youth and professional defined framework of teen dating relationships. Psychology of Violence, 6,497–508. [Google Scholar]
  36. Hamby S (2014). Self-report measures that do not produce gender parity in intimate partner violence: A multi-study investigation. Psychology of Violence, 6, 323–335. [Google Scholar]
  37. Hatfield E, Brinton C, & Cornelius J (1989). Passionate love and anxiety in young adolescents. Motivation and Emotion, 13(4), 271–289. 10.1007/bf00995539 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. Holt MK, & Espelage DL (2005). Social support as a moderator between dating violence victimization and depression/anxiety among African American and Caucasian adolescents. School Psychology Review, 34(3), 309–328. [Google Scholar]
  39. Hooper D, Coughlan J, & Mullen M (2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal on Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53–60. [Google Scholar]
  40. Hu L, & Bentler PM (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3,424–453. [Google Scholar]
  41. Johnson WL, Giordano PC, Longmore MA, & Manning WD (2014). Intimate partner violence and depressive symptoms during adolescence and young adulthood. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 55(1), 39–55. 10.1177/0022146513520430 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Joyner K, & Udry JR (2000). You don’t bring me anything but down: Adolescent romance and depression. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 41, 369–391. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Kenny DA, Kashy DA, & Cook WL (2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  44. Knowledge Networks. (2013). KnowledgePanel® design summary. Retrieved April 14, 2013, from www.knowledgenetworks.com/knpanel/docs/KnowledgePanel(R)-Design-Summary-Description.pdf
  45. La Greca AM, & Harrison HM (2005). Adolescent peer relations, friendships, and romantic relationships: Do they predict social anxiety and depression? Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 34(1), 49–61. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Langhinrichsen-Rohling J (2010). Controversies involving gender and intimate partner violence in the United States. Sex Roles, 62(3), 179–193. 10.1007/s11199-009-9628-2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  47. Laurent HK, Kim HK, & Capaldi DM (2008). Interaction and relationship development in stable young couples: Effects of positive engagement, psychological aggression, and withdrawal. Journal of Adolescence, 31, 815–835. https://doi.org/10.1016Zj.adolescence.2007.11.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Lewis SF, & Fremouw W (2001). Dating violence: A critical review of the literature. Clinical Psychology Review, 21(1), 105–127. 10.1016/s0272-7358(99)00042-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Longmore MA, Manning WD, Giordano PC, & Copp JE (2014). Intimate partner victimization, poor relationship quality, and depressive symptoms during young adulthood. Social Science Research, 48, 77–89. https://doi.org/10.1016Zj.ssresearch.2014.05.006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. MacKinnon DP, Lockwood CM, Hoffman JM, West SG, & Sheets V (2002). A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7(1), 83–104. 10.1037/1082-989X.7.1.83 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Madsen SD, & Collins WA (2011). The salience of adolescent romantic experiences for romantic relationship qualities in young adulthood. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21, 789–801. 10.1111/j.1532-7795.2011.00737.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  52. Meier A, & Allen G (2009). Romantic relationships from adolescence to young adulthood: Evidence from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. Sociological Quarterly, 50, 308–335. 10.1111/j.1533-8525.2009.01142.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Mendelson T, Turner AK, & Tandon SD (2010). Violence exposure and depressive symptoms among adolescents and young adults disconnected from school and work. Journal of Community Psychology, 38, 607–621. 10.1002/jcop.20384 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  54. Merikangas KR, He JP, Brody D, Fisher PW, Bourdon K, & Koretz DS (2010). Prevalence and treatment of mental disorders among US children in the 2001–2004 NHANES. Pediatrics, 125(1), 75–81. 10.1542/peds.2008-2598 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Montgomery MJ, & Sorell GT (1998). Love and dating experience in early and middle adolescence: Grade and gender comparisons. Journal of Adolescence, 21, 677–689. 10.1006/jado.1998.0188 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Nash SP, Longmore MA, Manning WD, & Giordano PC (2015). Strained dating relationships, a sense of mattering and emerging adults’ depressive symptoms. Journal of Depression and Anxiety, S1, 013. 10.4172/2167-1044.S1-013 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Natsuaki MN, Biehl MC, & Ge X (2009). Trajectories of depressed mood from early adolescence to young adulthood: The effects of pubertal timing and adolescent dating. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 19, 47–74. 10.1111/j.1532-7795.2009.00581.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  58. Noonan RK, & Charles D (2009). Developing teen dating violence prevention strategies: Formative research with middle school youth. Violence Against Women, 15, 1087–1105. 10.1177/1077801209340761 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Noss A (2014, September). Household income: 2013. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2014/acs/acsbr13-02.pdf
