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: Violence Vict. 2019 Dec 1;34(6):1011–1029. doi: 10.1891/0886-6708.VV-D-18-00135

Longitudinal Associations Between Bullying and Intimate Partner Violence Among Adolescents and Young Adults

Avanti Adhia 1, Allegra R Gordon 2, Andrea L Roberts 3, Garrett M Fitzmaurice 4,5, David Hemenway 6, S Bryn Austin 7,8,9
PMCID: PMC7462098  NIHMSID: NIHMS1621512  PMID: 31836648

Abstract

This study assessed longitudinal associations between bullying and intimate partner violence (IPV) among adolescents and young adults in a U.S.-based cohort study. Participants (N = 5,279) reported past-year bullying when they were 14–20 years old and reported lifetime experiences of IPV when they were 20–27 years old. The results indicate that participants reporting being bullied more than twice were at elevated risk of IPV victimization compared to participants reporting no bullying victimization, adjusting for bullying perpetration and covariates. Participants reporting bullying others once or more were at elevated risk of IPV perpetration compared to participants reporting no bullying perpetration, adjusting for bullying victimization and covariates. There was no evidence that the associations differed by gender. Results suggest that adolescents carry forward behaviors from their peer relationships to their dating relationships. Findings may have implications for school-based programs, which should explicitly integrate IPV prevention into bullying prevention efforts.

Keywords: bullying, intimate partner violence, adolescence, victimization, perpetration

Bullying has been established as a prevalent and harmful public health problem. Bullying can be defined as any unwanted aggressive behavior by peers who are neither siblings nor dating partners; notably, bullying involves a power imbalance and is typically repeated multiple times (Gladden, Vivolo-Kantor, Hamburger, & Lumpkin, 2014). Bullying can be direct (in the presence of the individual) or indirect (not directly communicated to the individual) and can take on several forms including physical, verbal, relational (i.e., to harm reputation or relationships), and damage to property (Gladden et al., 2014). A meta-analysis reported that over a third of students in 6th through 12th grades were involved in bullying (Modecki, Minchin, Harbaugh, Guerra, & Runions, 2014). Although bullying is often associated with younger adolescence (e.g., middle school), it persists into older adolescence (Pepler et al., 2006). A 2015 national survey found that 20% of high school students reported being bullied on school property, and 16% reported being bullied electronically (Kann et al., 2016).

Bullying has serious and long-lasting health consequences. Longitudinal research has demonstrated that involvement in bullying is associated with internalizing symptoms (e.g., depression, anxiety disorders; Klomek, Sourander, & Elonheimo, 2015; Takizawa, Maughan, & Arseneault, 2014), externalizing disorders (Klomek et al., 2015), worse educational outcomes (Popp, Peguero, Day, & Kahle, 2014), criminality (Klomek et al., 2015), suicidality (Takizawa et al., 2014), social maladjustment (Takizawa et al., 2014), violent behavior (Klomek et al., 2015), substance abuse (Hemphill et al., 2011; Klomek et al., 2015), economic hardship (Takizawa et al., 2014), and poor perceived quality of life (Takizawa et al., 2014). Research also suggests that bullying is an important indicator of intimate partner violence (IPV; Josephson & Pepler, 2012). Estimates of IPV in adolescence are similar to those for bullying—21% of girls and 10% of boys enrolled in high school report physical or sexual IPV victimization each year (Vagi, O’Malley Olsen, Basile, & Vivolo-Kantor, 2015). The negative consequences of involvement in IPV across the life span have been well-documented (Exner-Cortens, Eckenrode, & Rothman, 2013; Foshee et al., 2016). Given that adolescence is a period where individuals are increasingly enmeshed in peer relationships and beginning to build intimate partner relationships, it is necessary to understand how experiences with peers may transfer to intimate partners.

Bullying and IPV share important similarities in that they are often rooted in power imbalance within an interpersonal relationship, so it may be that adolescents involved in bullying transfer behaviors over to their intimate partner relationships. One potential pathway that may be relevant to both victimization and perpetration is the normalization of aggression and violent behavior. Social learning theory posits that individual behavior is guided by repeating modeling of behaviors and that behaviors are reinforced over time by consequences of the behaviors (Bandura, 1977). In this context, involvement in bullying as a victim or perpetrator may normalize behaviors for adolescents, who then have altered norms or increased tolerance for violence as they mature and enter dating relationships. Reinforcement can be provided to those who bully—aggression can be rewarded through increased dominance or social status (O’Connell, Pepler, & Craig, 1999; Salmivalli, 2010). The behavior of adolescents who are victimized may also be shaped by others intervening or ignoring the bullying behaviors (Gini, Pozzoli, Borghi, & Franzoni, 2008; O’Connell et al., 1999). Thus, patterns of maladaptive behavior develop and evolve from routine exposure and modeling in addition to the reinforcements that follow those behaviors.

In cross-sectional studies, involvement in bullying (i.e., as a victim and/or perpetrator) has been found to be associated with adult IPV perpetration (Falb et al., 2011), adolescent IPV perpetration/aggression (Connolly, Pepler, Craig, & Taradash, 2000; Ellis & Wolfe, 2015), and sexual harassment perpetration (Clear et al., 2014; Espelage & Holt, 2007; Pepler et al., 2006). Only more recently have longitudinal studies assessed whether bullying is a precursor for later IPV. These studies have shown that, among middle schoolers, bullying perpetration is a predictor of physical dating violence perpetration (Foshee et al., 2014, 2016) and sexual harassment perpetration (Espelage, Basile, De La Rue, & Hamburger, 2015; Miller et al., 2013). These studies have largely focused on perpetration—showing that adolescents who bully peers are more likely to perpetrate violence in their dating relationships from 3 months to 2 years later. While fewer studies have examined links between forms of victimization, there is some evidence from cross-sectional studies of an association between being a victim of bullying and being a victim of IPV (Espelage & Holt, 2007; Peters, Hatzenbuehler, & Davidson, 2017; Yahner, Dank, Zweig, & Lachman, 2015).

These prior studies have either used cross-sectional designs (i.e., no clear temporal ordering) or short follow-up periods (e.g., Falb et al., 2011), examined only a single type of IPV (e.g., sexual violence, physical violence; e.g., Foshee et al., 2014), or analyzed early adolescent samples (e.g., middle school students; e.g., Espelage et al., 2015). Thus, more research is needed to understand the links between bullying experiences and multiple forms of IPV in older adolescents and young adults. There has also been a tendency for bullying victimization and perpetration to be studied separately; however, there is substantial evidence that many adolescents are both victims and perpetrators (Haynie et al., 2001), so it is important to consider both dimensions of bullying simultaneously (e.g., Foshee et al., 2016).

Gender differences in both bullying and IPV have been documented with inconsistent results. Data from the U.S. Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System indicate that the prevalence of having been bullied on school property was higher among females compared to males (Kann et al., 2016); however, other studies report higher levels of aggression and victimization for males (Prinstein, Boergers, & Vernberg, 2001). There is also evidence that girls and boys may be involved in different types of bullying (e.g., boys may be engaged in more physical bullying, while girls engage in more verbal and relational bullying; Dukes, Stein, & Zane, 2010; Kann et al., 2016), but other research suggests that the types of bullying are consistent by gender (Card, Stucky, Sawalani, & Little, 2008).

Similar inconsistencies exist in the IPV literature. Nationally representative data indicate that 21% of females and 10% of males experienced physical and/or sexual IPV in the past 12 months (Vagi et al., 2015). Rates of IPV perpetration by gender have generated debate with surveys often finding that females perpetrate IPV at higher rates than males while police or crime data show the opposite (Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 2010; O’Leary, Smith Slep, Avery-Leaf, & Cascardi, 2008). Gender differences may depend on age and the type of IPV in question (e.g., older male adolescents may be more likely to report sexual IPV; Wincentak, Connolly, & Card, 2017). There has also been mixed evidence about gender differences in the association between bullying and IPV. Prior work has found that, while girls are less likely to experience bullying victimization, those who do report involvement may be at higher risk of later adverse outcomes (Rueger & Jenkins, 2014). Other studies have found no evidence of moderation by gender in the association between bullying and subsequent outcomes (Card et al., 2008; Copeland, Wolke, Angold, & Costello, 2013).

The present study investigates whether involvement in bullying (i.e., as victims or perpetrators) is longitudinally associated with involvement in IPV (i.e., as victims or perpetrators) in a prospective cohort of U.S. young adults. This study extends prior work by including both victimization and perpetration of the exposure and outcome, using a sample of older adolescents and young adults, and controlling for important shared risk factors like childhood abuse history. We hypothesized that adolescents who were involved in bullying (as victims or perpetrators) would have higher rates of IPV victimization and perpetration compared to participants who were not involved in bullying. We additionally examine whether the associations between bullying and IPV vary by gender; however, given that the existing literature on gender differences is inconsistent, we did not have an a priori hypothesis about the effect modification by gender.

METHODS

Participants

Participants were drawn from the Growing Up Today Study (GUTS), a longitudinal cohort of children of women of the Nurses’ Health Study II (NHSII), a U.S. cohort of registered nurses (Field et al., 1999). In 1996, over 16,000 youth (7,843 boys and 9,039 girls) living throughout the United States enrolled in GUTS and were mailed baseline questionnaires. Participants completed self-administered questionnaires starting in 1996, initially annually and then biennially after 2001.

The current study includes individuals who responded to the 2001 and 2007 survey waves (n = 8,001). Participants were ages 14–20 years old in 2001 (n = 7,824) and provided information on IPV victimization and perpetration in 2007 (n = 5,882). Participants were excluded if their first report of IPV occurred before the time period in which bullying was asked about since we were interested only in IPV that occurred subsequent to bullying (n = 5,312 after exclusion). We used multiple imputation to account for missingness in bullying (17% missing) and household income (17% missing). Since all other covariates had < 1% missing data, participants missing data on those covariates were excluded from the analytic sample (n = 5,279 in final analytic sample). The Brigham and Women’s Hospital Institutional Review Board approved this study.

Measures

Primary Predictor: Bullying.

Involvement in bullying in the past year was assessed in 2001 when participants were between 14 and 20 (mean = 17.3) years old with the following two questions from the World Health Organization Health Behavior of School-aged Children Survey (Due et al., 2005): the question for victimization read, “During the past year, how often have you been bullied?” and the question for perpetration read, “During the past year, how often have you taken part in bullying others?” Response options included: (a) I haven’t been bullied/bullied anyone, (b) Once or twice, (c) Sometimes, (d) About once a week, and (e) Several times a week. Past-year bullying victimization and perpetration were coded as: never, once or twice, and more than twice given the sparseness of data at higher levels of bullying.

Primary Outcome: IPV.

IPV was measured in 2007 when participants were between 20 and 27 (mean = 22.5) years old with questions adapted from the Abuse Assessment Screen (McFarlane, Parker, Soeken, & Bullock, 1992). Participants were first asked if they had ever been involved in an intimate relationship that lasted 3+ months. If they responded yes, they were asked a series of questions about IPV occurring in their lifetime. Of the 8,001 participants in the 2001 and 2007 surveys, 6,349 (79%) responded yes to ever having been in a relationship for 3+ months.

Two binary outcomes were created to indicate IPV occurring any time after participants were asked about bullying: (a) IPV victimization (physical, sexual, or emotional/psychological) and (b) IPV perpetration (physical or sexual). Four victimization questions asked if participants had ever been made to feel afraid, ever been “emotionally abused (e.g., threatened, insulted, yelled at, degraded),” ever been “hit, slapped, kicked, or otherwise physically hurt,” or if their partner had ever used “threats, force, or verbal pressure to do something sexual” when they did not want to. Participants were considered to have experienced IPV victimization if they responded “yes, this happened once” to any of these questions. The two perpetration questions asked participants if they had ever “hit, slapped, kicked, or otherwise physically hurt” their partner(s) or ever used “threats, force, or verbal pressure to make your partner(s) do something sexual when she or he did not want to.” Participants were considered to have perpetrated IPV if they responded “yes, this happened once” or “yes, this happened more than once” to either of these two questions.

Participants missing any information on IPV were excluded (n = 49, <1% of participants). In addition, participants were asked at what age they experienced any of the abuse reported and were instructed to mark all applicable ages from ≤ 10 to 27 years. Because of the need to establish temporality with bullying, participants missing age of IPV were excluded (n = 263, 4% of participants). Participants were also excluded if their first report of IPV occurred before the time period in which bullying was reported (n = 570, 10% of participants). For individuals who reported any involvement in IPV, the median time from the period in which bullying was reported to first incident of IPV was 3 years (mean = 3.4 years).

Covariates.

Gender (male or female) was assessed in 1996 by maternal report. Age (in years) at questionnaire return was asked in 2001. Race was self-reported in 1996 and coded as White or all other races due to the small sample size of other races in GUTS cohort. Sexual orientation identity was assessed in 2001 by self-report with a question adapted from the Minnesota Adolescent Health Survey (Remafedi, Resnick, Blum, & Harris, 1992) about feelings of attraction and was coded as completely heterosexual or sexual minority (includes lesbian/gay, bisexual, mostly heterosexual, and mostly homosexual). We used the 2003 report of sexual orientation if participants were unsure or missing data in 2001 (n = 132, 3%). Household income was reported by mothers in the NHSII in 2001 and coded categorically: <$50,000, $50,000–$74,000, $75,000–$99,000, $100,000–$149,000, ≥$150,000. Family structure was reported in 1996 and coded as living with both parents, one parent, or one parent and a stepparent or other person.

History of abuse during childhood before age 11 years was reported in 2007. Four items from the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (Bernstein et al., 1994), two items from the Conflict Tactics Scale (Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996), and two items from the Sexual Maltreatment Scale of the Parent-Child Conflict Tactics Scales (Straus, Hamby, Finkelhor, Moore, & Runyan, 1998) assessed emotional, physical, and sexual abuse, respectively. Emotional and physical abuse were coded as never or rarely versus sometimes or more often. Sexual abuse was coded as never versus once or more often. Witnessing violence was assessed with six items about hearing or seeing an adult use physical force with (e.g., shove, punch) or verbally abuse (e.g., threaten, degrade) his or her mother, another adult, or a child in the household. Two binary variables were created to indicate witnessing physical abuse and witnessing emotional abuse and coded as never or once versus a few times or more often.

Analysis

We first examined prevalence of IPV victimization and perpetration by bullying status. χ2-tests were used to test for significant differences. We used multivariable loglinear regression to assess the association between bullying and subsequent IPV accounting for covariates including gender, age at 2001 questionnaire return, race, sexual orientation identity, household income, family structure, and history of childhood abuse. The no past-year bullying group served as the reference category. We included both bullying victimization and perpetration as predictors in the regression models for the two IPV outcomes.

We estimated risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) using log-binomial models (Spiegelman & Hertzmark, 2005). Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were used to account for sibling clusters since some mothers enrolled more than one child in the GUTS cohort (Zeger & Liang, 1986). We used log-Poisson models with robust error variance when the log-binomial models did not converge to provide valid (if not fully efficient) estimates of the RR and 95% CI (Spiegelman & Hertzmark, 2005; Zou, 2004). To test whether the associations differed by gender, we tested gender-by-bullying interaction terms. The interactions were not significant so were dropped from the model. Gender-stratified models are not presented, but gender was included as covariate in all models.

To account for missing data on bullying and household income and to allow for the uncertainty of the imputed values, multiple imputation methods were implemented using SAS PROC MI and PROC MIANALYZE, pooling results from multiple imputed data sets (Horton & Kleinman, 2007; Yuan, 2011). To check the sensitivity of our findings, we compared the results with multiply imputed data to the results with complete data (n = 3,644) and additionally to results multiply imputing only the household income covariate (i.e., with complete bullying data; n = 4,382). We found no substantive differences. We also compared individuals missing bullying data to those with complete bullying data since bullying is the primary predictor. There were no significant differences in IPV or other covariates except that individuals missing bullying data were more likely to be male (p < .001). Finally, we conducted additional sensitivity analyses for the multiply imputed data in which the odds of being in the highest levels of bullying victimization and perpetration (i.e., more than twice) for those missing bullying data was assumed to differ from those not missing bullying data; specifically, we allowed the odds to be up to four times higher or four times lower and found no substantive differences in results. All analyses were conducted using SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC).

RESULTS

The analytic sample included a total of 5,279 participants—3,472 females and 1,807 males. Participants were ages 14–20 (mean = 17.3, standard deviation [SD] = 1.6) years in 2001 and were 97% White. Overall, 16% of participants reported being bullied once or twice and 4% reported being bullied more than twice in the previous year (Table 1). In terms of perpetration, 17% reported bullying others once or twice and 5% reported bullying others more than twice. Among females, 16% reported any bullying victimization and 15% reported any bullying perpetration. Among males, 26% reported any bullying victimization and 35% reported any bullying perpetration.

TABLE 1.

Distribution of Bullying and Intimate Partner Violence and Participant Characteristics by Gender Among Young Adults (Ages 14–20 Years in 2001) in the U.S. Growing Up Today Study (n = 5,279)

Total
(n = 5,279)		 Females
(n = 3,472)		 Males
(n = 1,807)
% (n)
Bullying victimizationa
 More than twice 4.0 (174) 2.9 (85) 6.2 (89)
 Once or twice 15.6 (682) 13.4 (393) 20.1 (289)
 Never 80.5 (3,526) 83.8 (2,464) 73.8 (1,062)
Bullying perpetrationa
 More than twice 5.2 (226) 2.5 (74) 10.6 (152)
 Once or twice 16.6 (727) 12.5 (368) 24.9 (359)
 Never 78.3 (3,429) 85.0 (2,500) 64.5 (929)
Intimate partner violence victimization
 Any 28.9 (1,526) 34.2 (1,187) 18.8 (339)
 None 71.1 (3,753) 65.8 (2,285) 81.2 (1,468)
Intimate partner violence perpetration
 Any 10.7 (563) 13.5 (467) 5.3 (96)
 None 89.3 (4,716) 86.5 (3,005) 94.7 (1,711)
Age in 2001 (years)
 14–16 36.2 (1,909) 36.0 (1,251) 36.4 (658)
 17–20 63.8 (3,370) 64.0 (2,221) 63.6 (1,149)
Race
 White 96.9 (5,113) 96.7 (3,359) 97.1 (1,754)
 All other races 3.1 (166) 3.3 (113) 2.9 (53)
Sexual orientation identity
 Heterosexual 89.8 (4,743) 88.5 (3,071) 92.5 (1,672)
 Sexual minority 10.2 (536) 11.5 (401) 7.5 (135)
Household income (annual)b
 <$50,000 12.1 (533) 12.5 (358) 11.5 (175)
 $50,000–$74,000 22.1 (970) 22.1 (635) 22.0 (335)
 $75,000–$99,000 22.0 (966) 21.3 (612) 23.3 (354)
 $100,000–$149,000 27.1 (1,192) 27.6 (794) 26.2 (398)
 ≥$ 150,000 16.7 (732) 16.5 (474) 17.0 (258)
Family structure during childhood
 Both parents 90.1 (4,757) 89.8 (3,117) 90.8 (1,640)
 One parent 7.1 (377) 7.3 (255) 6.8 (122)
 One parent + stepparent/other 2.7 (145) 2.9 (100) 2.5 (45)
Childhood physical abuse
 Sometimes or more often 9.3 (491) 9.4 (326) 9.1 (165)
 Never or rarely 90. (4788) 90.6 (3,146) 90.9 (1,642)
Childhood emotional abuse
 Sometimes or more often 37.9 (2,003) 37.9 (1,317) 38.0 (686)
 Never or rarely 62.1 (3,276) 62.1 (2,155) 62.0 (1,121)
Childhood sexual abuse
 Once or more often 6.1 (323) 7.3 (253) 3.9 (70)
 Never 93.9 (4,956) 92.7 (3,219) 96.1 (1,737)
Witness physical abuse
 A few times or more often 7.7 (409) 8.7 (302) 5.9 (107)
 Never or once 92.3 (4,870) 91.3 (3,170) 94.1 (1,700)
Witness emotional abuse
 A few times or more often 18.4 (972) 19.9 (690) 15.6 (282)
 Never or once 81.6 (4,307) 80.1 (2,782) 84.4 (1,525)
Open in a new tab
a

Bullying is presented with no imputation for missingness (n = 4,382; 2,942 females, 1,440 males for bullying data)

b

Household income is presented with no imputation for missingness (n = 4,393; 2,873 females, 1,520 males for income data)

Participants reporting higher levels of bullying had significantly higher rates of IPV victimization (p = .004) and perpetration (p = .01; Figure 1). For participants reporting being bullied more than twice, 39% reported IPV victimization compared to 28% of those reporting no bullying victimization; 15% of those being bullied more than twice reported IPV perpetration compared to 10% of those reporting no bullying victimization. For participants reporting bullying others more than twice, 32% reported IPV victimization compared to 29% of those reporting no bullying perpetration; 15% of those being bullying others more than twice reported IPV perpetration compared to 10% of those reporting no bullying perpetration. The prevalence of IPV was not higher for adolescents reporting both victimization and perpetration of bullying (not shown).

FIGURE 1.

FIGURE 1

Open in a new tab

Prevalence of intimate partner violence victimization and perpetration by bullying status among young adults (ages 14–20 years in 2001) in the U.S. Growing Up Today Study (n = 4,382)

Note. Bullying is presented with no imputation for missingness. χ2-tests indicated two significant associations: for associations between bullying victimization and intimate partner violence (IPV) victimization (p = .004) and between bullying perpetration and IPV perpetration (p = .01).

In multivariable models, participants reporting the highest levels of bullying victimization (i.e., being bullied more than twice) were at elevated risk of IPV victimization (RR = 1.26, 95% CI = 1.03, 1.55) compared to participants reporting no past-year bullying victimization, adjusting for bullying perpetration and covariates (Table 2a). Similarly, participants reporting higher levels of bullying perpetration were at elevated risk of IPV perpetration. Specifically, participants reporting bullying others once or twice had 1.4 times greater risk of perpetrating IPV (RR = 1.37, 95% CI = 1.07, 1.76) while those bullying others more than twice had 1.8 times greater risk of perpetrating IPV (RR = 1.81, 95% CI = 1.29, 2.54) compared to participants reporting no past-year bullying perpetration, adjusting for bullying victimization and covariates (Table 2b). There was no significant association between bullying perpetration and IPV victimization and no significant association between bullying victimization and IPV perpetration.

TABLE 2.

Bullying Victimization and Perpetration as Joint Predictors of (a) Intimate Partner Violence Victimization and (b) Intimate Partner Violence Perpetration Among Young Adults (Ages 14–20 Years in 2001) in the U.S. Growing Up Today Study (n = 5,279)

Base Modelsa Fully Adjusted Modelsb
Risk Ratio (95% Confidence Interval)
(a) IPV Victimization
 Bullying victimization
  Never 1.00 1.00
  Once or twice 1.13 (0.99, 1.29) 1.09 (0.96, 1.24)
  More than twice 1.35 (1.10, 1.66)** 1.26 (1.03, 1.55)*
 Bullying perpetration
  Never 1.00 1.00
  Once or twice 1.13 (0.99, 1.29) 1.08 (0.94, 1.23)
  More than twice 1.27 (1.04, 1.55)* 1.20 (0.98, 1.46)
(b) IPV Perpetration
 Bullying victimization
  Never 1.00 1.00
  Once or twice 1.01 (0.79, 1.30) 0.94 (0.74, 1.19)
  More than twice 1.28 (0.84, 1.96) 1.11 (0.75, 1.67)
 Bullying perpetration
  Never 1.00 1.00
  Once or twice 1.51 (1.18, 1.94)** 1.37 (1.07, 1.76)*
  More than twice 2.05 (1.44, 2.90)*** 1.81 (1.29, 2.54)***
Open in a new tab

Note. The models for each intimate partner violence (IPV) outcome include both bullying victimization and bullying perpetration as joint predictors. Multiple imputation implemented to address missingness in bullying and household income.

a

Models adjusted for gender and age at questionnaire return.

b

Models adjusted for gender, age at questionnaire return, race, household income, family structure, child abuse, and sexual orientation identity.

*

p < .05.

**

p < .01.

***

p < .001.

DISCUSSION

The aim of the present study is to assess whether involvement in bullying is longitudinally associated with involvement in IPV in a cohort of U.S. adolescents and young adults. Our findings suggest that adolescents do indeed carry forward modes of interaction from their peer relationships to their dating relationships. Adolescent boys and girls who experience bullying victimization were at higher risk of subsequent IPV victimization while those who perpetrated bullying were at higher risk of subsequent IPV perpetration. This study adds to the understanding of bullying and partner violence, highlighting potential dangers in the dating relationships of adolescents and young adults who are involved in bullying. Our study is among the first to include both victimization and perpetration in a single study, to study the association among older adolescents, and to control for a number of important shared risk factors largely unaccounted for in previous studies, such as childhood abuse history.

Our first finding is that adolescents who reported the highest level of bullying victimization (e.g., bullied more than twice) were at higher risk of subsequent IPV victimization in adolescence or early adulthood compared to those who reported no bullying victimization. This finding supports the prior research in this area, although previous studies generally did not control for perpetration despite evidence of overlap among victims and perpetrators (Debnam, Waasdorp, & Bradshaw, 2016; Espelage & Holt, 2007; Peters et al., 2017; Yahner et al., 2015). In addition to social learning theory, there are several other potential explanations for the link between bullying victimization and IPV victimization. Although the results of this study cannot assess these pathways for the primary association of interest, they may be important for future work to consider and empirically test. The developmental victimization framework suggests that experiencing victimization once may lead to the development of certain behavioral and personality features that increase vulnerability for future victimization (Finkelhor, 1995; Finkelhor & Asdigian, 1996; Finkelhor, Ormrod, & Turner, 2007). Similarly, victimization can lead to rejection by peers and subsequent internalizing problems and social withdrawal, which may also contribute to increased vulnerability, exclusion, and future victimization (Pepler et al., 2006). Attribution theory may also be used to explain this association, as victims of bullying may attribute their victimization experience to an uncontrollable and internal characteristic which can normalize future victimization experiences (Graham & Juvonen, 1998; Thornberg & Jungert, 2014). It is also worth noting that although individuals who are bullied are at higher risk of being victims of IPV, the majority of adolescents who report being bullied do not go on to be victimized by an intimate partner.

We also found that adolescents who reported bullying perpetration (even just once or twice) were at higher risk of subsequent IPV perpetration in adolescence or early adulthood compared to those who reported no bullying perpetration. Although there are few studies that simultaneously control for victimization, one prior longitudinal study among middle school students found that those who perpetrated the most bullying, but were not bullied themselves, also perpetrated the most IPV (Foshee et al., 2016). These findings are also consistent with other prior longitudinal research linking bullying perpetration to perpetration of sexual harassment (Espelage et al., 2015) and physical IPV perpetration (Foshee et al., 2014). While social learning theory may explain cycles of perpetration, these behaviors—bullying perpetration and IPV perpetration—share similar risk factors, including anger, low empathy, substance use, impulsivity, need for power and control, emotional regulation difficulties, normative beliefs accepting of aggressive behavior, difficult parental relationships, and witnessing/experiencing abuse (Basile, Espelage, Rivers, McMahon, & Simon, 2009). We were able to adjust for a number of variables that were largely unaccounted for in previous studies including sexual orientation, witnessing IPV in childhood, and exposure to childhood abuse. However, other shared risk factors may also be important. Other explanations for the link between bullying perpetration and IPV perpetration include: bullying used as a tool for increasing social status and popularity, which has been linked to IPV perpetration (Sijtsema, Veenstra, Lindenberg, & Salmivalli, 2009; Foshee et al., 2013; Foshee et al., 2014); and, specifically for sexual violence, the Bully-Sexual Violence Pathway, which proposes that bullying perpetration and homophobic teasing are significant predictors of sexual harassment perpetration such that a bullying perpetrator who uses homophobic teasing (e.g., making fun of others who express behaviors not consistent with their gender) may later turn to sexual harassment to demonstrate their heterosexuality (Espelage, Basile, & Hamburger, 2012; Espelage et al., 2015).

We did not find support for gender differences in the association between bullying and IPV. This is consistent with several studies on the perpetration of bullying and IPV, which have shown no differences in the association by gender (Connolly et al., 2000; Espelage et al., 2012; Foshee, et al., 2016; Foshee et al., 2014). In contrast, one recent study did find that bullying is significantly related to IPV perpetration only for boys (Ellis & Wolfe, 2015). Interestingly, most of the studies on bullying victimization and IPV victimization do not report results on gender differences (Peters et al., 2017; Yahner et al., 2015), thus making it difficult to compare our results to the previous findings for victimization. Boys and girls may be involved in different types of bullying (e.g., boys engage in more physical bullying while girls engage in more verbal and relational bullying; Dukes et al., 2010), which may contribute to differences in the association between bullying and IPV; however, we were not able to distinguish between types of bullying in this analysis, which could have led to our finding of no gender differences. More broadly, research on the role that gender plays in adolescents’ risk of victimization and perpetration has produced inconsistent results (Copeland et al., 2013; Kann et al., 2016; Rueger & Jenkins, 2014; Vagi et al., 2015). In the present study, although gender did not moderate the association between bullying and IPV, gender was associated with both such that males reported higher levels of bullying (victimization and perpetration) and lower levels of IPV (victimization and perpetration) compared to females. Future research should continue to examine gender differences, particularly since IPV is often considered within the scope of gender-based violence (Reed, Raj, Miller, & Silverman, 2010), and should consider how the mediators linking bullying and IPV might differ by gender as well.

These findings should be considered in light of several limitations. This study relied on retrospective self-reports of bullying and IPV, which may be susceptible to recall bias. Response bias may also be of particular concern in this study since adolescents willing to disclose involvement in bullying may also be more willing to disclose involvement in IPV. However, bullying was much more commonly reported than IPV—for example, males reported seven times more perpetration of bullying compared to IPV, indicating that reporting perpetration of these behaviors may be viewed rather differently. Furthermore, the questions were asked 6 years apart when the participants were at different developmental stages, so there may be less reason to expect that participants maintain a consistent reporting bias. The measures for bullying, although validated, allow for very broad interpretation of experiences of victimization and perpetration by the respondent. We would expect that the measures likely underestimate true bullying experiences since adolescents may not identify certain relational or indirect behaviors as bullying. Also, the measure only captures bullying experiences in the past year, so we do not have information about bullying experiences prior to this or about whether bullying continued when the IPV was also occurring. More detailed measures to identify type of bullying, location, and frequency would be beneficial.

Although we were able to control for temporality of our exposure–outcome relationship, we cannot infer causality in the association since there may be additional shared risk factors for bullying and IPV (e.g., lack of empathy, need for power and control, emotional regulation, normative beliefs accepting of aggressive behavior) that were not measured. We did control for witnessing violence in childhood and experiencing childhood abuse, which most prior studies have not (Foshee et al., 2014; Peters et al., 2017). Sample size precluded us from stratifying by type (e.g., physical, sexual, or emotional/psychological) of IPV, severity of IPV, and overlap of IPV victimization and perpetration. The measure of IPV perpetration did not include emotional abuse and thus is not parallel to the measure for IPV victimization; however, emotional abuse is an important component of IPV and should be included in future studies. Also, IPV was only assessed for individuals who responded yes to having ever been involved in an intimate relationship that lasted 3+ months (approximately 80% of participants). Furthermore, these data may reflect older trends, given that the most recent data collection was in 2007 for the IPV measures. While our findings are largely consistent with research using more recent data, awareness of both bullying and IPV has increased greatly over the last two decades, and new forms of these behaviors have emerged (e.g., cyber abuse) that could possibly change the strength of the association between bullying and IPV (Yahner et al., 2015). Lastly, this sample is not nationally representative as it consists of children of predominantly White nurses, so these findings may have limited generalizability. More research is needed among samples with greater sociodemographic diversity.

Despite limitations, these findings suggest that one strategy for preventing IPV may be to focus on the aggressive behaviors, such as bullying, that precede it. Programs and interventions around bullying, which schools have shown a willingness to implement (Bradshaw, 2015; Vreeman & Carroll, 2007), could include more explicit efforts to address IPV. Interventions that focus on multiple forms of violence can be effective (Wilson & Lipsey, 2007). One example is the Expect Respect Support Group, a 24-session school-based socio-emotional learning program for adolescents who have been exposed to violence, which found declines in both aggression and IPV outcomes for participants (Reidy, Holland, Cortina, Ball, & Rosenbluth, 2017). In addition, it may be useful to evaluate the impact of bullying interventions on IPV outcomes. State laws are also a useful tool to address these forms of violence. In fact, every state has anti-bullying laws on the books requiring schools to adopt anti-bullying policies. Although the level of detail varies greatly by state, most include a definition of bullying, how incidents are investigated and reported, and consequences for bullies (National Conference of State Legislatures, 2013). Although schools have been more cautious in implementing programs for intimate relationships, 22 states have introduced legislation around adolescent IPV—for example, requiring schools to include information on adolescent IPV in their curricula or designating a “Teen Dating Violence Awareness” day/month (National Conference of State Legislatures, 2018). While the policies for bullying and IPV are sometimes separate, some states, like Rhode Island, have integrated how they address these forms of violence by expanding bullying policies to include IPV and sexual violence (Rhode Island Department of Education, 2012), an approach which is supported by the associations we found between these behaviors. Because the present study measured bullying in later adolescence as well, we must also consider that bullying prevention may continue to be important after high school. Focusing on schools makes sense given that we know bullying and harassment can start at very early ages; however, these messages should likely be reinforced in later settings such as colleges and workplaces as well.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings from this longitudinal study add to the growing body of evidence that peer relationships may be an important source of influence on romantic and dating relationships. Involvement in bullying in adolescence is a key risk indicator for IPV in adolescence and young adulthood. Our results suggest that adolescents who are bullied are at risk of becoming victims of IPV, and adolescents who bully are at risk of becoming perpetrators of IPV. Improved understanding of the links between bullying and IPV may have important implications for school-based programs, which should tailor IPV efforts for victims and perpetrators and explicitly integrate IPV prevention into bullying prevention efforts. Further research examining pathways between bullying and IPV, controlling for additional shared risk factors, and studying more demographically diverse populations, is needed to build a deeper understanding of how to prevent the progression from bullying to IPV.

Acknowledgments.

We acknowledge the Channing Laboratory, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School for the management of GUTS. We would also like to express gratitude and appreciation to the team of GUTS investigators and the thousands of GUTS participants across the country.

Funding.

This study was funded in part by grants R01 DA033974, R01 HD066963, and 2R01 OH0098003 CDC from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). S.B. Austin is supported by the Leadership Education in Adolescent Health project, Maternal and Child Health Bureau, Health Resources and Services Administration grants T71-MC00009 and T76-MC00001. A.R. Gordon is supported by NIH grant F32 DA042505.

Footnotes

Disclosure. The authors have no relevant financial interest or affiliations with any commercial interests related to the subjects discussed within this article.

Contributor Information

Avanti Adhia, Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts.

Allegra R. Gordon, Division of Adolescent and Young Adult Medicine, Boston Children’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.

Andrea L. Roberts, Department of Environmental Health, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts.

Garrett M. Fitzmaurice, Laboratory for Psychiatric Biostatistics, McLean Hospital, Belmont, Massachusetts; Department of Biostatistics, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts.

David Hemenway, Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts.

S. Bryn Austin, Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts; Division of Adolescent and Young Adult Medicine, Boston Children’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts; Channing Division of Network Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.

REFERENCES

  1. Bandura A (1977). Social Learning Theory. New York, NY: General Learning Press. [Google Scholar]
  2. Basile KC, Espelage DL, Rivers I, McMahon PM, & Simon TR (2009). The theoretical and empirical links between bullying behavior and male sexual violence perpetration. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 14(5), 336–347. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2009.06.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bernstein DP, Fink L, Handelsman L, Foote J, Lovejoy M, Wenzel K, … Ruggiero J (1994). Initial reliability and validity of a new retrospective measure of child abuse and neglect. American Journal of Psychiatry, 151(8), 1132–1136. doi: 10.1176/ajp.151.8.1132 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bradshaw CP (2015). Translating research to practice in bullying prevention. American Psychologist, 70(4), 322–332. doi: 10.1037/a0039114 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Card NA, Stucky BD, Sawalani GM, & Little TD (2008). Direct and indirect aggression during childhood and adolescence: A meta-analytic review of gender differences, intercorrelations, and relations to maladjustment. Child Development, 79(5), 1185–1229. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01184.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Clear ER, Coker AL, Cook-Craig PG, Bush HM, Garcia LS, Williams CM, & Fisher BS (2014). Sexual harassment victimization and perpetration among high school students. Violence Against Women, 20(10), 1203–1219. doi: 10.1177/1077801214551287 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Connolly J, Pepler D, Craig W, & Taradash A (2000). Dating experiences of bullies in early adolescence. Child Maltreatment, 5(4), 299–310. doi: 10.1177/1077559500005004002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Copeland WE, Wolke D, Angold A, & Costello EJ (2013). Adult psychiatric outcomes of bullying and being bullied by peers in childhood and adolescence. JAMA Psychiatry, 70(4), 419–426. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2013.504 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Debnam KJ, Waasdorp TE, & Bradshaw CP (2016). Examining the contemporaneous occurrence of bullying and teen dating violence victimization. School Psychology Quarterly, 31(1), 76–90. doi: 10.1037/spq0000124 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Due P, Holstein BE, Lynch J, Diderichsen F, Gabhain SN, Scheidt P, … Health Behaviour in School-Aged Children Bullying Working, G. (2005). Bullying and symptoms among school-aged children: International comparative cross sectional study in 28 countries. European Journal of Public Health, 15(2), 128–132. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/cki105 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Dukes RL, Stein JA, & Zane JI (2010). Gender differences in the relative impact of physical and relational bullying on adolescent injury and weapon carrying. Journal of School Psychology, 48(6), 511–532. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2010.08.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Ellis WE, & Wolfe DA (2015). Bullying predicts reported dating violence and observed qualities in adolescent dating relationships. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30(17), 3043–3064. doi: 10.1177/0886260514554428 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Espelage DL, Basile KC, De La Rue L, & Hamburger ME (2015). Longitudinal associations among bullying, homophobic teasing, and sexual violence perpetration among middle school students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30(14), 2541–2561. doi: 10.1177/0886260514553113 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Espelage DL, Basile KC, & Hamburger ME (2012). Bullying perpetration and subsequent sexual violence perpetration among middle school students. Journal of Adolescent Health, 50(1), 60–65. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2011.07.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Espelage DL, & Holt MK (2007). Dating violence & sexual harassment across the bully-victim continuum among middle and high school students. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36(6), 799–811. doi: 10.1007/s10964-006-9109-7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Exner-Cortens D, Eckenrode J, & Rothman E (2013). Longitudinal associations between teen dating violence victimization and adverse health outcomes. Pediatrics, 131(1), 71–78. doi: 10.1542/peds.2012-1029 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Falb KL, McCauley HL, Decker MR, Gupta J, Raj A, & Silverman JG (2011). School bullying perpetration and other childhood risk factors as predictors of adult intimate partner violence perpetration. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 165(10), 890–894. doi: 10.1001/archpediatrics.2011.91 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Field AE, Camargo CA Jr., Taylor BC, Berkey CS, Frazier AL, Gillman MW, … Colditz GA (1999). Overweight, weight concerns, and bulimic behaviors among girls and boys. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 38(6), 754–760. doi: 10.1097/00004583-199906000-00024 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Finkelhor D (1995). The victimization of children: A developmental perspective. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 65(2), 177–193. doi: 10.1037/h0079618 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Finkelhor D, & Asdigian NL (1996). Risk factors for youth victimization: Beyond a lifestyles/routine activities theory approach. Violence and Victims, 11(1), 3–19. doi: 10.1891/0886-6708.11.1.3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Finkelhor D, Ormrod RK, & Turner HA (2007). Re-victimization patterns in a national longitudinal sample of children and youth. Child Abuse & Neglect, 31(5), 479–502. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2006.03.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Foshee VA, Benefield TS, McNaughton Reyes HL, Eastman M, Vivolo-Kantor AM, Basile KC, … Faris R (2016). Examining explanations for the link between bullying perpetration and physical dating violence perpetration: Do they vary by bullying victimization? Aggressive Behavior, 42(1), 66–81. doi: 10.1002/ab.21606 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Foshee VA, Benefield TS, Reyes HL, Ennett ST, Faris R, Chang LY, … Suchindran CM (2013). The peer context and the development of the perpetration of adolescent dating violence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(4), 471–486. doi: 10.1007/s10964-013-9915-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Foshee VA, Gottfredson NC, Reyes HL, Chen MS, David-Ferdon C, Latzman NE, … Ennett ST (2016). Developmental outcomes of using physical violence against dates and peers. Journal of Adolescent Health, 58(6), 665–671. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2016.03.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Foshee VA, McNaughton Reyes LH, Vivolo-Kantor AM, Basile KC, Chang LY, Faris R, & Ennett ST (2014). Bullying as a longitudinal predictor of adolescent dating violence. Journal of Adolescent Health, 55(3), 439–444. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2014.03.004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Gini G, Pozzoli T, Borghi F, & Franzoni L (2008). The role of bystanders in students’ perception of bullying and sense of safety. Journal of School Psychology, 46(6), 617–638. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2008.02.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Gladden RM, Vivolo-Kantor AM, Hamburger ME, & Lumpkin CD (2014). Bullying Surveillance Among Youths: Uniform Definitions for Public Health and Recommended Data Elements, Version 1.0. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and U.S Department of Education. [Google Scholar]
  28. Graham S, & Juvonen J (1998). Self-blame and peer victimization in middle school: An attributional analysis. Developmental Psychology, 34(3), 587–599. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.34.3.587 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Haynie DL, Nansel T, Eitel P, Crump AD, Saylor K, Yu K, & Simons-Morton B (2001). Bullies, victims, and bully/victims: Distinct groups of at-risk youth. Journal of Early Adolescence, 21(1), 29–49. doi: 10.1177/0272431601021001002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Hemphill SA, Kotevski A, Herrenkohl TI, Bond L, Kim MJ, Toumbourou JW, & Catalano RF (2011). Longitudinal consequences of adolescent bullying perpetration and victimisation: A study of students in Victoria, Australia. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 21(2), 107–116. doi: 10.1002/cbm.802 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Horton NJ, & Kleinman KP (2007). Much ado about nothing: A comparison of missing data methods and software to fit incomplete data regression models. The American Statistician, 61(1), 79–90. doi: 10.1198/000313007X172556 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Josephson WL, & Pepler D (2012). Bullying: A stepping stone to dating aggression? International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health, 24(1), 37–47. doi: 10.1515/ijamh.2012.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Kann L, McManus T, Harris WA, Shanklin SL, Flint KH, Hawkins J, … Zaza S (2016). Youth risk behavior surveillance-United States, 2015. MMWR Surveillance Summaries (Vol. 65, pp. 1–174). doi: 10.15585/mmwr.ss6506a16 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Klomek AB, Sourander A, & Elonheimo H (2015). Bullying by peers in childhood and effects on psychopathology, suicidality, and criminality in adulthood. Lancet Psychiatry, 2(10), 930–941. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(15)00223-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Langhinrichsen-Rohling J (2010). Controversies involving gender and intimate partner violence in the United States. Sex Roles, 62(3–4), 179–193. doi: 10.1007/s11199-009-9628-2 62(3–4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. McFarlane J, Parker B, Soeken K, & Bullock L (1992). Assessing for abuse during pregnancy. Severity and frequency of injuries and associated entry into prenatal care. JAMA, 267(23), 3176–3178. doi: 10.1001/jama.1992.03480230068030 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Miller S, Williams J, Cutbush S, Gibbs D, Clinton-Sherrod M, & Jones S (2013). Dating violence, bullying, and sexual harassment: Longitudinal profiles and transitions over time. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(4), 607–618. doi: 10.1007/s10964-013-9914-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Modecki KL, Minchin J, Harbaugh AG, Guerra NG, & Runions KC (2014). Bullying prevalence across contexts: A meta-analysis measuring cyber and traditional bullying. Journal of Adolescent Health, 55(5), 602–611. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2014.06.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. National Conference of State Legislatures. (2013). State bullying legislation. Retrieved from http://www.ncsl.org/research/education/bullying-legislation-since-2008.aspx
  40. National Conference of State Legislatures. (2018). Injury prevention legislation database. Retrieved from http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/injury-prevention-legislation-database.aspx [Google Scholar]
  41. O’Connell P, Pepler D, & Craig W (1999). Peer involvement in bullying: Insights and challenges for intervention. Journal of Adolescence, 22(4), 437–452. doi: 10.1006/jado.1999.0238 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. O’Leary KD, Slep Smith., M, A., Avery-Leaf S, & Cascardi M (2008). Gender differences in dating aggression among multiethnic high school students. Journal of Adolescent Health, 42(5), 473–479. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.09.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Pepler DJ, Craig WM, Connolly JA, Yuile A, McMaster L, & Jiang D (2006). A developmental perspective on bullying. Aggressive Behavior, 32, 376–384. doi: 10.1002/ab.20136 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Peters ZJ, Hatzenbuehler ML, & Davidson LL (2017). Examining the intersection of bullying and physical relationship violence among New York City high school students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 32(1), 49–75. doi: 10.1177/0886260515585532 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Popp AM, Peguero AA, Day KR, & Kahle LL (2014). Gender, bullying victimization, and education. Violence and Victims, 29(5), 843–856. doi: 10.1891/0886-6708.VV-D-13-00047 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Prinstein MJ, Boergers J, & Vernberg EM (2001). Overt and relational aggression in adolescents: Social-psychological adjustment of aggressors and victims. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 30(4), 479–491. doi: 10.1207/S15374424JCCP3004_05 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Reed E, Raj A, Miller E, & Silverman JG (2010). Losing the “gender” in gender-based violence: The missteps of research on dating and intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women, 16(3), 348–354. doi: 10.1177/1077801209361127 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Reidy DE, Holland KM, Cortina K, Ball B, & Rosenbluth B (2017). Evaluation of the expect respect support group program: A violence prevention strategy for youth exposed to violence. Preventive Medicine, 100, 235–242. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2017.05.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Remafedi G, Resnick M, Blum R, & Harris L (1992). Demography of sexual orientation in adolescents. Pediatrics, 89(4 Suppl.), 714–721. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Rhode Island Department of Education. (2012). A guide to preventing bullying, teen dating violence, and sexual violence in Rhode Island schools. Retrieved from http://www.thriveri.org/documents/GUIDE_Bullying_TDVSV_Amended2012.pdf [Google Scholar]
  51. Rueger SY, & Jenkins LN (2014). Effects of peer victimization on psychological and academic adjustment in early adolescence. School Psychology Quarterly, 29(1), 77–88. doi: 10.1037/spq0000036 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Salmivalli C (2010). Bullying and the peer group: A review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 15(2), 112–120. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2009.08.007 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  53. Sijtsema JJ, Veenstra R, Lindenberg S, & Salmivalli C (2009). Empirical test of bullies’ status goals: Assessing direct goals, aggression, and prestige. Aggressive Behavior, 35(1), 57–67. doi: 10.1002/ab.20282 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Spiegelman D, & Hertzmark E (2005). Easy SAS calculations for risk or prevalence ratios and differences. American Journal of Epidemiology, 162(3), 199–200. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwi188 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Straus MA, Hamby SL, Boney-McCoy S, & Sugarman DB (1996). The revised conflict tactics scales (CTS2). Journal of Family Issues, 17(3), 283–316. doi: 10.1177/019251396017003001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  56. Straus MA, Hamby SL, Finkelhor D, Moore DW, & Runyan D (1998). Identification of child maltreatment with the Parent-Child Conflict Tactics Scales: Development and psychometric data for a national sample of American parents. Child Abuse & Neglect, 22(4), 249–270. doi: 10.1016/S0145-2134(97)00174-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Takizawa R, Maughan B, & Arseneault L (2014). Adult health outcomes of childhood bullying victimization: Evidence from a five-decade longitudinal British birth cohort. American Journal of Psychiatry, 171(7), 777–784. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2014.13101401 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Thornberg R, & Jungert T (2014). School bullying and the mechanisms of moral disengagement. Aggressive Behavior, 40(2), 99–108. doi: 10.1002/ab.21509 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Vagi KJ, Olsen O’Malley., E, Basile. C,K, & 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(5), 474–482. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2014.3577 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Vreeman RC, & Carroll AE (2007). A systematic review of school-based interventions to prevent bullying. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 161(1), 78–88. doi: 10.1001/archpedi.161.1.78 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Wilson SJ, & Lipsey MW (2007). School-based interventions for aggressive and disruptive behavior: Update of a meta-analysis. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 33(2 Suppl), S130–S143. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2007.04.011 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Wincentak K, Connolly J, & Card N (2017). Teen dating violence: A meta-analytic review of prevalence rates. Psychology of Violence, 7(2), 224–241. doi: 10.1037/a0040194 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  63. Yahner J, Dank M, Zweig JM, & Lachman P (2015). The co-occurrence of physical and cyber dating violence and bullying among teens. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30(7), 1079–1089. doi: 10.1177/0886260514540324 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Yuan Y (2011). Multiple imputation using SAS software. Journal of Statistical Software, 45(6), 1–25. doi: 10.18637/jss.v045.i06 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Zeger SL, & Liang KY (1986). Longitudinal data analysis for discrete and continuous outcomes. Biometrics, 42(1), 121–130. doi: 10.2307/2531248 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Zou G (2004). A modified poisson regression approach to prospective studies with binary data. American Journal of Epidemiology, 159(7), 702–706. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwh090 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES