Search

Acceptance of dating violence (ADV) is a cognitive risk factor for violence perpetration and a common target of prevention programs. However, frequently used items assessing ADV are characterized by heteronormative item wording, and limited research has evaluated the degree to which ADV items function equivalently for both heterosexual and sexual minority youth (SMY). The current study sought to determine if there are differences in the way heterosexual and SMY respond to ADV survey items. Secondary data from a total of 2,014 adolescents (M age = 16.78) were used to examine differences in ADV. Results of differential item functioning analysis indicated nonuniform differential item functioning for two of eight ADV items, with heterosexual youth being more likely to express strong levels of agreements with (a) female-perpetrated physical violence in response to male-perpetrated violence and (b) female-perpetrated violence against males broadly, relative to SMY. Although these differences were of negligible magnitude and only resulted in minimal differences in overall expected average scores, heterosexual youth were more likely to strongly accept female-perpetrated dating violence compared to SMY. Findings highlight differences in ADV item response patterns across heterosexual and sexual minority identifying youth and provide preliminary evidence for group differences in acceptance of female-perpetrated dating violence. Implications for prevention programming based on current findings include greater focus on measure adaptation and development as well as more consensus on the necessity of preventing female-perpetrated violence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Teen dating violence (TDV) is a public health concern impacting more than half of U.S. adolescents aged 12 to 18. Sexual minority youth (i.e., adolescents who are not exclusively heterosexual) experience disproportionately high rates of TDV. Yet, measures of TDV such as the Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory (CADRI) have been developed without considering sexual identity with items and instructions frequently anchored in heterosexual romantic relationships. Examination of measurement equivalence across heterosexual and sexual minority youth has only begun recently with existing research examining the CADRI's victimization scale measurement invariance providing empirical support for invariance across heterosexual and sexual minority youth. However, no prior research has examined the measurement invariance of the CADRI perpetration scales across heterosexual and sexual minority youth. The current study fills this gap by examining the CADRI perpetration scale measurement invariance across heterosexual and sexual minority youth. Using multigroup confirmatory factor analysis responses from 1,143 adolescents (M age = 15.88, SD = 2.49) to the CADRI perpetration items were examined across heterosexual (n = 922) and sexual minority youth (n = 218). Results confirmed the five-factor structure of the CADRI perpetration scales, providing empirical support for the appropriateness of the use of the CADRI perpetration scale's scores across heterosexual and sexual minority youth broadly. However, findings of partial scalar measurement invariance on the emotional/verbal abuse perpetration scale raise questions about the appropriateness of mean-score comparisons on this particular subscale. Areas of potential revisions of the emotional/verbal abuse perpetration scale are discussed to facilitate meaningful comparisons among heterosexual and sexual minority youth and to substantiate program evaluation results by groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article, the author highlights her choice of the 10 most important recent findings from the intimate partner violence research literature, which include (a) the creation of the Conflict Tactics Scale; (b) the finding that violent acts are most often perpetrated by intimates; (c) a series of findings that indicate that women also engage in intimate partner violence; (d) the finding that intimate partner violence typically evolves out of relationship dissatisfaction; (e) the finding that there are different subtypes of domestically violent men; (f) physiological measures that have added to our knowledge of intimate partner violence; (g) the evolving intergenerational transmission of violence theory; (h) the finding that verbal abuse, neglect, and psychological abuse need to be studied alongside physical violence; (i) research on leaving abusive relationships that may inform policy about sheltering battered women; and (j) the finding that alcohol plays an important role in the production of intimate partner violence. In the conclusion, the author describes a dyadic cycle of violence that may characterize some abusive couples. She also argues for a multimodal theory that links findings obtained from individual, relationship, intergenerational, gender-specific, and cultural perspectives.

This analogue study (written vignettes and videotapes) examines the influence of victim-perpetrator relationship (spouse or acquaintance), sex of perceiver, and type of abuse (psychological vs. physical) on attributions about victims and perpetrators of domestic abuse. College student participants (73 men, 108 women) were randomly assigned to condition. As expected, type of relationship influenced observer perceptions. Specifically, participants rated the victim of marital violence as more psychologically damaged and disturbed by the abuse than the victim of acquaintance violence. Furthermore, interaction effects showed that men, more than women, rated the actions of the married perpetrator as more of a victims rights violation than the actions of the acquaintance perpetrator. Second, type of abuse was shown to influence perceptions of the perpetrator but not the victim. Sex-of-perceiver effects were also obtained. Women held the perpetrator more responsible and assigned less blame to the victim than did men. Legal and clinical implications are then discussed.

Low rates of reporting sexual assault to law enforcement have been attributed to a culture of rape myth acceptance. Yet, rape myth acceptance rates and specific barriers to reporting have not been examined by sexual assault and reporting histories. This study compared the rape myth acceptance levels of reporting survivors, non-reporting survivors, and individuals without sexual assault histories. The sample consisted of 579 undergraduate students (68.0% White, 72.5% women) at a public university in the southeastern U.S. Differences in non-reporting survivors' experienced barriers to reporting and the perceived barriers of those without sexual assault histories were also examined. Results indicate differences in rape myth endorsement by sexual assault and reporting status, with the highest rape myth adherence rates endorsed by individuals without a sexual assault history and the lowest endorsed by reporting survivors. While non-reporting survivors and those without sexual assault histories shared two of the top three barriers to reporting (i.e., wanted to avoid thinking or talking about it, did not want family or friends to find out), non-reporting survivors were more likely to endorse personal reasons for not reporting, and those without sexual assault histories were more likely to endorse concerns about the law enforcement response to rape. Several barrier factors were identified among non-reporting survivors (i.e., fear of law enforcement involvement, personal reasons, ambiguity of the event, responsibility) and among individuals without sexual assault histories (i.e., risks outweigh benefits, victim blaming, ambiguity). Although both survivors and individuals without sexual assault histories acknowledge the personal, social, and legal risks of reporting a sexual assault to law enforcement, survivors' experienced barriers differed in nuanced ways from the presumed barriers of individuals without sexual assault histories. Findings may enhance sexual assault prevention trainings and awareness campaigns by targeting both rape myth beliefs and specific barriers to reporting of those with and without sexual assault histories. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Disclosure of interpersonal violence (i.e., sexual violence, sexual harassment, dating violence, and stalking) is often the first step toward receiving social and systemic support. Research demonstrates that sexual assault and dating violence survivors on college campuses are more likely to disclosure to informal sources (i.e., friends and family) than formal sources (e.g., police, Title IX, counseling centers). However, there is limited research examining disclosure rates after other forms of violence (i.e., stalking, sexual harassment), and little is known about the impact of the survivors' identities on disclosure. Utilizing four academic years (2016-2019) of aggregated campus climate data from a large Southeastern university, the current study examined rates of disclosure across experiences of sexual violence, sexual harassment, dating violence, and stalking while identifying whether the prevalence and type of disclosure (formal versus informal-only) differed by gender, sexual orientation, and/or race/ethnicity. Of 8,017 participants, 4.6% reported sexual violence, 18.9% reported sexual harassment, 12.3% reported dating violence, and 11.3% reported stalking in the past academic year. Results of multinomial logistic regression indicated that, across all four types of violence, men (as compared to women) had lower odds of disclosing both informally-only and formally. Bisexual as compared to heterosexual students had higher odds of formal disclosure of sexual harassment and stalking while gay/lesbian students had higher odds of formally disclosing sexual harassment. Individuals of another race/ethnicity (compared to White students) had lower odds of informal-only disclosure of dating violence. Findings underscore the need to implement programs to improve the social reactions of friends and family members receiving disclosures, and to increase culturally-tailored service provision. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The current study examined how participant (i.e., gender) and situational (i.e., couple-specific sexual intercourse history) factors influence attributions about stranger, early dating, late dating and marital rape. Two hundred undergraduates were randomly assigned to read one of four levels of victim-perpetrator relationship vignettes. In addition, within the two dating relationship conditions, the couple's sexual intercourse history was manipulated. As the degree of acquaintance between the perpetrator and victim increased, the participants incorporated more rape-supportive and sex role stereotypical attributions. Participants also made more negative attributions about the date rapes when the couple was thought to have previously engaged in consensual sexual intercourse. There were no differences in attributions across the date and marital rape conditions when the participants were informed that the dating couples had previously engaged in sexual intercourse, and several gender differences were obtained in these comparisons. The social and legal implications of these findings are discussed.

This study explored what actions taken by married women to dissolve their marital relationships might result in different attributions about husband rape perpetration. A sample of 233 undergraduates (120 men, 114 women) read one of three rape scenarios in which a married woman changed her marital status with her husband perpetrator (moved out, legally separated, or divorced). Two other scenarios (currently married and stranger) were used as comparison situations. Participants answered questions to assess their rape-supportive and sex role stereotypical attributions of victim blame. Results indicated that participants endorsed the most rape-supportive attributions in the currently married situation. Participants made intermediate levels of rape-supportive attributions in the legally separated, moved out, and divorced scenarios. The least rape-supportive attributions were made in the stranger rape situation. Across all scenarios, men were more likely to make rape-supportive and sex role stereotypical victim blame attributions than women. Legal and theoretical implications are discussed.

The perceptions surrounding marital versus stranger rape were investigated in a sample of 195 undergraduates. Subjects rated their reactions to one of two hypothetical rape scenarios that were exactly the same in form and content except for the identification of the man as the woman's husband (marital condition) or as a stranger (stranger condition). Factor analysis of the questions used to assess perceptions revealed one strong factor that was labeled rape-supportive beliefs. Consistent with previous research on date rape, individuals were significantly more likely to minimize the seriousness of rape perpetrated by a husband than rape perpetrated by a stranger. In general, the female subjects considered rape a more serious event than the male subjects. However, an unexpected gender-by-relationship interaction was found on two of the rape-supportive questions. Some evidence suggested that sex role expectations influence the perceptions of marital rape. The results are discussed within a sex role socialization theory of rape.