  60. Olino TM, Klein DN, Lewinsohn PM, Rohde P, & Seeley JR (2010). Latent trajectory classes of depressive and anxiety disorders from adolescence to adulthood: Descriptions of classes and associations with risk factors. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 51(3), 224235. 10.1016/j.comppsych.2009.07.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Orpinas P, Hsieh H-L, Song X, Holland K, & Naha- petyan L (2013). Trajectories of physical dating violence from middle to high school: Association with relationship quality and acceptability of aggression. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 551–565. 10.1007/s10964-012-9881-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Roisman GI, Masten AS, Coatsworth JD, & Tellegen A (2004). Salient and emerging developmental tasks in the transition to adulthood. Child Development, 75, 123–133. https://doi.org/10.1111Zj.1467-8624.2004.00658.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Rushton JL, Forcier M, & Schectman RM (2002). Epidemiology of depressive symptoms in the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 41, 199–205. 10.1097/00004583200202000-00014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Salk RH, Hyde JS, & Abramson LY (2017). Gender differences in depression in representative national samples: Meta-analyses of diagnoses and symptoms. Psychological Bulletin, 143, 783–822. 10.1037/bul0000102 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Schleider JL, & Weisz JR (2016). Family process and youth internalizing problems: A triadic model of etiology and intervention. Development and Psychopathology, 29(1), 273–301. 10.1017/S095457941600016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. X Schubert KO, Clark SR, Van LK, Collinson JL, & Baune BT (2017). Depressive symptom trajectories in late adolescence and early adulthood: A systematic review. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 51, 477–499. 10.1177/0004867417700274 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Seiffge-Krenke I, Shulman S, & Kiessinger N (2001). Adolescent precursors of romantic relationships in young adulthood. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18, 327–346. 10.1177/0265407501183002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  68. Shorey RC, Cornelius TL, & Bell KM (2008). A critical review of theoretical frameworks for dating violence: Comparing the dating and marital fields. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 13(3), 185–194. 10.1016/j.avb.2008.03.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  69. Smith JD, Welsh DP, & Fite PJ (2010). Adolescents’ relational schemas and their subjective understanding of romantic relationship interactions. Journal of Adolescence, 33, 147–157. 10.1016/j.adolescence.2009.04.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. Sternberg RJ (1986). A triangular theory of love. Psychological Review, 93(2), 119–135. 10.1037/0033-295X.93.2.119 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  71. Sullivan HS (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. New York, NY: W.W. Norton. [Google Scholar]
  72. Sumter SR, Valkenburg PM, & Peter J (2013). Perceptions of love across the lifespan: Differences in passion, intimacy, and commitment. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 37, 417–427. 10.1177/0165025413492486 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  73. Taylor B, Joseph H, & Mumford E (2017). Romantic relationship characteristics and adolescent relationship abuse in a probability-based sample of youth. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. Advance online publication 10.1177/0886260517730566 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  74. Taylor B, & Mumford E (2016). A national descriptive portrait of adolescent relationship abuse: Results from the national survey on teen relationships and intimate violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 31, 963–988. 10.1177/0886260514564070 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  75. Tschann JM, Pasch LA, Flores E, Marin BV, Baisch EM, & Wibbelsman CJ (2009). Nonviolent aspects of interparental conflict and dating violence among adolescents. Journal of Family Issues, 30(3), 295319. 10.1177/0192513X08325010 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  76. Vagi KJ, O’Malley Olsen E, Basile KC, & Vivolo- Kantor AM (2015). Teen dating violence (physical and sexual) among US high school students: Findings from the 2013 National Youth Risk Behavior Survey. JAMA Pediatrics, 169, 474–482. 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2014.3577 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  77. Vujeva HM, & Furman W (2011). Depressive symptoms and romantic relationship qualities from adolescence through emerging adulthood: A longitudinal examination of influences. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 40(1), 123–135. 10.1080/15374416.2011.533414 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  78. Welsh DP, & Shulman S (2008). Directly observed interaction within adolescent romantic relationships: What have we learned? Journal of Adolescence, 31, 877891. 10.1016/j.adolescence.2008.10.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  79. Whitaker DJ, Le B, & Niolon PH (2010). Persistence and desistance of the perpetration of physical aggression across relationships: Findings from a national study of adolescents. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 591–609. 10.1177/0886260509334402 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  80. White JW (2009). A gendered approach to adolescent dating violence: Conceptual and methodological issues. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 33(1), 1–15. 10.1111/j.1471-6402.2008.01467.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  81. Wilkins N, Myers L, Kuehl T, Bauman A, & Hertz M (2018). Connecting the dots: State health department approaches to addressing shared risk and protective factors across multiple forms of violence. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, 24, S32–S41. 10.1097/PHH.0000000000000669 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  82. Wolfe DA, Scott K, Reitzel-Jaffe D, Wekerle C, Grasley C, & Straatman AL (2001). Development and validation of the conflict in adolescent dating relationships inventory. Psychological Assessment, 13(2), 277–293. 10.1037/1040-3590.13.2.277 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES