Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2022 Jul 1.
Published in final edited form as: Fem Criminol. 2021 Jan 15;16(3):320–336. doi: 10.1177/1557085120987613

Relationship Dynamics Associated with Dating Violence among Adolescents and Young Adults: A Feminist Post-Structural Analysis

Peggy C Giordano 1, Jennifer E Copp 2, Wendy D Manning 1, Monica A Longmore 1
PMCID: PMC8519583  NIHMSID: NIHMS1706415  PMID: 34658680

Abstract

We focus on the character of adolescent and young adult relationships, and argue that attention to interpersonal features of intimate partner violence (IPV) is necessary for a comprehensive view of this form of violence. Drawing on ideas from feminist post-structural perspectives, we highlight studies that develop a somewhat non-traditional but nevertheless gendered portrait of relationships as a backdrop for exploring dyadic processes associated with IPV. Findings are based on quantitative and qualitative analyses from a longitudinal study of a large, diverse sample of young women and men interviewed first during adolescence, and five additional times across the transition to adulthood.

Introduction

Drawing on a feminist perspective to explain the phenomenon of intimate partner violence (IPV) represented a significant advance in our understanding of and approach to this consequential social problem. Feminist scholars and activists have played a key role in the development of policies and programs designed to interrupt these deleterious forms of violence. Within criminology, some debate remains about whether distinct theories are needed to capture the dynamics underlying IPV, or whether frameworks such as social learning and associated variables (e.g., exposure to violence within the family) are efficient as explanatory underpinnings (Cochran et al., 2017; Felson, 2002). While prior work clearly shows that family backgrounds and other traditional risk factors ‘matter,’ (for excellent reviews of research on various levels and forms of risk see Wolfe & Temple, 2018; Jenning et al., 2017; Vagi et al., 2013), evidence is nevertheless accumulating that attention to uniquely gendered dynamics is likely required to develop a comprehensive portrait of violent actions that occur within the romantic realm (Anderson, 1997; Giordano, Copp et al., 2015).

A general contribution of feminist theorizing has been to highlight ways in which gender inequality affects not only large-scale structures and policies that disadvantage women, but the character of dynamics within the dyadic context (Komter, 1989). Thus, power has been a cross-cutting concept that is critical for understanding macro-level as well as micro-level influences. Contemporary theorizing in the feminist post-structural tradition, however, provides a potentially useful conceptual backdrop for developing further our understanding of these more localized, micro-level dynamics, and for interpreting the results of recent findings focused specifically on IPV (Cannon, Lauve-Moon, & Buttell, 2015). Scholars in this tradition have highlighted that particularly within the contemporary context, gender arrangements, including power relations, are not fixed or preordained. Instead, such dynamics are affected by broader structures of inequality and group-level influences, but are necessarily constructed and at times challenged through the continuous process of communication that is characteristic of intimate relationships (Deutch, 2007).

The primary objective of the this article, then, is to draw on recent findings from the Toledo Adolescent Relationships Study (TARS) to develop a somewhat different portrait of gendered features of adolescent and young adult relationships in general and of relationship dynamics associated with IPV in particular. Our view is that despite substantial evidentiary support, these dynamics have remained largely ‘under the radar’ from the perspective of theory building and inclusion in programmatic efforts. We argue that it is useful to consider that the two types of dynamics are inevitably linked or interrelated. Thus, our aim is to emphasize the degree to which IPV dynamics are an outgrowth of basic social processes, and should not be viewed as somehow an aberration separate and apart from those that characterize adolescent and young adult relationships in general.

The portrait we develop is consistent with the fluid, unfinished perspective on gender outlined by feminist post-structural scholars, the idea of moving away from conceptualizing gender as a set of binary oppositions, and more broadly with the social psychological tradition of symbolic interaction (Mead, 1934; St. Pierre, 2000). TARS’ analyses provide a useful anchor for this discussion, as findings are based on a longitudinal study of the lives and relationship experiences of a large, diverse sample of young women and men interviewed first as adolescents and five additional times as they have matured into adulthood. In-depth interviews were also conducted with a subset of respondents at most waves, and the wave five survey and qualitative interviews focused specifically on IPV. The qualitative component has proven a particularly useful adjunct to quantitative analyses, as these lengthy interviews provide entrée to young women’s and men’s own understandings about relationship conflicts. A recent qualitative couple-level analysis of interviews with respondents as well as their partners has also shed new light on distinctively gendered relationship processes and on the nature and impact of partner violence (Giordano, Grace et al., 2020).

A second objective of the analysis accords with increased interest in intersectionalities within feminist theorizing (Chesney-Lind & Morash, 2013; Smooth, 2013). We focus in particular on the confluence of gender and the unique experiences and developmental tasks associated with the adolescent and young adult periods. Highlighting life course variations in the nature of gendered relationships and conduct is potentially important, as foundational work in the area of IPV typically focused on married couples (Dobash & Dobash, 1979; Pence & Paymar, 1993). This early work thus offered a relatively straightforward path to understanding how imbalances of power (e.g. men’s stronger economic foothold) often connect to these behaviors and to women’s more limited options when faced with partner violence and other forms of abuse. Yet teens and young adults report high levels of IPV, including physical violence, and some analyses of survey and arrest data suggest these may peak during these periods, particularly young adulthood (Johnson et al, 2015; Kim et al., 2008; Rennison, 2001). The presence of violence and other forms of abuse within dating as well as cohabiting and marital relationships thus underscores the need for additional scrutiny of the full range of gender dynamics that may influence patterns of IPV during these earlier phases of the life course.

Theory and research on gender and adolescent and young adult relationship dynamics

The TARS study initially focused on the general character of adolescent dating relationships, as at the time relatively few researchers had examined romantic ties in depth (Giordano et al., 2001, 2006). Hirschi (1969), for example, lumped early dating in with other problem behaviors such as delinquency and drug use, and did not consider the meanings of these early relationships to the young women or men who were beginning to forge romantic ties. Early on, Maccoby (1990) argued that due to their earlier socialization in all-male peer groups and based on broader societal messages, boys would be likely to affect this transition more easily--simply transporting their dominant interaction style into the new relationship. This line of argument fits well with the general focus on power differentials in early feminist theorizing about IPV. However, feminist post-structural scholars view power as inherently relational, locally constructed, and malleable, consistent with symbolic interaction’s view that meanings and behavioral choices are necessarily developed on-site as well as based on previous socialization (Prus, 1996). This paves the way for understanding variability in the nature of young men’s experiences and in particular the notion that the relationship itself is the site of considerable ‘learning’ (Giordano, 2020).

Recognizing that young women’s own previous socialization within peer groups and the family includes a strong focus on the give-and-take of dyadic relationships and of intimate communication, we argued that in some respects boys will generally need to travel farther—that is to change considerably and in a sense, more than their female counterparts--to participate in even the rudiments of the intimacy that characterizes dating relationships (Giordano, Longmore, & Manning, 2006). Consistent with this, results of analyses based on the large sample of teens who participated in the TARS study indicated that in direct reports about issues of power and control within these early relationships, a majority of teens did not indicate that young men had more power (measured as “final say” about a range of specific domains and in general—see Carver, Joyner, & Udry, 2003) within their relationships. In addition, young men reported significantly more ‘partner control attempts’ relative to young women’s reports. And finally, male respondents reported more ‘actual’ influence of partners, based on a scale measuring how much respondents indicate that they had changed things about themselves based on partner communications or because they thought their partner would like it. As the project has proceeded, we have come to focus more heavily on issues of control and influence rather than the overall power balance within relationships. While power remains an overarching consideration in understanding gender, relationships, and IPV, the idea of control has an active, grounded quality in reflecting one partner’s attempts to influence or change the other, and potentially in foreshadowing a role for subjective reactions to control attempts. A second advantage to a focus on control is that these more localized concerns and actions may be more readily recognized by young people themselves, as against a hypothetical end-state power balance that may not be stable, desired, or ever fully achieved. This focus then, could figure more heavily into programmatic efforts that would likely benefit from a more immediate resonance with target audiences’ own lived experiences.

This more localized approach focused on control dynamics also inevitably connects to specific issues of concern and at times contestation that have potential to further illuminate gendered dynamics within early dating relationships. For example, what is it that partners are attempting to control when they engage in control attempts? Why would young men report higher levels of partner control attempts in relation to these specific domains, when most of the early literature has focused on men’s attempts to control partners in order to maintain a favorable power position within the relationship? Why would young men score higher on ‘actual’ partner influence, in light of their objectification of women, as highlighted in prior work (Mikorski & Szymanski, 2017)?

A comprehensive understanding of the genesis of intimate partner conflict and more troubling outcomes such as IPV thus also requires attention to positive dynamics that may characterize these early relationships, including feelings of caring and sexual attraction, the experience of intimate self-disclosure, the provision of various forms of social support, as well as benefits for self-esteem and social status. Our focus on general dynamics within early dating relationships thus accords with the goal of avoiding what Cohen (1970) labeled the ‘evil causes evil’ fallacy—a tendency to focus only on negative dynamics when endeavoring to explain a negative or problematic outcome. For example, researchers have highlighted that gang membership may confer companionship, protection, and status, while also increasing risk of injury and arrest, and compromising an array of long-term life outcomes (Gilman, Hill, & Hawkins, 2014; Thrasher, 2013). Studies that have zeroed in on IPV have noted a range of other negative relationship processes that often accompany abuse, such as attempting to isolate the partner from friends and family, stalking the partner, or engaging in various forms of ‘gaslighting’ (Smith-Darden, Reidy, & Kernsmith, 2016; Sweet, 2019). While these add considerable nuance to our understanding of the phenomenon of IPV, in a sense such studies can be seen as elaborating on the dependent variable, rather than focused on longer range relationship-based pathways that may eventuate in these problematic outcomes.

Much has been written about girls’ and women’s heavy focus on relationships and intimacy, but another surprising finding from the early TARS analyses was that young men in the sample reported similar levels of caring and feelings of love for a current partner relative to their female counterparts (Giordano et al., 2006). While male respondents reported lower levels of intimate self-disclosure and greater feelings of communication awkwardness with partners relative to young women, we argued that the levels of intimate talk within intimate heterosexual relationships nevertheless represent a strong contrast and potential reward men enjoy relative to the competitive one-up style of their peer-based interactions (Fine, 1987). Men also benefit from the high levels of support that they often receive from female partners, as suggested by a voluminous literature on men’s health over all phases of the life course (Waite, 1995). The in-depth interviews accord well with analyses of the structured interview data, as we were often surprised at how open young men were about their feelings, including feelings of loss after relationship breakups (“my friends and my family tell me I’ll get over this soon, but when?”).

One possibility we investigated was that adolescents’ lack of experience in romantic relationships and this level of engagement might figure into male partners’ reports about partner influence. With additional age and experience, as well as increasingly consequential decisions that take place during later phases of the life course, we wondered whether young men might increasingly report gendered inequalities of control that comport more readily with traditional depictions. However, longitudinal analyses have continued to reveal significant gender differences in reports of partner influence attempts across the transition to adulthood (ages 22-29-see Giordano et al., 2012).

In addition to the idea that young men may need to change in basic ways in order to participate in this kind of intimate relationship, gender differences in behavioral choices as documented in the broader criminological literature also likely contribute to our understanding of young women’s influence attempts. Thus, young men, relative to similarly aged and positioned young women, more often do things that are likely to be considered problematic. They are more likely to engage in delinquent and later criminal acts, experiment with alcohol and drugs, on average spend more time socializing with same gender-peers, and face higher risks of arrest and incarceration (Giordano, Copp et al., 2020b; Moffitt et al., 2001). Findings from the criminological literature have also shown that marriage in adulthood and even dating (love) relationships in adolescence (Laub & Sampson, 2003; McCarthy & Casey, 2008) are associated with ‘desistance.’ Nevertheless few studies have considered the relationship-level communications and other dynamics that may be associated with the process of making these changes, or variability in receptivity to what are generally considered moves in a prosocial, more ‘adult’ direction.

It is thus important to highlight that while a range of scholarly literatures document positive health and behavior benefits of these intimate ties for men, some individuals may lack an initial ‘openness’ to change, and/or may continue to resist changes in these areas (DiClemente & Prochaska, 1998; Giordano, Cernkovich, & Rudolph, 2002). This suggests the utility of considering women’s own frustrations, and some young men’s resentments about any efforts to change or control their actions. Such resentments are likely to be based in the recognition that their early socialization and experiences included greater freedom of movement and independence. This accords with prior research on parental supervision that has consistently documented that male children are not as closely monitored as their similarly-aged female counterparts (Giordano, Grace et al., 2020). Thus, at the risk of oversimplification, we have suggested that in many instances—at least initially--men may not wish to control their partners so much as to avoid any sense that they are being controlled.

This emphasis on the emergence of resentments about women’s attempts to change or control their actions traces a circuitous route back to the notion of male privilege, long an emphasis in feminist theorizing. Nevertheless, the research findings outlined above have not generally been included in feminist treatments of the dynamics of IPV within these intimate relationships. However, women’s influence attempts and evidence that there is an element of ‘contestation’ within relationships—in general, and within those that contain more serious levels of conflict—fits well with feminist post-structural approaches. As sketched briefly above, theorizing in this tradition has emphasized a level of challenge to traditional arrangements and the role of communication in this process. Nevertheless, as noted at the outset, it is important to underscore that the research we have conducted relies on an adolescent and later on a young adult sample, where relationships and associated power arrangements are likely more unsettled than is the case at later stages of the life course. Further, analyses focus on responses from women and men elicited from a community based sample, where fewer relationships fit the intimate or patriarchal terrorism profile in which domination and one-sided power assertion are undoubtedly more characteristic of these relationship dynamics (Johnson, 1995).

Incorporating women’s perspectives

Our view is that a limitation of the current IPV research is that most investigations have concentrated most heavily on what men want and do (e.g., to consolidate power, control women’s interactions with other men), and to a large extent not considered women’s own goals, feelings, and frustrations within the context of these intimate relationships. The emphasis on men’s perspectives and actions flows naturally from the central concern with male perpetration, an appropriate focus given the significantly greater costs associated with men’s acts of violence against women. Focusing on any dyadic aspects may have been largely avoided or bracketed off to ensure that men take responsibility for their actions, and as a way to avoid any sense of victim-blaming. Yet this emphasis should not negate the reality that this form of interpersonal conflict often includes an interpersonal element. The voices and perspectives of women victims have certainly been incorporated into previous research, particularly those studies that are based in a feminist perspective, but the emphasis has often been on how abuse affects women’s lives and well-being, considerations that underlie difficult decisions to prosecute an offender, or factors that figure into stay/leave decision-making. Thus, women’s understandings about how and why they believe conflicts escalate have garnered less attention in the existing literature (Giordano, Grace et al., 2020).

Adding to the complexity, research on IPV indicates that, during adolescence and young adulthood, the duration of relationships is generally shown to be positively related to IPV (Kaufman-Parks et al., 2019). This is another potentially important basic finding, as it suggests that overall attitudes such as men’s adherence to traditional gender role ideologies does not completely account for the differential patterning of serious conflicts and IPV over the course of a relationship. Our analyses indicate that some of the same factors that may influence decisions to stay in or leave a violent relationship may figure into the genesis of conflict itself (Copp et al., 2015). For example, some positive elements are generally associated with a relationship’s longevity, and as relationships progress, investments and shared experiences may create a reluctance to give up on a particular relationship. At the same time, a certain amount of longevity may increase willingness and the felt need to express areas of dissatisfaction with one’s partner, recognizing that having the kind of romantic relationship one desires is virtually impossible without both partners’ cooperation.

Consistent with a large literature indicating that intimate relationships constitute an important, often central aspect of women’s lives, the idea of investment that builds up over time, and men’s greater involvement in problem behaviors, it is reasonable to expect that some female partners may attempt to influence or change aspects of their partner’s behavior or lifestyles. In turn, men may value aspects of the relationship and want it to continue, but not to alter the lifestyle they have previously enjoyed. The presence of conflict about specific domains represents a level of engagement (the partners have not given up completely), but also sets up background conditions for conflict to occur. Yet research suggests that most disagreements do not result in the use of violence, even when such conflicts occur within a relationship.

Our recent research on specific contested domains associated with violence suggests that issues such as frequently ‘hanging out with friends’ (Giordano, Copp et al., 2015) and delinquency involvement were indeed associated with odds of reporting IPV (Giordano, Copp et al., 2020a). Growth curve models indicate that within-individual variations in these behaviors across the full study period are significantly linked to IPV. These findings indicate that a kinds-of-people or selection argument is incomplete as an explanation for these variable patterns. Yet a key finding from the TARS analyses is that that concerns about infidelity and actual evidence of cheating are particularly important flashpoints within both adolescent and young adult relationships. Relying on a scale tapping both ‘actual’ infidelity and associated concerns, we found that higher scores on this scale were strongly related to IPV (Giordano, Copp et al., 2015; Manning, Longmore, & Giordano, 2018).

A more recent analysis refined our understanding of these dynamics, as we focused on specific questions about whether disagreements about issues such as infidelity were related to concerns about male partner actions and/or concerns about the female partner. In these analyses, we found that while both types of concerns were related to IPV, concerns about male actions was more strongly linked to reports about the presence of any IPV within the relationship. Supplemental analyses considered gender of the reporter as well as perpetration and victimization separately, and results did not differ. Further, in-depth couple-level interviews with respondents who had experienced IPV and a corresponding partner revealed a surprising level of agreement about the source(s) of conflict. Further coding of key themes within the qualitative data indicated that concerns about male actions was more often mentioned by both the young adult women and men in the sample (Giordano et al., 2020). Thus, the qualitative and quantitative results converge in suggesting that women’s feelings of disappointment and concern about their partners’ actions are a significant dynamic associated with the genesis of conflict during young adulthood. This follows logically from the results, as men would be unlikely to be concerned or angry about their own recent actions. The finding that male infidelity in particular often figured into adolescent and young adult conflicts provides a potentially useful contribution beyond prior work, as previous theorizing and associated studies have often focused primarily on men’s jealousy as an impetus for conflict escalation.

The results, do however, fit well with more basic studies that have examined rates of infidelity or concordance (involvement with more than one partner during the same time period), where most investigations have shown that men’s rates exceed those of similarly aged women (Ford, Sohn, & Lepkowski, 2002). Although we have not systematically investigated configurations or clusters of the various concerns we described, the qualitative results reveal that oftentimes these appear to be interrelated—at least from the perspective of these young adult partners. Thus, for example, spending large amounts of time socializing with friends is often related to drinking and substance use. In turn, in addition to effects on life circumstances such as stability of employment, these aspects of ‘lifestyle’ may well provide opportunities for casual sex with another partner. This increases the likelihood that women may express concerns, even when a male partner considers his own actions innocuous and something he deserves. (As one respondent put it, “I feel like she should’ve gave me more trust, let me go out, feel free to do what I want to do.”)

Table 1 provides a summary of several of the domains reviewed above that together provide a generally coherent picture and background for understanding some areas of interpersonal conflicts in young adult relationships. Thus, at wave five, when respondents were all young adults (ages 22-29) , on a set of questions asking about how they felt last time they had been with the partner, we observe no gender differences in ‘being comforted,’ however male respondents were significantly more likely to indicate that having a partner made them feel better about themselves. This provides a small window on some of the rewards young men may accrue related to their romantic involvement. In analysis of adolescents, adolescent boys nevertheless had scored higher than adolescent girls on communication awkwardness when with the partner (Giordano et al., 2006), and as shown in Table 1 this pattern continued into young adulthood (see also Giordano et al., 2012). It is also interesting to note that men score higher on an item indexing the extent to which their partner monitored their whereabouts (X monitors my time and makes me account for my whereabouts). This finding adds to previous measures of control attempts that were less specific. Further, while it could be argued that women’s efforts to change a partner may be present, but are more likely to be ineffectual (consistent with a lack of power within their relationships), results in Table 1 indicate that male respondents, relative to their female counterparts, more often agreed with an item referencing actually changing something about themselves because they knew their partner would like it.

Table 1.

Mean Comparisons of Relationship and Problem Behavior Domains by Gender

Female Respondents Male Respondents Range
Relationship Benefits
  When I am with X, I generally feel comforted. 3.996 3.889 1 - 5
  Having a relationship makes me feel better about myself. 3.013 *** 3.409 1 - 5
Control and Influence
  X monitored my time and made me account for my whereabouts. 1.386 ** 1.584 1 - 5
  I change things about myself because I know X likes it. 2.233 *** 2.712 1 - 5
Communication Issues
  Sometimes I don’t know quite what to say to X. 2.318 ** 2.527 1 - 5
  Sometimes I feel I need to watch what I say to X. 2.342 *** 2.714 1 - 5
Problem Behaviors
  During the past week, how many times did you just hang out with your friends? 2.180 *** 2.402 1 - 4
  Partner infidelitya −0.090 *** 0.079 −0.5 - 4.8
  Self-reported crimeb 0.132 *** 0.416 0 - 7
  Substance usec 1.600 *** 2.019 1 - 9
  IPV perpetrationd 18.53% ** 11.92%
Open in a new tab

Source: Toledo Adolescent Relationships Study (TARS), Wave 5 (n = 1,021)

a

Partner infidelity is a standardized scale based on five items asking about infidelity in general and as a source of disagreement: “He/she cheated on me”; “I thought he/she might cheat on me”; “threatened to have an affair with someone else”; “has seen another girl/guy”; and “has gotten physically involved with other girls/guys” (alpha = .86) (Giordano et al., 2015)

b

Self-reported crime is a 7-item variety score version of Elliott & Ageton’s (1980) self-report instrument (alpha = .76)

c

Substance use is a self-report measure of how often the respondent used drugs to get high in the past two years

d

IPV perpetration is based on a 12-item version of the CTS2 (alpha = .91) (Straus et al., 1996)

Comparisons included in Table 1 also focused on communication awkwardness when with the partner. Again, within the context of the adolescent assessments we had conducted, young men’s higher scores were perhaps not surprising, given boys’ lack of experience within intimate dyadic contexts, and girls’ backlog of experiences in these forms of communication (Giordano et al., 2006). However, it is of interest that at wave five young adult men continue to score higher, for example, on the item “sometimes I don’t know what to say when I am with my partner,” and “sometimes I feel the need to watch what I say to X.” Indeed, we initially had included the latter item with the idea that young women would more often agree that this was a communication dynamic within their relationships.

A final set of basic comparisons included in Table 1 focused on self-reports of a range of problem behaviors, as discussed above. As shown, even during a phase of the life course when a certain amount of ‘settling down’ is expected, men report more nights out per week with friends (see Giordano, Copp et al., 2015 for a more detailed discussion). Further, women scored higher on an index tapping partner ‘cheating’ and infidelity concerns (see also Giordano, Copp et al., 2015). Consistent with prior self-report research (often focused on the adolescent period), young adult male participants scored higher on delinquency/criminal involvement and a scale indexing substance use.

The portrait that emerges from the pattern of the above responses and recent analyses contains some non-traditional and indeed surprising findings. Yet these results should be viewed as an adjunct to rather than a replacement for the emphases of prior work in the area of IPV. Thus, for example, as noted, analyses revealed that male partner concerns about women’s infidelity was, in addition to women’s concerns related to male partners’ actions, a significant predictor of IPV, and conflicts and violence respondents linked to men’s jealousy are also contained within the lengthy relationship history accounts we elicited. And while standard multivariate analyses are designed to assess the relative contribution of each set of concerns to variations in the dependent variable (IPV), the narratives and quantitative data alike underscore that within a focal relationship, the presence of one type of concern is often related to the presence of another. For example, results based on TARS have shown that infidelity of one partner is a significant correlate of infidelity of the other partner (Giordano, Copp et al., 2015). Further, a recent analysis showed that if one partner engages in actions that fit under the rubric of jealousy induction (trying to make the other partner jealous), this is also significantly related to the odds that the other partner will engage in these forms of behavior (Kaufman-Parks et al., 2019). Importantly, Kaufman-Parks et al. documented that the use of these jealousy induction strategies was significantly linked to self-reports of IPV. And, of interest given our specific focus on gender, Kaufman-Parks et al. found that men were significantly more likely to report engaging in these kinds of behaviors. This pattern thus fits well with the other TARS results in providing additional context for understanding women’s negative reactions to these and other partner behaviors and lifestyle choices. This finding thus provides a general basis for expecting that women may react negatively to and express dissatisfaction about some of these actions as they unfold over the course of adolescent and young adult relationships.

The Continuing Play of External Influences on Couple-Level Dynamics

Many TARS analyses have focused heavily on dyadic processes within dating relationships, as these had not been as thoroughly investigated as other close ties (such as those with peers and family), or neighborhood influences. However, communications across these levels remain significant sites of influence--directly and in their effects on the dyadic processes we have described. Thus, while we have argued that the intimate relationship is a site of continuous learning and adjustment, the new lessons and realities of intimate contact may compete with messages learned earlier or that continue as ongoing influences on perspectives and behavior. Several other TARS analyses have focused on these broader levels and social influence processes. For example, relying on interviews with the TARS respondents as young adults, Minter et al. found that friends’ use of violence and a more specific measure tapping friends’ IPV were related to the odds of reporting violence within a focal relationship. And, consistent with much prior work, exposure to parents’ IPV was significantly related to increased likelihood of both perpetration and victimization (Minter et al., 2015).

A distinct feature of the TARS study, however, is that due to our more general interest in dating relationships of teens and later young adults, we also investigated exposure to other attitudes and behaviors represented across the various networks of affiliation. To illustrate, parents’ expressions of gender mistrust as documented in their own reports at the initial wave of interviews, were related to respondents’ later self-reports of IPV (Giordano et al., 2016). Similarly, results of a recent analysis showed that friends’ more liberal attitudes about dating and sexuality (e.g., e., belief that it’s ok to date more than one person at a time, casual sex, cheating on partner) were related to the odds of IPV, even after taking into account more focused predictors such as parents’ IPV and a general measure of friends’ delinquency involvement (Giordano, Copp et al., 2020b). Moving to the level of the school climate, analyses focused on school-level effects found that both school-level IPV and school-level infidelity (aggregated from responses of all respondents who attended the same school) were significantly related to self-reports of IPV (Giordano, Kauffman-Parks et al., 2015). These findings on parental, friendship, and school-level factors associated with IPV offer a bridge to our focus on the presence and impact of concerns at the dyadic level, including the role of infidelity.

Base Rates vs. Gendered Effects

Analyses across a range of studies relying on the TARS data often show that interactions of gender and a focal independent variable are not significant (e.g., we found that IPV of friends had similar effect on male and female respondent odds of reporting IPV (Minter et al., 2015)). Yet a comprehensive understanding of IPV requires attention to the base rates or frequency of occurrence of various phenomena, as well as whether effects of a focal variable on IPV differ according to gender. Knowledge of the base rates is helpful in establishing the climate conditions within which dyadic processes unfold. Further, some of the general base rates discussed above and in prior work do not accord fully with traditionally gendered portraits (e.g., men reporting higher levels of partner control attempts), while others reflect traditionally gendered patterns (e.g., men’s rates of infidelity). Analyses focused on other base rates reveal findings that accord with this more complex portrait. For example, Giordano, Copp et al. (2015), found that women and men scored similarly on a scale indexing their use of negative communication tactics such as ridiculing their partner or criticizing the partner’s values and beliefs. Yet other studies have documented traditionally gendered results--men report a higher number of lifetime and casual sexual partners (Lyons et al., 2015), and consistent with this, scored higher on the scale measuring liberal attitudes toward dating and sexuality (Giordano, Copp et al., 2020b). Focusing on these base rates as climate or background can sometimes illuminate important contrasts. For example, in a prospective investigation of the sample as adolescents (see Giordano et al., 2009) we documented that having a ‘player’ identity was associated with a greater number of sexual partners, even after prior behavior and other predictors had been taken into account (effect). Yet the quantitative results highlighted that most male respondents did not consider themselves ‘players’ (base rate). Further, analyses of the in-depth interview data suggested that many young men see a significant contrast between what they believe most young men’s relationship and sexual biographies are like, and the realities of their own experiences. For example, the broader view that masculinity equates to being in control (generally, and within the relationship) may present a contrast to the control dynamics reflected in Table 1 and documented in other investigations. This could increase the perception that such control dynamics are ‘aversive,’ rather than a commonly occurring dynamic within adolescent and young adult relationships.

Gender and IPV Perpetration

He would try to leave… he don’t want to face the fact all the stuff that he did. You not about to leave and leave me wondering like why you did this. You going to answer about all of this. I’ve been with you long enough. I deserve to know what’s going on. [Anthony left]. I pulled up in my car…Got out the car and we were still arguing. We was walking up into each other’s face or whatever. Think I hit him in his face or something. I kind of feel bad but I hit him in his face… And that’s what I think made him mad because I hit him in his face and he swung on me back (respondent was knocked to the ground). I think after he, after I hit him he tried to hit me, I tried to go for him again and that’s when his sister jumped in.

Marissa’s relationship narrative focused on infidelity as a key underpinning of the conflicts in her relationships with Andrew and subsequently with her current partner Doug. Marissa also indicated that she fought even more with her current boyfriend Doug: “we even fought way more than what me and my kid’s father had.” This relationship also included reciprocal accusations:

He accused me of cheating, I accused him of cheating…..It’s like I accuse him of cheating and he want to come back and me be with someone so that way he can have something against me…but like he can never find nothing on me or against me. He knows I’m not cheating. He knows I didn’t cheat on my kid’s father…

These excerpts convey Marissa’s feelings of disappointment and anger, likely heightened by specific features of relationships during the young adult period (e.g., involvement in relationships of longer duration, childbearing experiences). We note that Marissa has a child with Andrew, and had been with Doug for 5 years. As suggested recently, these life course considerations, likely “raise the stakes” and increase feelings of disappointment when violations of trust occur or are suspected (Giordano, Copp et al., 2020b). Focusing on women’s anger, however, inevitably raises the issue of women’s acts of ‘perpetration’ within these intimate contexts.

Our own view is that women’s relatively high levels of perpetration as reflected in self-report indices during adolescence and young adulthood (Johnson et al., 2015) do not provide evidence for the idea that there is “gender symmetry” in the perpetration of this form of violence. As many scholars have noted, such scales are devoid of context and fail to account for the key issues of severity and negative consequences (Dobash et al., 1992; Lehrner & Allen, 2014). Thus, as these analyses point out, visits to emergency rooms, reports of physical and emotional sequelae, and arrest statistics make clear that men’s violence constitutes—by far-- the larger problem. Yet continuing to document that women’s IPV perpetration is not as serious as that of men has the potential to impede our understanding of where women’s own violence ‘fits’ within the context of these relationship dynamics. The in-depth qualitative narratives in particular suggest a role for women’s negative reactions in some sequences (e.g., Marissa demands to know “why you did this,” tells Andrew that he’s going to “answer for all this,” and later indicates that she hit him in the face… “And that’s what I think made him mad because I hit him in his face and he swung on me back”). This example is useful because it not only illustrates instances in which women’s actions are part of the sequencing, but also comports with the idea differential consequences. In this case, Andrew knocked Marissa to the ground, ending the idea of symmetry in the nature of these experiences. Yet an understanding of the situation is incomplete without taking into account Marissa’s responses and actions.

Prior research has shown that while scales measuring men’s use of violence against their female partners typically receive low rates of endorsement (see Waltermaurer, 2012), using the TARS data, Copp et al. (2019) documented that attitudes toward women’s use of violence were not as strongly negative (Copp et al., 2019). Researchers investigating women’s perpetration or making direct gender comparisons have pointed to findings that tend to minimize the felt impact of women’s actions. For example, researchers have highlighted that a common reaction of men was to indicate a partner’s actions did not hurt them, or even to laugh (Miller & White, 2003). While this certainly occurs, such expressed reactions may not fully capture the larger meaning and impact of women’s negative reactions and use of various conflict tactics within particular situations. As outlined in more detail in a recent analysis of the TARS’ couple-level data, men may not view the physical act as a serious threat, but nevertheless understand that these words and actions reflect a high level of dissatisfaction with and critique of their recent choices (Giordano, Grace et al., 2020). When men rely on violence within this context, they must overcome their understanding that “it is wrong to hit a woman,” but in a sense, by virtue of their earlier socialization and experiences are returning to more familiar terrain. In contrast, typically women do not have as strong a background the use of aggression, but prohibitive norms are not as clear-cut. Regardless of which partner hits the other first, both may see their use of aggression as defensive—whether it is attempting to defend against negative attributions the other partner has levied against them, actions they believe threaten the relationship, or defending their physical selves.

Conclusion

The TARS study has focused on adolescent and young adult relationships, and on the forms of IPV that are most often found within the context of a community sample. Thus, results described may not fit the life experiences of older couples, or dynamics that characterize the “intimate terrorism” form of IPV that is more likely to be found in samples drawn from victim-serving agencies and criminal justice settings (Johnson, 1995). Nevertheless, our research and that of other scholars shows that rates of IPV are high during adolescence, and indicate a peak in both self-reports and arrests during the young adult period. In short, the dynamics we focused on—perhaps best fitting Johnson’s initial label “common couple” violence--should not be dismissed precisely because they are so common. Future longitudinal studies may also document that at times severe one-sided abuse is preceded by conflict that fits with the depictions described here and in related work. And, almost by definition, young people who are targets of prevention efforts will include many individuals whose relationship circumstances resonate with some of the issues and dynamics outlined above. Findings across a number of TARS analyses support the following observations that may be useful in future theory building and research, and in the design of more effective prevention and intervention efforts.

Power is a central concept within feminist theorizing, and often in related IPV prevention materials. For example, the frequently used power and control wheel locates these concepts at the center of the wheel, and various spokes include features of abusive relationships such as wanting to be the master of the castle, controlling all the decisions, and attempting to isolate female partners from friends and family (Pence & Paymar, 1993). Yet results of the TARS studies indicate that most respondents did not indicate that male partners held more decision-making power within their relationships, and both women and men in the sample reported that women engaged in more attempts to control or change their partners. Within the context of relationships that include IPV experience, men were more likely to engage in control attempts, but scores on women’s controlling actions were also higher (Giordano, Copp et al., 2016). We do not conclude from these findings that men’s and women’s control attempts are experienced similarly (i.e., men’s intrusive control efforts often lead to fear and intimidation that in general does not have a parallel with women’s control attempts). Yet feminist post-structural theories are useful in highlighting that one’s stance within a relationship is socially constructed and ever shifting, and thus subject to contestation as the relationship unfolds. This fits well with TARS’ focus on control rather than the more global concept of power, and our attempt to localize these dynamics by examining specific domains around which control attempts and conflict tend to revolve during this period.

A central finding of recent TARS analyses is thus not only that areas such as infidelity are key domains of contestation (Giordano, Copp et al., 2015), but that concerns about men’s actions in particular were strongly linked to IPV (Giordano, Grace et al., 2020). This complicates the traditional focus on men’s jealousy or dissatisfaction with their partners as a primary locus of conflict and conflict escalation, and even approaches that have adapted a ‘gender neutral’ posture. Concerns about women’s actions were also associated with increased odds of reporting IPV, however, consistent with prior work. Adding to the dyadic focus, results of a range of TARS analyses show that that control attempts, jealousy, jealousy induction, infidelity, and IPV on the part of one partner are associated with increased likelihood of observing those behaviors on the part of the other partner.

This dyadic focus inevitably includes greater attention to the perspectives and behavior of women. This dovetails with feminist theorizing in general and particularly the feminist post-structural perspective. However, topics such as women’s feelings of disappointment, anger, and use of various “conflict tactics” have often been bracketed off in prior work on IPV. This was an important first step in research and applied work in this area, consistent with the goal of avoiding ‘victim-blaming’ or equating the seriousness of men’s and women’s actions within the intimate context. Going forward, however, it may be useful to include attention to some of the dynamics we describe, particularly in connection with programs targeting classrooms or other community-based groups. This more complex portrait of commonly occurring relationship dynamics could potentially allow more young people to ‘see themselves’ and their relationships in such depictions. Some discussions of warning signs of abuse may better capture later-stage relationships and dynamics such as severe levels of isolation and control that do not evoke the mutual control attempts that often occur in many adolescent and young adult relationships that include IPV. For example, at wave five, young women who reported IPV did not report lower levels of time spent with friends relative to their female counterparts. However, young men report more nights out per week, raising the prospect that this could become a domain of contestation in some relationships (Giordano, Copp et al., 2020b). And, as noted above, the base rates of young men’s ‘problematic’ actions relative to women’s – from infidelity to substance use--provide a backdrop for interpreting the higher levels of women’s control attempts we observed based on surveys administered from adolescence to young adulthood.

Finally, while we have focused on the experience of IPV in this discussion, in other analyses relying on the TARS data, we have described dynamics associated with desistance from these negative forms of behavior (Giordano, Johnson et al., 2015). Analyses of aggregate data highlight the beginning of declines in IPV during young adulthood (Johnson et al., 2015), and in-depth qualitative interviews we conducted revealed that desistance had at times occurred when individuals changed partners, and in some instances within the context of an ongoing focal relationship (Giordano, Johnson et al., 2015). Dynamics underlying desistance appear to connect in fundamental ways to factors related to onset and continuation of these destructive pattern. That is, respondents often indicated that relationship-based considerations were an important impetus for change relative to external threats such as the fear of arrest, or even life course changes such as becoming a parent. This finding, at a minimum with respect to this form of behavior, thus challenges the idea that factors associated with desistance are likely to be distinct from those associated with onset.

Our research findings fit well with programmatic approaches that attempt to locate IPV within a broader “healthy relationships” framework. However, in addition to teaching more effective communication skills and positive coping strategies, our work underscores the importance of attending as well to the content of areas of concern and disagreement. Thus, for example, if a young man continues to engage in a range of problem behaviors that his partner views as problematic—the example of infidelity being a particularly important flashpoint-- these new communication and coping skills may nevertheless prove limited in their utility. The focus on sources of disagreement within adolescent and young adult relationships and aspects of the feminist post-structural perspective may also be useful as a basic conceptual template for examining relationship experiences across a more complete range of sexual and gender identities (see Cannon et al., 2015), or for exploring ways in which the intersection of race/ethnicity, social class, and gender influence the nature of these processes during the formative periods of adolescence and young adulthood.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by Award Nos. 2009-IJ-CX-0503 and 2010-MU-MU-0031, awarded by the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U. S. Department of Justice, the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number (HD066087), and in part by the Center for Family and Demographic Research, Bowling Green State University, which has core funding from The Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (P2CHD050959). The opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication/program/exhibition are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official views of the Department of Justice or National Institutes of Health.

Biographies

Author Bios:

Peggy Giordano, Ph.D., is a distinguished research professor in the Department of Sociology at Bowling Green State University. Her research focuses on qualities and dynamics of close relationships during adolescence and young adulthood, and the influence of these close ties on a range of developmental outcomes, including juvenile delinquency and intimate partner violence.

Jennifer Copp, Ph.D., is an associate professor in the College of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida State University. Her research focuses on crime and other problem behaviors during adolescence and young adulthood, with a particular emphasis on intimate partner violence (IPV).

Wendy Manning, Ph.D., is the Dr. Howard E. Aldrich and Penny Daum Aldrich Distinguished Professor in the Department of Sociology at Bowling Green State University. She is the Co-Director of the National Center for Family and Marriage Research and Director of the Center for Family Demographic Research. She is a family demographer with a research emphasis on family structure, union formation and stability and relationships among adolescents as well as adults.

Monica Longmore, Ph.D., is a professor in the Department of Sociology at Bowling Green State University. She is a social psychologist with interests in identity, dating and sexual relationships during adolescence and adulthood, and the ways in which these self and social processes influence emotional well-being.

References

  1. Anderson KL (1997). Gender, status, and domestic violence: An integration of feminist and family violence approaches. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59(3), 655–669. [Google Scholar]
  2. Cannon C, Lauve-Moon K, & Buttell F (2015). Re-theorizing intimate partner violence through post-structural feminism, queer theory, and the sociology of gender. Social Science, 4(3), 668–687. [Google Scholar]
  3. Carver KP, Joyner K, & Udry JR (2003). National estimates of adolescent romantic relationships. In Florsheim P (Ed.), Adolescent romantic relations & sexual behavior (pp. 23–56). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. [Google Scholar]
  4. Chesney-Lind M, & Morash M (2013). Transformative feminist criminology: A critical re-thinking of a discipline. Critical Criminology, 21, 287–304. [Google Scholar]
  5. Cochran JK, Maskaly J, Jones S, Sellers CS (2017). Using structural equations to model Akers’ social learning theory with data on intimate partner violence. Crime & Delinquency, 63, 39–60. [Google Scholar]
  6. Cohen AK (1970). Multiple factor approaches. In Wolfgang M, Savitz L, & Johnston N (Eds.), The sociology of crime and delinquency, Second edition (pp. 123–126). New York, NY: Wiley. [Google Scholar]
  7. Copp JE, Giordano PC, Longmore MA, & Manning WD (2015). Stay-or-leave decision making in nonviolent and violent relationships. Violence & Victims, 30(4), 581–599. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Copp JE, Giordano PC, Longmore MA, & Manning WD (2019). The development of attitudes toward intimate partner violence: An examination of key correlates among a sample of young adults. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 34(7), 1357–1387. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Deutch FM (2007). Undoing gender. Gender & Society, 21, 106–127. [Google Scholar]
  10. DiClemente CC, & Prochaska JO (1998). Toward a comprehensive, transtheoretical model of change: Stages of change and addictive behaviors. In Miller WR & Heather N (Eds.), Applied clinical psychology. Treating addictive behaviors (pp. 3–24). New York, NY: Plenum Press. [Google Scholar]
  11. Dobash RE, & Dobash R (1979). Violence against wives: A case against the patriarchy. New York, NY: Free Press. [Google Scholar]
  12. Dobash RP, Dobash RE, Wilson M, & Daly M (1992). The myth of sexual symmetry in marital violence. Social Problems, 39(1), 71–91. [Google Scholar]
  13. Felson RB (2002). Violence and gender reexamined. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. [Google Scholar]
  14. Fine GA (1987). With the boys: Little league baseball and preadolescent culture. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar]
  15. Ford K, Sohn W, & Lepkowski J (2002). American adolescents: Sexual mixing patterns, bridge partners, and concurrency. Journal of the American Sexually Transmitted Diseases Association, 29, 13–19. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Gilman AB, Hill KG, & Hawkins JD (2014). Long-term consequences of adolescent gang membership for adult functioning. American Journal of Public Health, 104, 938–945. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Giordano PC (2020). Continuing education: Toward a life -course perspective on social learning. Criminology, 58(2), 199–225. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Giordano PC, Cernkovich SA, & Rudolph JL (2002). Gender, crime, and desistance: Toward a theory of cognitive transformation. American Journal of Sociology, 107, 990–1064. [Google Scholar]
  19. Giordano PC, Copp JE, Longmore MA, & Manning WD (2015). Contested domains, verbal ‘amplifiers,’ and intimate partner violence in young adulthood. Social Forces, 94(2), 923–951. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Giordano PC, Copp JE, Longmore MA, & Manning WD (2016). Anger, control, and intimate partner violence in young adulthood. Journal of Family Violence, 31(1), 1–13 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Giordano PC, Copp JE, Manning WD, & Longmore MA (2020a). Romantic ties and the desistance process. Manuscript in preparation. [Google Scholar]
  22. Giordano PC, Copp JE, Manning WD, & Longmore MA (2020b). When worlds collide: Linking involvement with friends and intimate partner violence in young adulthood. Social Forces, 98(3), 1196–1222. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Giordano PC, Grace MM, Manning WD, & Longmore MA (2020). Gender, couple-level dynamics, and intimate partner violence in young adulthood. Working Paper Series, Center for Family and Demographic Research, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH. [Google Scholar]
  24. Giordano PC, Johnson WL, Longmore MA, Manning WD, & Minter MD (2015). Intimate partner violence in young adulthood: Narratives of persistence and desistance. Criminology, 53(3), 330–365. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Giordano PC, Johnson WL, Manning WD, & Longmore MA (2016). Parenting in adolescence and young adult intimate partner violence. Journal of Family Issues, 37(4), 443–465. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Giordano PC, Kauffman-Parks AM, Manning WD, & Longmore MA (2015). Teen dating violence: The influence of friendships and school context. Sociological Focus, 48(2), 150–171. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. 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]
  28. Giordano PC, Longmore MA, & Manning WD (2001). On the nature and developmental significance of adolescent romantic relationships. In Kinney DA (Ed.). Sociological Studies of Children and Youth (pp. 111–139). New York, NY: Elsevier. [Google Scholar]
  29. Giordano PC, Longmore MA, & Manning WD (2006). Adolescent romantic relationships: An emerging portrait of their nature and developmental significance. In Booth A & Crouter A (Eds.), Romance and Sex in Adolescence and Emerging Adulthood (pp 127–150). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. [Google Scholar]
  30. Giordano PC, Longmore MA, Manning WD, & Northcutt MJ (2009). Adolescent identities and sexual behavior: An examination of Anderson’s ‘player’ hypothesis. Social Forces, 87(4), 1813–1844. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. 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: Springer. [Google Scholar]
  32. Hirschi T (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. [Google Scholar]
  33. Jennings WG, Okeem C, Piquero AR, Sellers CS, Theobald D, & Farrington DP (2017). Dating and intimate partner violence among young persons ages 15-30: Evidence from a systematic review. Aggression & Violent Behavior, 33, 107–125. [Google Scholar]
  34. Johnson MP (1995). Patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence: Two forms of violence against women. Journal of Marriage and Family, 57(2), 283–294. [Google Scholar]
  35. Johnson WL, Giordano PC, Manning WD, & Longmore MA (2015). The age-IPV curve: Changes in the perpetration of intimate partner violence during adolescence and young adulthood. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 44, 708–726. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Kauffman-Parks AM, Longmore MA, Giordano PC, & Manning WM (2019). Inducing jealousy and intimate partner violence among young adults. Journal of Social & Personal Relationships, 36(9), 2802–2823. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Kim HK, Laurent HK, Capaldi DM, & Feingold A (2008). Men’s aggression toward women: A 10-year panel study. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70(5), 1169–1187. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Komter A (1989). Hidden power in marriage. Gender & Society, 3(2), 187–216. [Google Scholar]
  39. Laub JH, & Sampson RJ (2003). Shared beginnings, divergent lives: Delinquent boys to age 70.
  40. Lehrner A, & Allen NE (2014). Construct validity of the conflict tactics scale: A mixed-method investigation of women’s intimate partner violence. Psychology of Violence, 4(4), 477–490. [Google Scholar]
  41. Lyons H, Manning WD, Longmore MA, & Giordano PC (2015). Gender and casual sexual activity from adolescence to emerging adulthood: Social and life course correlates. The Journal of Sex Research, 52(5), 543–557. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Maccoby E (1990). Gender and relationships: A developmental account. American Psychologist, 45, 513–520. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Manning WD, Longmore MA, & Giordano PC (2018). Cohabitation an intimate partner violence during emerging adulthood: High constraints and low commitment. Journal of Family Issues, 39(4), 1030–1055. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. McCarthy B, & Casey T (2008). Love, sex, and crime: Adolescent romantic relationships and offending. American Sociological Review, 73(6), 944–969. [Google Scholar]
  45. Mead GH (1934). Mind, self, and society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar]
  46. Mikorski R, & Szymanski DM (2017). Masculine norms, peer group, pornography, Facebook, and men’s sexual objectification of women. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 18(4), 257–267. [Google Scholar]
  47. Miller J, & White NA (2003). Gender and adolescent relationship violence: A contextual examination. Criminology, 41(4), 1207–1248. [Google Scholar]
  48. Minter MD, Longmore MA, Giordano PC, & Manning WD (2015). Family of origin and peer influences on intimate partner violence during emerging adulthood. In Maxwell SR, & Blair SL (Eds.), Violence and crime in the family: Patterns, causes, and consequences (pp. 1–22). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  49. Moffitt TE, Caspi A, Rutter M, & Silva PA (2001). Sex differences in antisocial behaviour: Conduct disorder, delinquency, and violence in the Dunedin Longitudinal Study. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  50. Pence E, & Paymar M (1993). Education groups for men who batter: The Duluth Model. New York: Springer. [Google Scholar]
  51. Prus RC (1996). Symbolic interaction and ethnographic research: Intersubjectivity and the study of human lived experience. New York, NY: SUNY Press. [Google Scholar]
  52. Rennison C (2001). Intimate partner violence and age of victim, 1993-1999. Bureau of Justice Statistics Report. [Google Scholar]
  53. Smith-Darden JP, Reidy DE, & Kernsmith PD (2016). Adolescent stalking and risk of violence. Journal of Adolescence, 52, 191–200. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Smooth WG (2013). Intersectionality from theoretical framework to policy intervention. In Wilson AR (Ed.), Situation intersectionality (pp. 11–42). New York, NY: Palgrave. [Google Scholar]
  55. St. Pierre EA (2000). Poststructural feminism in education: An overview. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 13(5), 477–515. [Google Scholar]
  56. Sweet P (2019). The sociology of gaslighting. American Sociological Review, 84(5), 851–875. [Google Scholar]
  57. Thrasher FM (2013). The gang: A study of 1,313 gangs in Chicago. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar]
  58. Vagi KJ, Rothman E, Latzman NE, Tharp AT, Hall DM, & Breiding MJ (2013). Beyond correlates: A review of risk and protective factors for adolescent dating violence perpetration. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 42(4), 633–649. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Waite LJ (1995). Does marriage matter? Demography, 32(4), 483–507. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Waltermaurer E (2012). Public justification of intimate partner violence: A review of the literature. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 13(3), 167–175. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Wolfe DA, & Temple JR (2018). Adolescent dating violence: Theory, research, and prevention. Elsevier. [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES